The Articulation of Mutated Consonants: Palatalization in ...jhsung/Sung+_ICPhS_2015.pdfa...
1
The Articulation of Mutated Consonants: Palatalization in Scottish Gaelic Jae-Hyun Sung 1 , Diana Archangeli 1,2 , Samuel Johnston 1 , Ian Clayton 3 , and Andrew Carnie 1 University of Arizona 1 ; University of Hong Kong 2 ; University of Nevada 3 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] P2.6 The Issue Consonant Mutation in Scottish Gaelic (G ` aidlig, henceforth SG) Consonants undergo various phonological changes depending on the mor- phological contexts (Macaulay (1992); Ladefoged et al. (1998); Gillies (2002); Stewart (2004)). Example Effect Gloss doras - ath dhoras /t/ → [G] ‘door’ - ‘next door’ sad - shad /s/ → [h] ‘Toss!’ - ‘tossed’ Lexical Palatalization • One of the above-discussed consonant mutation processes, marked with an adjacent <i> in SG orthography • Plain and palatalized contrast is phonemic, but has no phonological trigger. Example Effect Gloss cat - cait /t/ → [t j ] ‘cat’ - ‘cat’s’ ceann - cinn /n/ → [n j ] ‘head’ - ‘grow’ Questions at Issue: 1. Do speakers maintain an articulatory distinction between plain and palatalized consonants? [Q1] 2. Do different types of consonants lead to the same articulatory distinc- tion between plain and palatalized? [Q2] Data Collection & Measurements • 26 SG-English speakers recruited on the Isle of Skye • Data from 6 speakers presented • Head stabilizing device made by the Arizona Phonological Imaging Lab Speaker Gender Age SG Dialect S5 m 19 Uist S7 f 34 Lewis S10 f 50 Uist S12 m 26 Lewis S23 f 51 Skye S26 f 59 Skye • Ultrasound images of gestural peaks selected & traced manually – 1 frame just before release for /t/; 1 frame from the midpoint otherwise • SSANOVA used for statistical test (Gu (2002); Davidson (2005)) Results S5 S7 S10 S12 S23 S26 /t/ <t> cat vs. cait [Fig.1] A A A /t/ <d> bad vs. ph` ogamaid [Fig.2] A A A A A A /s/ cas vs. achlais [Fig.3] A A A /n/ ceann vs. cinn [Fig.4] A A A A A A /l/ Gall vs. Goill [Fig.5] A A A A Figure 1: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain (red) vs. palatalized (green) /t/ from cat and cait. Tongue tip is to the right, and dotted lines represent 95% confidence interval. Axis values correspond to pixels. Figure 2: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain (red) vs. palatalized (green) /t/ from bad and ph` ogamaid. Figure 3: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain (red) vs. palatalized (green) /s/ from cas and achlais. Figure 4: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain (red) vs. palatalized (green) /n/ from ceann and cinn. Figure 5: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain (red) vs. palatalized (green) /l/ from Gall and Goill. Discussion • Most of the differences observed cannot be described as “palataliza- tion”. • Nevertheless, speakers of SG do produce a contrast most of the times. [Q1] • More differences are found in sonorants (/n, l/) than obstruents (/t, s/). This may be evidence that sonorants are not truly “plain” in the non-palatalizing condition as suggested in Stewart (2004) who describes them as “velarized”. [Q2] • The way speakers distinguish consonants in the two environments is highly individualized, suggesting no systematic means of creating a “palatal” gesture within or across speakers. Conclusions • Overall, the results provide empirical evidence for articulatory realiza- tions of consonant mutation in SG. • The gestural characteristics here yield highly individualized patterns. Whether they are truly speaker-specific or dialectal merits further re- search with a larger population. Selected References Davidson, L. (2005). Addressing phonological questions with ultrasound. Clinical Lin- guistics & Phonetics, 19:619–633. Gillies, W. (2002). Scottish Gaelic. In Ball, M. and Fife, J., editors, The Celtic Languages, pages 145–227. Routledge. Gu, C. (2002). Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models. Springer. Ladefoged, P., Ladefoged, J., Turk, A., Hind, K., and Skilton, S. J. (1998). Phonetic struc- tures of Scottish Gaelic. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 28:1–41. Macaulay, D. (1992). The Scottish Gaelic language. In Macaulay, D., editor, The Celtic Languages, pages 137–248. Cambridge University Press. Stewart, T. W. (2004). Mutation as morphology: bases, stems, and shapes in Scottish Gaelic. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge assistance from Y. Chen, N. Kloehn, and J. Meyer (data col- lection), M. A. Kalusa (data extraction), and D. A. Archangeli and Creative Machines (head stabilization device). This work was supported in part by NSF award #1144318, PI A. Carnie and co-PIs D. Archangeli, M. Hammond, A. Ussishkin, and N. Warner, and NSF BCC-SBE award #1244687, PI D. Archangeli.
Transcript of The Articulation of Mutated Consonants: Palatalization in ...jhsung/Sung+_ICPhS_2015.pdfa...
The Articulation of Mutated Consonants: Palatalization in Scottish GaelicJae-Hyun Sung1, Diana Archangeli1,2, Samuel Johnston1, Ian Clayton3, and Andrew Carnie1
University of Arizona1; University of Hong Kong2; University of Nevada3
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
P2.6
The IssueConsonant Mutation in Scottish Gaelic (Gaidlig, henceforth SG)
Consonants undergo various phonological changes depending on the mor-phological contexts (Macaulay (1992); Ladefoged et al. (1998); Gillies (2002);Stewart (2004)).
Example Effect Glossdoras - ath dhoras /t/→ [G] ‘door’ - ‘next door’
sad - shad /s/→ [h] ‘Toss!’ - ‘tossed’
Lexical Palatalization
• One of the above-discussed consonant mutation processes, markedwith an adjacent <i> in SG orthography• Plain and palatalized contrast is phonemic, but has no phonological
trigger.
Example Effect Glosscat - cait /t/→ [tj] ‘cat’ - ‘cat’s’
ceann - cinn /n/→ [nj] ‘head’ - ‘grow’
Questions at Issue:
1. Do speakers maintain an articulatory distinction between plain andpalatalized consonants? [Q1]
2. Do different types of consonants lead to the same articulatory distinc-tion between plain and palatalized? [Q2]
Data Collection & Measurements• 26 SG-English speakers recruited
on the Isle of Skye• Data from 6 speakers presented• Head stabilizing device made by
the Arizona Phonological ImagingLab
Speaker Gender Age SG DialectS5 m 19 UistS7 f 34 LewisS10 f 50 UistS12 m 26 LewisS23 f 51 SkyeS26 f 59 Skye
• Ultrasound images of gesturalpeaks selected & traced manually
– 1 frame just before release for/t/; 1 frame from the midpointotherwise
• SSANOVA used for statistical test(Gu (2002); Davidson (2005))
ResultsS5 S7 S10 S12 S23 S26
/t/ <t> cat vs. cait [Fig.1] A A A
/t/ <d> bad vs. phogamaid [Fig.2] A A A A A A
/s/ cas vs. achlais [Fig.3] A A A
/n/ ceann vs. cinn [Fig.4] A A A A A A
/l/ Gall vs. Goill [Fig.5] A A A A
Figure 1: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain(red) vs. palatalized (green) /t/ from cat and cait.Tongue tip is to the right, and dotted lines represent95% confidence interval. Axis values correspond topixels.
Figure 2: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours -plain (red) vs. palatalized (green) /t/ from bad andphogamaid.
Figure 3: SSANOVA plots of tongue contours - plain(red) vs. palatalized (green) /s/ from cas and achlais.
Figure 4: SSANOVA plots oftongue contours - plain (red) vs.palatalized (green) /n/ from ceannand cinn.
Figure 5: SSANOVA plots oftongue contours - plain (red) vs.palatalized (green) /l/ from Galland Goill.
Discussion• Most of the differences observed cannot be described as “palataliza-
tion”.• Nevertheless, speakers of SG do produce a contrast most of the times.
[Q1]• More differences are found in sonorants (/n, l/) than obstruents (/t,
s/). This may be evidence that sonorants are not truly “plain” in thenon-palatalizing condition as suggested in Stewart (2004) who describesthem as “velarized”. [Q2]• The way speakers distinguish consonants in the two environments
is highly individualized, suggesting no systematic means of creatinga “palatal” gesture within or across speakers.
Conclusions• Overall, the results provide empirical evidence for articulatory realiza-
tions of consonant mutation in SG.• The gestural characteristics here yield highly individualized patterns.
Whether they are truly speaker-specific or dialectal merits further re-search with a larger population.
Selected ReferencesDavidson, L. (2005). Addressing phonological questions with ultrasound. Clinical Lin-guistics & Phonetics, 19:619–633.Gillies, W. (2002). Scottish Gaelic. In Ball, M. and Fife, J., editors, The Celtic Languages,pages 145–227. Routledge.Gu, C. (2002). Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models. Springer.Ladefoged, P., Ladefoged, J., Turk, A., Hind, K., and Skilton, S. J. (1998). Phonetic struc-tures of Scottish Gaelic. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 28:1–41.Macaulay, D. (1992). The Scottish Gaelic language. In Macaulay, D., editor, The CelticLanguages, pages 137–248. Cambridge University Press.Stewart, T. W. (2004). Mutation as morphology: bases, stems, and shapes in Scottish Gaelic.PhD thesis, The Ohio State University.
AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge assistance from Y. Chen, N. Kloehn, and J. Meyer (data col-lection), M. A. Kalusa (data extraction), and D. A. Archangeli and Creative Machines(head stabilization device). This work was supported in part by NSF award #1144318,PI A. Carnie and co-PIs D. Archangeli, M. Hammond, A. Ussishkin, and N. Warner, andNSF BCC-SBE award #1244687, PI D. Archangeli.
