Phonetic patterns in Arapaho vowels - University at Buffalocdicanio/pdfs/Arapaho_vowels_talk.pdf · Vowel quality and quantity Results: Speakerdiﬀerences 2400 2000 1600 1200 700

Phonetic patterns in Arapaho vowels

Christian T. [email protected]

Douglas H. [email protected]

Haskins Laboratorieshttp://linguistics.berkeley.edu/∼dicanio

10/18/1345th Algonquian conference - University of Ottawa

Christian DiCanio (((Haskins))) Arapaho vowels 10/18/13 1

Introduction

Why study vowels in Arapaho?

While some languages may have short and long vowels, Arapaho alsohas vowels that are extra long. Typologically, this is very rare(Remijsen and Gilley, 2008). How are these vowels produced byspeakers? What is the general relationship between vowel quality andvowel quantity?

There are differing perspectives on the nature of pitch accent in thelanguage. How many possible pitch accents are there and how arethey different from each other?

What can the phonetic patterns reveal about the phonologicalstructure of Arapaho?


Introduction

Roadmap

1 Arapaho phonology

2 Vowel quality and quantity

3 Pitch accent

4 Discussion and future directions


Arapaho phonology

Arapaho vowels (Cowell and Moss Sr., 2008)

Table: Arapaho Vowel Inventory

Front BackHigh i uLow E (e) O (o)

Diphthongs eI (ei) oU (ou)Ië (io) aI (oe)

Phonetically, there is a three-way contrast in vowel length in Arapaho.Though, the phonological status of extra long vowels remains unclear.Consonants do not contrast in length.


Arapaho phonology

Extra long vowels are described alternately as a triadic sequence(Salzman, 1956) or as belonging to separate syllables (Cowell andMoss Sr., 2008). Though, only impressionistic evidence for syllableaffiliation is given.

Table: Vowel length contrast

Short Long Extra longi ii iiiE EE EEEu uu uuuO OO OOO

eI eeIoU ooUaI (aaI)Ië ?


Arapaho phonology

Examples

Length Word Gloss Word Glossshort his ‘liver’ hOTOP ‘star’long nııs ‘two’ hOhOOt ‘tree’extra long bOnıiıt ‘work with’ bEtOOOt ‘dance (noun)’

porcupine quills’short hET ‘dog’ TOOnoUhut ‘He’s lazy.’long tSEET ‘accidentally’ tOPuut ‘hammer’extra long hEEE ‘yes’ ToUxOsuuu ‘head-dress’

In addition to length, these vowels seem to be different in quality too.


Vowel quality and quantity


“As against their short counterparts, the long high vowels are closerand tenser.” (Salzman, 1956, 53).

“When the vowels occur long, they show changes in quality as well asquantity. In particular, /ii/ and /uu/ have values approaching [i] and[u].” (Cowell and Moss Sr., 2008, 13).

Neither Salzman nor Cowell & Moss mention any quality differenceamong low vowels. Impressionistically, low vowels seem to differ inquality too, e.g. [E] vs. [æ:], [2] vs. [O:].

In languages with contrastive vowel length, shorter vowels are typicallymore lax (or central) and longer vowels are more tense (or peripheral)(Johnson and Martin, 2001).



Typically, the expectation is that when vowels are shorter, speakerslack the duration to reach a vowel target. This is called vowelundershoot (Lindblom, 1963). Over time, these patterns become partof the phonology of a language, so vowels of different quantity alsodiffer in quality.

However, this pattern should affect all the vowels in a language, notjust the high vowels. Can we test this in Arapaho?



Phonetic study on vowel quality and quantity

Recordings made by the first author from 7-8 hours of elicitationsessions with two male speakers (WC and IJC) in October 2012, whichwere supplemented with an existing recording of a female speaker,MKU (35 minutes) recorded by Lisa Conathan (Conathan,2004-2007).

While the words differed across speakers, most words had 2-3repetitions. For WC, 163 words were analyzed. For IJC, 90 words wereanalyzed. For MKU, 62 words/sentences were analyzed.

Number of vowels analyzed: 1290 for WC, 688 for IJC, and 579 forMKU.

Labeled vowels and analyzed formant values on vowels of differentlengths using a script written for Praat (Boersma and Weenink, 2011).



Results: vowel duration

Long vowels are twice as long as short vowels and extra long vowels arealmost twice as long as long vowels.

WC

IJC

MKU

Extra longLongShort

Vowel duration by speaker

Duration (ms.)

0 100 200 300 400 500



Results: Length and quality

2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200

700

600

500

400

300

Vowel space in Arapaho

F2

F1

AllSpkrs

e

i

o

u

e

i

o

u



Results: Length and quality



Results: Speaker differences

2400 2000 1600 1200

700

600

500

400

300

200

Vowel space: speaker IJC

F2

F1

Iggy_John

e

i

o

ui

o

e

u

2400 2000 1600 1200

700

600

500

400

300

200

Vowel space: speaker WC

F2

F1

Wayne

e

i

o

u

e

i

o

u

2500 2000 1500 1000

800

700

600

500

400

300

Vowel space: speaker MKU

F2

F1

MKUo

e

ui

i

e

o

u

For all speakers, long high vowels are higher than short high vowels andlong /E/ is lower than short /E/.Christian DiCanio (((Haskins))) Arapaho vowels 10/18/13 13


Extra long vowels

Vowel quality for the extra long vowels was similar to that of the longvowels for /i/, but more retracted (back) for /O/. Though, too few tokensof other vowels to allow us to determine a general tendency.

2400 2000 1600 1200

700

600

500

400

300

Quality differences in long and extra long vowels

F2

F1

AllSpkrs

i

oo

i



Summary & Interim discussion

Differences across speakers in how back vowels are realized, butsimilarity among front vowels.

Clear difference in vowel quality which corresponds with a change inquantity. The low vowel /E/ is higher when short, but lower when long([æ]), a previously unreported phenomenon.

Findings fit with the more general notion that short vowels arecentralized, or undershot, while long vowels are more peripheral in thevowel space, as opposed to idea that only the high vowels lower.

Speaker variability in whether /O/ changes quality when short or long.However, the extra long vowel is more retracted than the long vowel.


Pitch accent

Pitch accent

Previous work describes pitch accents associated with individualvowels in Arapaho, e.g. úu, uú, úú, (Cowell and Moss Sr., 2008).

Accent Short vowels Accent Long vowels Accent Extra long vowelsH O HH OO HHH *L O HL OO HHL *

LH OO HLH OOOLL OO HLL OOO

LHH *LHL *LLH OOOLLL *


Pitch accent

Examples

Word Gloss Word GlosswOnOP ‘ankle’ hEbEs ‘beaver’nEEtSEE ‘chief’ hOOtSOO ‘devil’nEhei ‘aunt’ tOPuut ‘hammer’

tSEPEEP ‘potato’ bEtEE ‘heart’hooU ‘porcupine’ hooU ‘crow’woUU ‘copulate!’


Pitch accent

Questions

Pitch accent has been a particularly difficult aspect of Arapahogrammar to describe. Many of the morphological alternations whichinfluence it have no clear explanation (Cowell and Moss Sr., 2008).

Cowell and Moss note that both elicitation session types andsignificant speaker variation can distort pitch accents. To what extentare the pitch accents stable across speakers uttering different words indifferent elicitation sessions?

How are pitch accents produced? How does vowel length influencepitch accent?


Pitch accent

Phonetic study on pitch accent

Same recordings and words as before.

Labeled vowels and analyzed F0 (pitch) values on vowels of differentlengths using a script written for Praat (Boersma and Weenink, 2011).

Examined similar accentual patterns across vowel lengths, e.g. HLL vs.HL, LLH vs. LH.


Pitch accent

Results: Pitch accents on short vowels90

100

110

120

130

140

Pitch accents on short vowels Speaker WC

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

H L

8090

100

110

120

130

Pitch accents on short vowels Speaker IJC

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

H L

180

190

200

210

220

230

Pitch accents on short vowels Speaker MKU

Time (normalized)Fr

eque

ncy

(Hz)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

H L


Pitch accent

Results: HH and LL pitch accents100

110

120

130

140

150

Speaker WC

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LL HH

8090

100

110

120

130

Speaker IJC

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LL HH

170

180

190

200

210

220

Speaker MCU

Time (normalized)Fr

eque

ncy

(Hz)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LL HH

HH and LL accents on long vowels


Pitch accent

Results: HL and LH pitch accents100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

Speaker WC

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LH HL

8090

100

110

120

130

140

150

Speaker IJC

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LH HL

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

Speaker MCU

Time (normalized)Fr

eque

ncy

(Hz)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LH HL

HL and LH accents on long vowels


Pitch accent

Observations

Clear difference between H (accented) and L (unaccented) in shortvowels, mainly in terms of pitch height. A different trajectory in pitchwas observed for MKU. On long vowels, speakers produce both HHand HL patterns similarly.

There is substantial between-speaker variation in the pitch shape of L,LL, and LH patterns.


Pitch accent

Results: Pitch accents on extra long vowels80

90100

110

120

130

140

HLL on extra long vowels

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 5

8090

100

110

120

130

140

LLH on extra long vowels

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 5

8090

100

110

120

130

140

HLH on extra long vowels

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 5

How do the HLL and LLH patterns on extra long vowels compare withsimilar falling and rising patterns on long vowels?


Pitch accent

Comparison of falling and rising patterns

2 4 6 8 10

8090

100

110

120

130

140

150

HL pattern on long and extra long vowels

Time (pseudo-normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

HL HLL

2 4 6 8 1080

90100

110

120

130

140

150

LH pattern on long and extra long vowels

Time (pseudo-normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

LH LLH

The pitch accent on the long vowel looks like a compressed version of theone on the extra long vowel, but at a different height.


Pitch accent

Results: comparison

One way to compare the pitch accent patterns on extra long vowels withthose on long vowels is to stretch out the pitch accents on long vowels tosee how they match the ones on extra long vowels.

8090

100

110

120

130

140

150

HL pattern on long and extra long vowels

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

HL HLL

8090

100

110

120

130

140

150

HL and LH accents on long vowels

Time (normalized)

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

LH LLH


Pitch accent

Summary/Discussion

Similarities in HL and HLL; and LH and LLH patterns in terms ofpitch trajectory, but different in terms of height. The accent on thelong vowels is higher than on the extra long vowels.

Similiarity in trajectory favors a phonological representation where themiddle mora is tonally unspecified, an account which jibes well withthe observed patterns: HLH, HLL, LLH.

Oto-Manguean

Western

Oto-Pamean-Chinantecan

Oto-Pamean

Northern

Chichimec Pame

Southern

Matlazinca-Tlahuica Otomí-Mazahua

Chinantec

Tlapanecan-Chorotegan

Subtiaba-Tlapanec Chorotegan

Chiapanec Chorotega

Eastern

Amuzgo-Mixtecan

Amuzgo Mixtecan

Trique Mixtecan-Cuicatecan

Cuicatec Mixtec

Mazatecan-Zapotecan

Mazatecan

Mazatec Chochoan

Ixcatec Popolocan-Chocho

Zapotecan

Zapotec Chatino

[-continuant]

[-voice]

C/V-Ratio

Closure.Duration Vowel.Duration

Long-lag.VOT

VOT=75ms. Aspiration Delayed.F1

!

µ

T

C V

µ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

C V

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

H

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

µ

V

H

Popolocana-(20)

Chocho-Popoloca-(8)

Chocholteco Popoloca-(7)

Poniente

Coyotepec Otlaltepec Ahuatempan

Sur

Mezontla Atzingo

Norte

Temalacayuca Tlalcoyalco

Ixcateco Mazateco-(11)

Bajo-de-Rio-Santo-Domingo

Jalapa Santo.Domingo

Bajo-de-Norte

Soyaltepec Ixcatlán

Chiquihuitlán Alto

San-Miguel Mazatlán Grupo.A

Huautla Jiotes Tecoatl San-Lorenzo

Oto-Manguean

Western


Oto-Pamean

Northern

Chichimec Pame

Southern


Chinantec



Chiapanec Chorotega

Eastern

Amuzgo-Mixtecan

Amuzgo Mixtecan


Cuicatec Mixtec

Mazatecan-Zapotecan

Mazatecan

Mazatec Chochoan


Zapotecan

Zapotec Chatino

[-continuant]

[-voice]

C/V-Ratio


Long-lag.VOT


!

µ

T

C V

µ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

C V

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

H

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

µ

V

H

Popolocana-(20)

Chocho-Popoloca-(8)


Poniente


Sur

Mezontla Atzingo

Norte





Bajo-de-Norte


Chiquihuitlán Alto



Oto-Manguean

Western


Oto-Pamean

Northern

Chichimec Pame

Southern


Chinantec



Chiapanec Chorotega

Eastern

Amuzgo-Mixtecan

Amuzgo Mixtecan


Cuicatec Mixtec

Mazatecan-Zapotecan

Mazatecan

Mazatec Chochoan


Zapotecan

Zapotec Chatino

[-continuant]

[-voice]

C/V-Ratio


Long-lag.VOT


!

µ

T

C V

µ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

C V

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

H

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

µ

V

H

Popolocana-(20)

Chocho-Popoloca-(8)


Poniente


Sur

Mezontla Atzingo

Norte





Bajo-de-Norte


Chiquihuitlán Alto



Oto-Manguean

Western


Oto-Pamean

Northern

Chichimec Pame

Southern


Chinantec



Chiapanec Chorotega

Eastern

Amuzgo-Mixtecan

Amuzgo Mixtecan


Cuicatec Mixtec

Mazatecan-Zapotecan

Mazatecan

Mazatec Chochoan


Zapotecan

Zapotec Chatino

[-continuant]

[-voice]

C/V-Ratio


Long-lag.VOT


!

µ

T

C V

µ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

V

!

µ

T

C V

Pµ

T

C V

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

H

µ

V

µ

V

L

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

H

!

µ

C V

L

µ

V

µ

V

H

Popolocana-(20)

Chocho-Popoloca-(8)


Poniente


Sur

Mezontla Atzingo

Norte





Bajo-de-Norte


Chiquihuitlán Alto




Pitch accent

General discussion

Vowel quality changes with quantity. Long vowels are more peripheraland short vowels are more centralized. Extra long /O/ is even moreperipheral.

Revised system: short /I, E, O, U/ but long /i:, æ:, O:, u:/.

Clear differences between different patterns of pitch accent on vowelsof varying lengths. The greater variation in the realization of L and LLpatterns (as opposed to H, HH) suggests that there is no specifictarget of a “L.” Rather, these vowels are tonally unspecified.

Similar trajectory for HL-HLL and LH-LLH patterns suggests pitch issimply interpolated across the syllable between a H and L target; themedial mora is unspecified.


Pitch accent

Conclusions and future directions

Despite the ostensible differences of the elicitation sessions andspeakers, stable phonetic patterns were found for vowel length, vowelquality, and, to a certain extent, for pitch accent.

The nature of using elicited corpora is that there will be gaps inpatterns. There were few examples of LH pitch accent and of extralong vowels in the data considered. Given the variation amongspeakers, more data may be revealing.

Plan to include additional vowel data from a Conathan’s (2004-2007)corpus, with a particular focus on running speech. The goal will be amore complete phonetic description of the Arapaho sound system.


Pitch accent

Acknowledgements

Thank you!

This work was supported by NSF Grant No. 0966411 to HaskinsLaboratories: “From endangered language documentation to phoneticdocumentation.”

We would also like to thank the Arapaho community and Lisa Conathan.


Appendices

Appendix 1: Vowel quality and duration

Vowel quality

Dur

atio

n (m

s)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

iɛ ɔ u

Lengthshort

long

extra long


Appendices

Appendix 2: stress or pitch accent?

In languages with stress, it is impossible to have polysyllabic word lackingstress (Hyman, 2006). However, there are words lacking accent in Arapaho.Moreover, adjacent sequences of accented syllables are possible, whichnever occurs in a stress language. Both observations argue that Arapahopossesses a pitch accent (or simple tonal) system.


Appendices

Appendix 3: Pitch accent and duration

Pitch accent pattern

Dur

atio

n (m

s)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

H L HH HL LH LL HLH LLH HLL

Lengthshort

long

extra long


Appendices

Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program].www.praat.org.

Conathan, L. (2004–2007). Northern Arapaho linguistic corpus. Endangered Language Archive,School of Oriental and Asiatic Studies, University of London.

Cowell, A. and Moss Sr., A. (2008). The Arapaho Language. University Press of Colorado.

Hyman, L. M. (2006). Word-prosodic typology. Phonology, 23:225–257.

Johnson, K. and Martin, J. (2001). Acoustic vowel reduction in Creek: Effects of distinctivelength and position in the word. Phonetica, 58:81–102.

Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Societyof America, 35:1773–1781.

Remijsen, B. and Gilley, L. (2008). Why are three-level vowel length systems rare? Insights fromDinka (Luanyjang dialect). Journal of Phonetics, 36:318–344.

Salzman, Z. (1956). Arapaho I: Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics,22(1):49–56.

Zhang, J. (2004). The role of contrast-specific and language-specific phonetics in contour tonedistribution. In Hayes, B., Kirchner, R., Kirchner, R. M., and Steriade, D., editors,Phonetically-based Phonology. Cambridge University Press.


Documents

Phonetic patterns in Arapaho vowels - University at Buffalocdicanio/pdfs/Arapaho_vowels_talk.pdf · Vowel quality and quantity Results: Speakerdiﬀerences 2400 2000 1600 1200 700