View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The Articulation of Scottish Gaelic Plain and Palatalized ConsonantsJae-Hyun Sung1, Diana Archangeli1,2, Ian Clayton1,3,Dan Brenner1, Sam Johnston1, Michael Hammond1,and Andrew Carnie1
University of Arizona1; University of Hong Kong2; Boise State University3
jhsung@email.arizona.edu; darchang@hku.hk; ianclayton@boisestate.edu;{dbrenner, sjcjohnston, hammond, carnie}@email.arizona.edu
Research QuestionsWhat do articulatory gestures tell us about palatal/palatalized conso-nants in Scottish Gaelic (henceforth SG)?
1. How are plain, palatal, and palatalized consonants different?2. Do liquids have the same articulation whether in plain or palatal/palatalized
contexts?3. How are different syllabic positions at play? (e.g., initial vs. final)4. Is the typical description accurate, that Lewis Scottish Gaelic /l/ & /r/
has plain and palatal versions? What about Uist?
Data
• Palatalization appears as morphologically-conditioned consonant mu-tation in SG (Macaulay (1992), Ladefoged et al. (1998), Gillies (2002),Stewart (2004))
• Both phonemic and morphological
Data 1: Plain vs. Palatal (1) vs. Palatalized (2)
[p] vs. [pj]1 vs. [pj]2 plain go ’beak’ (nom.sg.)palatal slai ’muck’palatalized gui ’beak’s’ (gen.sg.)
[l] vs. [L]1 vs. [L]2 plain Ga ’lowlander’ (nom.sg.)palatal ainmei ’famous’palatalized Goi ’lowlander’s’ (gen.sg.)
Data 2: Initial vs. Final Palatal/Palatalized
[pj] initial inn ’verdict’final gui ’beak’s’ (gen.sg.)
[kj] initial inn ’grow’final gli ’wise’
Data Collection & Measurements
• 26 speakers of SG recruited in Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, Isle of Skye• Data from 4 speakers: 3 Lewis speakers & 1 Uist speaker
– Speaker #7: born in Lewis of parents both born in Lewis– Speaker #10: born in Uist of parents both born in Uist– Speaker #15: born in Lewis of parents both born in Lewis– Speaker #25: born in Lewis of parents both born in Lewis
• 240 tokens per speaker considered for analysis (240 tokens × 4 speak-ers = 960 tokens in total)
• Ultrasound images of gestural peaks selected & traced manually
ResultsResult 1: Plain (green) vs. Palatal (red) vs. Palatalized (blue) Non-liquids
1a: Plain vs. Palatal/Palatalized
#7 #10 #15 #25
/p/ −340−2
80−2
20
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−p+palfinal−p−pal
−320
−260
−200
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−p+palfinal−p−pal
−340
−280
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−p+palfinal−p−pal
−340
−300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−p+palfinal−p−pal
/t/ −320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palfinal−t−pal
−320
−260
−200
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palfinal−t−pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palfinal−t−pal
−340
−300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palfinal−t−pal
1b: Palatal vs. Palatalized
#7 #10 #15 #25
/t/ −320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palatalfinal−t+palatalized
−320
−260
−200
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palatalfinal−t+palatalized
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palatalfinal−t+palatalized
−340
−300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−t+palatalfinal−t+palatalized
Result 2: Plain (green) vs. Palatal (red) vs. Palatalized (blue) Liquids
2a: Plain vs. Palatal/Palatalized
#7 #10 #15 #25
/l/ −300
−260
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palfinal−l−pal
−300
−260
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palfinal−l−pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palfinal−l−pal
−300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palfinal−l−pal
/r/ −300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−r+palfinal−r−pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−r+palfinal−r−pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−r+palfinal−r−pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−r+palfinal−r−pal
2b: Palatal vs. Palatalized
#7 #10 #15 #25
/l/ −300
−260
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palatalfinal−l+palatalized
−300
−260
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palatalfinal−l+palatalized
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palatalfinal−l+palatalized
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) final−l+palatalfinal−l+palatalized
Result 3: Initial (red) vs. Final Palatal/Palatalized (green)
#7 #10 #15 #25
/p/ −320
−260
−200
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−p+palfinal−p+pal
−300
−250
−200
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−p+palfinal−p+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−p+palfinal−p+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−p+palfinal−p+pal
/t/ −320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−t+palfinal−t+pal
−320
−260
−200
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−t+palfinal−t+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−t+palfinal−t+pal
−300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−t+palfinal−t+pal
/l/ −300
−260
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−l+palfinal−l+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−l+palfinal−l+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−l+palfinal−l+pal
−300
−260
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−l+palfinal−l+pal
/r/ −300
−260
−220
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−r+palfinal−r+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−r+palfinal−r+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−r+palfinal−r+pal
−320
−280
−240
tong
ue h
eigh
t (pi
xels
) initial−r+palfinal−r+pal
DiscussionRQ Comparison ResultsQ1a plain vs. palatal(ized) mostly differentQ1b palatal vs. palatalized obstruents no differenceQ2a plain vs. palatal(ized) mostly no differenceQ2b palatal vs. palatalized liquids mostly differentQ3 initial vs. final palatal(ized) sometimes differentQ4 dialectal difference not observed
• Articulatory patterns of palatalization are different across consonanttypes (Q1a & Q1b).
• Gestural patterns here also capture palatal vs. palatalized contrast inliquids (Q2b); partially confirms the theoretical claim on palatal/non-palatal contrast in liquids (Borgstrøm (1941), Lamb (2003), Ternes (2006),Maolalaigh (2008))
• Different syllabic positions play a greater role in liquids than in ob-struents (Q3).
• The results do not reflect any dialectal difference between Lewis andUist speakers (Q4).
Conclusions
• Overall, our preliminary results show a clear sign of palatalization inpalatal(ized) consonants (i.e., plain vs. palatal/palatalized).
• Different underlying representations (i.e., palatal vs. palatalized) andsyllabic positions (i.e., initial vs. final) often create gestural differences,but do not always manifest as differences in tongue contours.
Selected References
Borgstrøm, C. H. 1941. The Dialects of Skye and Ross-shire: A Linguistic Survey of the GaelicDialects of Scotland. H. Aschehoug & Co.Gillies, W. 2002. Scottish Gaelic. In Ball, M. and Fife, J., editors, The Celtic Languages,pages 145–227. Routledge.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.Lamb, W. 2003. Scottish Gaelic. Lincon Europa.Macaulay, D. 1992. The Scottish Gaelic language. In Macaulay, D., editor, The CelticLanguages, pages 137–248. Cambridge University Press.Maolalaigh, R. Ò. 2008. Scottish Gaelic in twelve weeks. Birlinn.Stewart, T. W. 2004. Mutation as morphology: bases, stems, and shapes in Scottish Gaelic.PhD thesis, The Ohio State University.Ternes, E. 2006. The phonemic analysis of Scottish Gaelic: based on the dialect of Applecross,Ross-shire. Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies.
AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge support from the National ScienceFoundation grant to Andrew Carnie (award #BCS11443818) and JamesS. McDonnell Foundation grant to Diana Archangeli (award #220020045BBNB).
Recommended