derived environments and consonant clusters: the...

Derived Environments and Consonant Clusters: TheCase of Lezgi

Betsy Pillion

University of Chicago

[email protected]

14 January 2016

Betsy Pillion (UChicago) Lezgi Clusters 14 January 2016 1 / 44

Introduction

Word inital clusters in Lezgi arise in two environmentsmonomorphemicmultimorphemic

Monomorphemic and multimorphemic words allow for similarsequences

Multimorphemic words have a higher incidence of stop-stop sequencesMonomorphemic words with these clusters are less common


Introduction

What could be responsible for this tendency?

Choapan Zapotec has been proposed to allow for more SSP-violatingclusters across morpheme boundaries (Donnelly, 2013)

Lezgi has been proposed to possess voiceless vowels (Chitoran andIskarous, 2008)


Introduction

Some multimorphemic words have been proposed to possess voicelessvowels

Do voiceless vowels exist in these environments?What kind of status do voiceless vowels have in sonority sequencing?


Introduction

Sound change where high vowels in pretonic syllables delete betweentwo voiceless obstruents (Haspelmath, 1993)

Historical process is similar to phenomenon seen in morphologicalalternation


Data

Derived Non-Derived

Singular Plural gloss Historical Current gloss

ki>tS khj>tS-er ‘dog’ kitab khtab ‘book’

q’yd qhwjt’-er ‘winter’>tSi

>tSeg

>tS

>tSeg ‘onion’

thyt thwj-ter ‘throat’>tSika

>tSka ‘place’


Overview of Phenomenon

Haspelmath (1993) describes it as a pattern of vowel syncope

Chitoran and Iskarous (2008) claim vocalic gesture is still present


Overview

Questions

Lezgi background

Proposals

Experiment

Derived vs. Non-Derived Patterns

Conclusions


Research Questions

What is the status of historically created vs. morphologicallyprompted clusters in Lezgi? (Haspelmath, 1993; Chitoran andBabaliyeva, 2007; Chitoran and Iskarous, 2008)

Do sequences in derived environments allow for less well-formedconsonant sequences than sequences in non-derived environments?(Donnelly, 2013)

What status do voiceless vowels have in the language if any? Is thisphenomenon gradient or categorical? Do they contribute to theallowance of these sequences?


Background

Lezgi is a Northeast Caucasian language spoken by about 800,000people (Ethnologue, 2015)

Spoken in Daghestan, Russia, and Azerbaijan

Speaker from northern Azerbaijan


Background

Consonant Inventory

Vowel Inventory: i, y, u, e, a


Derived Environments

singular �! plural creates environment for this phenomenon

Singular Plural gloss

thyt thwjter ‘throat’q’yd qhwjt’er ‘winter’

ki>tS khj>tSer ‘dog’


Acoustic Data - Derived Environments

[thyt] ‘throat’

[thwjter] ‘throats’


Non-Derived Environments

some historically disyllabic words now begin with complex clusters

Historical Modern gloss

kitab khtab ‘book’>tSi

>tSeg

>tS

>tSeg ‘onion’

>tSika

>tSka ‘place’


Proposals

Vocalic gesture bundle is deleted completely

Vocalic gesture bundle remains but voicing gesture is realized underparticular conditions

Vocalic gesture bundle remains but voicing gesture is never realized


Proposals

Vocalic gesture bundle is deleted completelyMeasure spectral energy of consonant preceding vowel

Vocalic gesture bundle remains but voicing gesture is realized underparticular conditions

Vocalic gesture bundle remains but voicing gesture is never realizedCan high vowels surface as voiced in derived environments at slowspeech rates?Can low vowels devoice or delete in derived environments at fast speechrates?


Previous Research

Previous looks at vowel devoicing due to gestural overlap havefocused on optional processes.

Tokyo Japanese (Beckman and Shoji 1984)Montreal French (Cedergren and Simoneau 1985)English schwa elision (Davidson 2006)


Previous Research

Chitoran and Iskarous (2008) look at spectral tilt in sibilant-initialstems in Lezgi.

Groupings of spectral energy in sibilant noise indicate that there aresignificant di↵erences between stems with “deleted” y, u, and i.

Chitoran and Babliyeva (2007) examine stress’s e↵ects on vowelduration in Lezgi

“For [pre-tonic] non-high vowels, their gestures are also overlapped, butbecause they are longer they are not completely hidden.”


Phase windows (Byrd 1996)Faster speech rates are expected to have higher rates of gesturaloverlap, and slower speech rates are expected have lower rates ofgestural overlap.


Experimental Design

Manipulation of speech rate

Increased and decreased rate of gestural overlap to allow for variationin voicing


Experiment

Data collection focused on di↵erences between singular and plural(bimorphemic)

Words collected over two sessions, two days, approximately a monthapart.

Carrier sentences‘You say X again.’ vna X sadra laXana

Three conditions: normal rate, slow rate, fast rate

Six total blocks, 3 blocks per day

Written prompting in Lezgi, with test words in Russian


Data Collection

Noun stems of form CVC(-Vr)

C1VC2 where...C1 is voiceless stop or voiceless fricativeC2 is not controlled forV is high, mid, or low

35 possible consonant-vowel combinations were searched, while 8other pairs lacked a singular or plural form

Total of 60 words, collected 4 times in each speech condition, 720total tokens


Data Collection

Stop series P, T, K, Q include plain, aspirated and ejective stops

Fricative series s, S and X


Acoustic Analysis

Sibilant’s center for gravity and peak frequency (Chitoran andIskarous 2008)

Script averages spectra across a 40ms period for 10 points throughoutthe period of frication, measures used taken from 80% through thefrication.

Voicing measured categorically and manually by the researcher


Results - Presence of Voiceless Vowels

A linear models constructed to establish e↵ects on center of gravity infricatives

If vowel identity in singular form of word, or C1*V interaction is apredictor of CoG, then this is indicative of voiceless vowels

If V*number interaction is a predictor of CoG, then this is notconsistent with voiceless vowels

Fricative model - lm(CoG8 - C1xVowel+Number+VowelxNumber)

Deviation coded


Results - Fricative Model


S, X and s are significant predictors

Only C:V pairs X:e, S:i are significant predictors

Importantly, no interactions between number and vowel reachsignificance


Results - [s]


Results - [S]


Results - [X]


Results - Fricatives


Results - Speech Rate

None of the lexical items varied in voicing

If devoicing were a gradient phenomenon, we would expect higherrates of devoicing at fast speeds, and lower rates of devoicing at slowspeeds


Results - Speech Rate


Discussion

Evidence is consistent with Chitoran and Iskarous (2008)’s conclusions

There is no variation with respect to voicing presence, indicating thatthis phenomenon is obligatory

Voiceless vowels may vary with deletion


Sequencing in Derived and Non-Derived environments

Data taken from Haspelmath (1993)

Both environments allow for similar sonority declinations (tSka,‘place’; Xtul, ‘grandchild’ vs. Xu

˚kwar, ‘stomachs’, thu

˚p’ar, ‘fingers’)

Stop-stop sequences are more common across derived environmentsThe presence of voiceless vowels accounts for this tendency, as theymay allow these sequences to maintain independent syllabic status

Non-derived environments are less likely to possess secondaryarticulation on initial consonants


Consonant clusters in Non-Derived Environments

Survey of Haspelmath (1993) dictionary results in 49 monomorphemicwords with CC initial clusters

Only 14/49 of clusters possess secondary articulation on C1

Only 12/49 of non-derived clusters are stop-stop (8 with SA),compared to 7/13 derived clusters (all with SA)51 words begin with Cw (secondary articulation)


Consonant clusters in Non-Derived Environments

Secondary Articulation in Non-Derived EnvironmentsNo SA SA

word gloss word gloss

khsun ‘fall asleep’ khjse ‘purse’khtab ‘book’ khwjtæhun ‘finish, use up’


Sequencing in Derived and Non-Derived Environments

Similar sequences appear across both

Sequence Non-Der gloss Der gloss

stop-stop thwp’al ‘ring’ thu˚p’-ar ‘fingers’

fricative-stop Xtul ‘grandchild’ Xu˚kw-ar ‘stomachs’

fricative-stop st’al ‘drop’ si˚k’-er ‘foxes’


Conclusions

Evidence is consistent with the presence of voiceless vowels in derivedenvironments in the language

The presence of voiceless vowels/vocalic gesture in derivedenvironments may contribute to the allowance of sequences thatseemingly decrease in sonority across both derived and non-derivedenvironments

Syllabic status of derived environment and non-derived environmentclusters purported to have voiceless vowels and/or secondaryarticulations on the initial consonant is still unknown


Future Directions

Collecting syllabicity judgments

Timing relations across monomorphemic and bimorphemic words

Larger lexicon sample to better reflect general trends


References

Beckman, Mary, and Atsuko Shoji. 1984. ”Spectral and perceptual evidence for CV coarticulation in devoiced/si/and/syu/in Japanese.” Phonetica 41.2:61-71.

Butskhrikidze, Marika. 2002. The consonant phonotactics of Georgian. Vol. 63. LOT.

Cedergren, H. , Simoneau, L. 1985. La chute des voyelles hautes en francais de Montreal, “As-tu entendu la belle syncope?” In Les tendances dynamiques

du francais parle a Montreal, Quebec, Gouvernement du Quebec, coll. Langues et societes,. Vol. 2: 25-56.

Chitoran, Ioana, and Babaliyeva, Ayten. 2007. An acoustic description of high vowel syncope in Lezgian. ICPhS 16: 2153-2156.

Chitoran, Ioana, and Goldstein, Louis, and Byrd, Dani. 2002. Gestural overlap and recoverability: Articulatory evidence from Georgian. LaboratoryPhonology 7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 419-448.

Chitoran, Ioana, and Khalil Iskarous. 2008. ”Acoustic Evidence for High Vowel Devoicing in Lezgi.”

Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1993. The Phonology and Phonetics of Voiceless Vowels. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley LinguisticsSociety: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals. 64-75.

Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology I:Between the grammar and the physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283-333.

Davidson, Lisa. 2006. Schwa Elision in Fast Speech: Segmental Deletion or Gestural Overlap? Phonetica 63: 79-112.

Davidson, Lisa. 2003. ”The atoms of phonological representation: Gestures, coordination and perceptual features in consonant cluster phonotactics.”PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University.

Davidson, Lisa and Jason A. Shaw. 2012. Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. Journal of Phonetics 40: 234-248.

Donnelly, Erin. ”The sonority hierarchy in Choapan Zapotec.” Handout from the International Con- ference on Mesoamerican Linguistics (2013).

Goldstein, Louis, Ioana Chitoran, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. ”Syllable structure as coupled oscillator modes: evidence from Georgian vs. TashlhiytBerber.” Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Walter de Gruyter.

Kim, Kyumin and Alexei Kochetov. Phonology and phonetics of epenthetic vowels in loanwords: Experimental evidence from Korean. Lingua 121:511-532.

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SILInternational.

Ridouane, Rachid. 2008. ”Syllables without vowels: phonetic and phonological evidence from Tashlhiyt Berber.” Phonology 25.02: 321-359.

Selkirk, E.O. ”On the major class features and syllable theory.” In M. Arono↵, RT Oehrle (Eds.), Language sound structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA(1984).

Rose, Sharon. 1994. The Historical Development of Secondary Articulation in Gurage. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the BerkeleyLinguistics Society: Special Session on Historical Issues in African Linguistics. 112-124.

Yu, Alan C. L. 2004. Explaining Final Obstruent Voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and History. Language, Vol. 80 : 73-97.Betsy Pillion (UChicago) Lezgi Clusters 14 January 2016 40 / 44

Secondarily Articulated Obstruents

secondarily articulated onset consonants cause unique patterns insyncope contexts

Singular Plural gloss

k’wa>tS k’u

>tSar ‘leg’

>tswez >tsu>tswer ‘ant’khwak khukwar ‘worm’


Speech Rate - Linear Model

lm(Voicing - VowelHeight + SpeedCondition + C2Voicing +VowelHeight*SpeedCondition)


Fricative Model



Stop Model

Stop model - lm(CoG8 - C1xVowel+Number+VowelxNumber)


derived environments and consonant clusters: the...

Documents