On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phonology.

http://www.jstor.org

Cambridge University Press

On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions Author(s): Loren Trigo Source: Phonology, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1991), pp. 113-136Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4420026Accessed: 18-10-2015 16:54 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.144.93.190 on Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:54:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4420026

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Phonology 8 (1991) 113-136 Printed in Great Britain

On pharynx-larynx

interactions*

Loren Trigo Boston University

The role which the pharynx plays in the production of speech sounds has long been the subject of debate, in particular as regards the independence of the pharynx from other speech articulators and in particular the larynx. Given that the linguistic and anatomical information about the larynx and the pharynx is quite complex, the objective of this paper is to review the literature relevant to the relationship between these two articulators and to recast some of this information in terms of current articulator-based theories of phonological features such as the ones reviewed in McCarthy (1988). ? 1 presents two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR] 'advanced tongue root' and [LL/RL] 'lowered larynx' separately in two subsections, with definitions, examples and arguments in favour of having two pharyngeal features rather than one. ? 2 argues that pharyngeal features are independent of the primary point of articulation features. ?3 discusses how the pharynx may become involved in the articulation of consonants that are not obviously pharyngealised.

1 Pharyngeal features: [ATR/RTRI and [LL/RLJ The vowel systems in the languages of Africa and Southeastern Asia exhibit a voice quality or REGISTER contrast in which the pharynx and the larynx seem to act in unison, but to date no satisfactory explanation for this effect has been found. What has been called register in these languages involves three dimensions - pharyngeal volume (F1), vocal cord tension (pitch) and vocal cord opening (phonation). Each dimension appears to be independent in that each may assume the primary role in the realisation of register contrasts.' However, the three dimensions frequently cooccur or work together as a team. The so-called 'chest' register has been variously described as involving all or some of the following articulatory traits: spread vocal cords, tongue root advancement, higher and fronter dorsal placement, slack vocal cords, dilated pharyngeal walls, lowered larynx; the 'head' register is said to involve the opposite characteristics: constricted vocal cords, tongue root retraction, lower and retracted dorsal placement,

113



114 Loren Trigo higher pitch, contracted pharyngeal walls, raised larynx. It is often the case that 'head' register vowels follow historically voiceless obstruents, whereas 'chest' register vowels follow historically voiced obstruents.

In this section I shall argue that distinctions of register are made by varying the volume of the pharynx in the following ways:

(1) a. by protracting the root of the tongue b. by lowering the larynx c. by retracting the root of the tongue d. by raising the larynx

(a) and (c) correspond to opposite values of the feature [ATR/RTR] (advanced tongue root); whereas (b) and (d) correspond to opposite values of the feature [LL/RL] (lowered larynx). I shall also provide an explanation for the cooccurrence of pharyngeal and laryngeal effects in the implementation of register distinctions. Henceforth, I will use the following notation: [ATR] will denote the value [+ ATR], [RTR] will denote the value [- ATR]; [LL] will denote the value [+ LL] and [RL] will denote the value [- LL]. I will not address the question of whether in fact [RTR] is a value distinct from [-ATR] or [RL] a value distinct from [-LL].

1.1 Phonetic independence: [ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL]

Register distinctions can be made phonetically on the basis of tongue root advancement alone or larynx lowering alone. This is not easy to see because, while most descriptions of languages with register are impressionistic, the acoustic effect of both mechanisms is similar; for instance, both larynx lowering and tongue root advancement cause a lowering of Fl. The problem is compounded by the fact that languages may distinguish register by combining the two mechanisms. For example, Lindau's (1975) X-rays show that the 'chest' register in Igbo is produced by simultaneously advancing the root of the tongue and lowering the larynx, whereas the 'head' register is produced by simultaneously retracting the root of the tongue and raising the larynx. The combination of tongue root advancement with larynx lowering led Lindau to unify these modifications into a single phonological feature: [expanded pharynx], a feature that is phonetically implemented in a number of (acoustically related) ways. Nonetheless, the two modifications can occur independently of one another, at least phonetically and perhaps phonologically as well.

1. 1.1 The feature [A TR/R TR]. Jakobson et al. (1 965) had thought of the pharynx as having the same phonological function as the lips: that of effecting a downward shift of a perceptually crucial set of formants, but Stewart's (1 967a) X-ray study of the register contrasts in Akan established that root of the tongue can be manipulated independently of the lips or tongue dorsum to widen the pharynx. Halle & Stevens (1969) recognised



On pharynx-larynx interactions 115 the validity of Stewart's evidence and proposed a new pharyngeal feature 'advanced-unadvanced tongue root' ([ATR/RTR]). Lindau's (1975) X- ray and acoustic study suggests that the principal protractor of the tongue root is the posterior portion of the genioglossus muscle, which is also important in implementing the value [+ high] (Perkell 1971; Westbury 1979). The principal retractors of the tongue root are the hyoglossus and the styloglossus muscles (Perkell 1971 ; Westbury 1979); though the lower pharyngeal constrictors may also be involved.2 These muscles do not move the larynx.3 The most reliable acoustic cue of tongue root advancement is a lowered Fl, which is caused both by the larger volume of the pharynx and by the fact that protracting the tongue root increases the bulk of the tongue in the mouth, which gives a generally raised prepalatine dorsum. Retraction of the root of the tongue raises Fl while depressing F2 and F3. Hence [ATR] vowels are acoustically non-compact whereas [RTR] vowels are compact (see Kingston 1987). A number of studies (e.g. Jackson 1988; Ladefoged 1980) demonstrate the existence of an inverse correspondence between pharyngeal constriction and vowel height. This inverse correspondence explains why the very high sonorants such as glides ([w], and especially [y]4) are often classed as [ATR]. The movement of the tongue root usually preserves the perceived primary height of vowels in such a way that a mid [ATR] vowel is still perceived as mid, but is heard as 'slightly higher' or 'more close' than the corresponding mid [RTR] vowel. Often [ATR] vowels are transcribed as [i u e o 3] in contrast with [RTR] vowels, which are transcribed [i u c c a] ([3] is a raised low vowel which is sometimes transcribed [A] or [X]). The transcription [ATR] [i] vs. [RTR] [i], [ATR] [e] vs. [RTR] [?], etc. is meant to capture the slight variations in perceived height, but it is unfortunate that the transcription is used elsewhere to distinguish between 'peripheral and long' vs. 'centralised and short' vowels,5 usually referred to as distinctions of tenseness (as in English). The literature on register often uses the terms ' tense' vs. 'lax' to refer to the pharynx' but their meaning in this context has nothing to do with vowel peripherality or length.7 Since the terms 'tense' vs. 'lax' are ambiguous, I shall not use them here.

Lindau (1975) provides X-ray evidence showing that the register distinctions in the eastern Nilotic language Ateso are based on tongue root advancement alone: 'chest' register vowels are pronounced by protracting the root of the tongue, 'head' register vowels are pronounced with the tongue root in a neutral position and no vertical displacement of the larynx is observed in either register. The protraction of the tongue root in Ateso has the expected effect on tongue height. Lindau (1975: 70) describes the two registers of Ateso as follows:

There are quite large differences in tongue root position among the vowels, but the action of the posterior genioglossus to advance the tongue root is here used to bunch up the tongue in addition to tongue lifting for purposes of attaining a certain tongue height ... As this speaker does not vary the height of the larynx, the tongue root is the



116 Loren Trigo only mechanism he employs to categorise vowels into sets, and he only uses it to distinguish members of each vowel pair. The vowel harmony mechanism is thus the same as the vowel height mechanism if we take vowel height to be correlated to the height of the tongue.

1.1.2 The feature [LL/RL]. Chomsky & Halle (1968) first recognised the vertical displacement of the larynx as an independent phonological mechanism in their definition of the feature [covered]: 'covered sounds are produced with a pharynx in which the walls are narrowed and tensed and the larynx raised; uncovered sounds are produced without a special narrowing and tensing in the pharynx' (1968: 315).

I have decided to rename this feature [LL/RL] (larynx lowering). The muscles which elevate and depress the larynx are respectively the suprahyoid muscles (stylohyoid, digastric and especially mylohyoid, geniohyoid) and the infrahyoid muscles (sternothyroid). As mentioned above, the effect (on vocalic formant structure) of lowering the larynx is similar to that of advancing the root of the tongue: all formants, including Fl, become lower. Hence, [LL] vowels are acoustically flat, whereas [RL] vowels are non-flat.8 Unfortunately, there is little instrumental evidence that register distinctions can be made on the basis of larynx lowering without an accompanying advancement of the root of the tongue. Tucker's (1975: 49) description of his X-rays of the register distinction in the vowels of southern Sudan languages, Shilluk, Dinka and Nuer (southern Nilotic) suggests that larynx lowering plays an important role in the distinction. Note that tongue root advancement is apparently not observed:

As regards the physiological aspect of these two forms of voice production ... the most noticeable aspect of the 'squeezed' voice was the pinching together of the pillars of the fauces and the lowering of the velum (without, however, allowing access to the nasal cavity). In the 'breathy' voice the velum was raised and the fauces furled back. The larynx was also lowered perceptibly. The result was an increased resonance cavity at the back of the mouth. I was unable to examine the glottis itself, but gather from subsequent information that its shape is as for whispered voice production.

The data given so far suggest that the features [ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL] are phonetically independent. Below I consider the question of their phonological independence. We shall see that the evidence, though suggestive, is not conclusive. A major complicating factor is the relation of [RL/LL] to the laryngeal features.

1.2 Phonetic and phonological independence: [RL/LL] and laryngeal features

The register distinctions based on [RL/LL] involve modifications not only in the vertical positioning of the larynx as a whole but also in the size



On pharynx-larynx interactions 117

of the glottis: the [RL] vowels are usually 'squeezed' or 'pressed '" voiced, the [LL] vowels tend to be breathy voiced. It is therefore important to determine that the pharyngeal modifications observed in languages with [RL/LL] are not simply a mechanical consequence of distinctive modifications in vocal cord positioning. In other words, I must establish that the register distinction in these languages is based on pharyngeal rather than laryngeal phonatory features (i.e. [constricted glottis] and [spread glottis]). This is particularly important because there are attested cases where the phonatory changes that accompany the register distinctions are phonological, e.g. Akha. This language has two registers, which Wyss (1976: 152) describes as involving pharyngeal and laryngeal modifications (no X-rays provided):

Low [chest] register results from a relaxed pharyngeal and faucal apparatus, expanding the entrance to the throat into an open pharyngeal cavity. The acoustic effect is that of a 'hollow' or 'soft' vowel quality accompanied by a free flow of pharyngeal air in varying degrees of 'breathiness' depending on the position and configuration of the vowel articulators. High [head] register results from a contraction and tight- ening of the faucal pillars and pharyngeal walls, reducing the volume of resonance of the narrowed pharyngeal cavity. This results in a tense, restrained and 'choked' acoustic effect. A non phonemic glottal stop always occurs with high register in pre-pausal position, but may or may not occur on low register.

The laryngeal involvement is phonological. The 'head' register vowels cause adjacent voiceless stops to become 'fortis' (Wyss 1976: 158; I assume 'fortis' here means preglottalised).10 This is evidence that the vowels are phonologically [+constricted glottis].

[RL/LL] and laryngeal features must be phonetically independent in so far as changes in the state of the glottis can be effected without changing the vertical laryngeal positioning and vice versa. They are phonologically independent in so far as languages exploit the above-mentioned phonetic independence to make phonological distinctions.

There is evidence that the vertical displacement of the larynx is not a mere mechanical consequence of the position and tension of the vocal cords. Though this is not exactly the claim made in Halle & Stevens (1971), they predict that vertical laryngeal displacement is predictable from vocal cord tension and positioning. If this claim is correct, then there will be no independence between the laryngeal features and the feature [RL/LL]. Halle & Stevens make a three-way distinction among glottalic ([+ constricted vocal cords]) obstruents, corresponding to the three possible combinations of values for the laryngeal features [stiff vocal cords] and [slack vocal cords]. In their system, ejectives (segments where the larynx is forcefully elevated) and implosives (segments where the larynx is forcefully depressed) are exhaustively distinguished in terms of their intrinsic laryngeal features:



118 Loren Trigo

(2) implosive preglottalised ejective spread vocal cords - - - constricted vocal cords + + + stiff vocal cords - + slack vocal cords - +

But the elevation of the larynx is not predictable from its internal state. A prediction made by the system in (2) is that ejectives should all be voiceless and implosives should all be voiced. This prediction is contradicted by a few languages, including Igbo (Maddieson 1984), which has two labial implosives that differ only in that one of them is voiced and the other voiceless. A second prediction made by the system in (2) is that ejectives should always elevate the pitch of a following vowel whereas implosives should have no pitch effect. But Kingston (1985: 163-176) has shown that the degree of vocal cord tension during the production of ejectives and implosives is not universally predictable: in Tigrinya, ejectives elevate the pitch of a following vowel (hence are pronounced with stiff vocal cords) whereas in Quiche they lower it (hence are pronounced with slack vocal cords); similarly, differences in periodicity and spectral shape indicate that Niger-Congo implosives are pronounced with stiff vocal cords whereas Hausa implosives are pronounced with slack vocal cords. The existence of such contrasts suggests that the vertical displacement of the larynx is not a mechanical consequence of the intrinsic laryngeal features.

If [RL/LL] is a feature phonologically independent of the laryngeal features, we should find languages which exploit this independence in making phonological distinctions. Evidence supporting this claim is weak. In the Bushman language !X66 pharyngealised vowels can be breathy or glottalised and similarly the non-pharyngealised vowels. The pharyngealised vowels are [RL], at least phonetically. According to Traill (1985), vowels in !Xo6 can be (1) modal, (2) glottalised, (3) breathy, (4) pharyngealised, (5) breathy-pharyngealised and (6) glottalised- pharyngealised:

(3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 h ? S hs ?s

v v v v v v RL + + + constricted glottis - - + - + spread glottis + - + -

That the pharyngealised vowels are [RL] is suggested by the marked vertical laryngeal movement during the production of the so-called 'strident' vowels. Phonologically, 'strident' vowels are breathy-pharyngealised: they pattern with breathy vowels ('strident' vowels fill the gap of breathy-pharyngealised vowels in the vowel typology chart) and with pharyngealised vowels (both pharyngealised and 'strident' vowels must be [+back] vowels). Traill's X-ray tracings show that during the



On pharynx-larynx interactions 1 19 production of 'strident' vowels the larynx is elevated and pressed against the epiglottis. The 'stridency' is due to an aryepiglottic constriction through which the air flows causing vigorous vibration of the arytenoid cartilages and epiglottis:

With one qualification, the articulatory posture ... is the same as that involved in closing the laryngeal sphincter for non-linguistic purposes such as coughing. The well-known purse-string effect of the contraction of the aryepiglottic muscle and its extension, the transverse arytenoid muscle, pulls the tips of the arytenoid together and upwards to meet the cushion of the epiglottis, and adducts the false vocal folds (1985: 78).

The weakness of the evidence lies in the fact that Traill's X-ray tracings of the 'strident' vowels also show a retraction of the root of the tongue;" hence, it is not altogether clear that [RL] is the distinctive register feature (as opposed to [RTR]). In order to make a stronger case for the independence of the feature [RL/LL] from laryngeal features one would have to find a language that distinguished modal and breathy vowels in two registers based exclusively on [RL/LL]. However, as already mentioned, there are relatively few X-ray tracings of register contrasts, most descriptions being impressionistic. To establish the matter con- clusively more data will be needed.

One might object that if [RL/LL] and the laryngeal features are independent, as proposed here, then the fact that [RL/LL] register distinctions tend to cooccur with changes in phonation becomes mys- terious, but an explanation of this tendency is readily available. Despite their functional independence, there is a mechanical link between pharynx and larynx. It appears that the pharyngeal musculature can mechanically affect the size of the glottis. To neutralise this effect the intrinsic laryngeal musculature must be activated. Experiments conducted by Shin et al. (1981)12 show that it is possible to open/close the glottis after removal of the intrinsic laryngeal musculature by activating the part of the pharyngeal musculature which also helps depress/elevate the larynx.'3 The laryngeal constriction in these experiments is apparently not at the level of the vocal folds but at the level of the aryepiglottic folds which are involved in gestures of protective closure. The mechanical link between pharynx and larynx explains why [LL] vowels tend to be breathy voiced while [RL] vowels tend to be pressed voiced.

1.3 Phonological independence: [RL/LL] and [ATR/RTRJ An argument for differentiating the features [ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL] can be made upon consideration of the ' tense' vowels in Turkana (Dimmendaal 1983). According to Dimmendaal's description Turkana has eleven basic vowels, four non-low vowels that belong to the 'head' register [i U E zD], four non-low vowels that belong to the 'chest' register [i u e o], and a low vowel which is always a 'head' register, the vowel [a].



120 Loren Trigo

In addition, Turkana exhibits two 'tense' vowels [eo], which do not classify either as 'head' or as 'chest' register.

The register distinction in Turkana is arguably based on [RL/LL]. If the register contrast of a language is phonatory, changes in register will be reflected consistently in breathy vs. pressed voice type changes. If the phonatory changes associated with register are sporadic, this is an indication that the changes are not intentional and are caused by the pharyngeal musculature and its mechanical link to the larynx. Like many eastern Nilotic languages, Turkana exhibits a register contrast which is based on a combination of pharyngeal cavity volume and phonatory type. However, Manuela Noske (personal communication) reports that the use of breathy/pressed voice to effect register distinctions in this language is sporadic (when present). This being the case, I suggest that register in this language is based on a pharyngeal rather than on a laryngeal feature. But which pharyngeal feature is involved? I have no X-ray data on this language, but the 'chest' register vowels of this language tend to be breathy'4 (the 'head' register vowels tend to be pressed voiced). There is no evidence that implementing the pharyngeal value [ATR] causes the vocal cords to spread. Let us therefore assume for a moment that the register distinction in Turkana is based on [RL/LL].

Phonologically 'tense' vowels are simultaneously [ATR] and [RL]. This is evident from Dimmendaal's description and from their historical derivation. According to Dimmendaal 'tense' vowels are pronounced with a protracted tongue root and a 'tense' pharyngeal apparatus which produces a harsh, pressed voice.'5 The distribution of 'tense' vowels in Turkana is not predictable, but when they do occur, it is immediately after a glide. It is crucial to note that in Turkana, glides trigger a harmony rule: vowels following a glide may be of 'head' or 'chest' register, but vowels preceding a glide are always of 'chest' register:

(4) i-ce 'to carve' i-syEn 'pity' i-kam 'to catch' i-wap 'to follow' i -j k 'to be good' i-wok 'to carry'

Why do glides have this effect? Glides are pronounced with a higher tongue body position than are any of the vowels. Since, as already mentioned above, the feature [ATR] seems to be intimately related to tongue height, it appears that the feature which the glides are spreading is the feature [ATR], which glides possess redundantly by virtue of their articulatory configuration. Returning to the question of the 'tense' vowels, it appears that the 'tense' vowels arise when a glide spreads its [ATR] feature onto a following 'head' register (i.e. [RL]) vowel. Examples of such spreading occur incidentally in the grammar and specific lexical items. The target vowel is always a mid vowel:



On pharynx-larynx interactions 121 (5) ATR ATR

iry 0 - iry 9 'tobe black' I I

RL RL

Synchronically, a low vowel following a glide optionally becomes a 'tense' vowel probably by a similar process. In addition to becoming 'tense', the low vowel assimilates the values [aback, -low] from the preceding glide:

(6) a-kwap a-kwop 'land' -wa wo ' stand' -dyal dyel 'persuade' -yat) yet 'skin'

Other 'mixed' register vowels arise in the build-up of words and I will not consider them here. What is important is that 'tense' vowels are 'mixed' register vowels, which are impossible to describe unless [ATR/RTR] and [LL/RL] are distinct features."6

In conclusion, I have distinguished two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR] 'advanced tongue root' and [LL/RL] 'lowered larynx' in addition to the laryngeal phonatory features [constricted glottis] and [spread glottis]. The basis of the distinction between the feature [LL/RL] and the laryngeal features is largely phonetic. The evidence for their phonological independence is not conclusive. The cooccurrence of pharyngeal and laryngeal effects has been attributed to a mechanical link between pharynx and larynx. The distinction between [ATR/RTR] and [LL/RL] has been shown to be useful in the description of 'mixed' register vowels in Turkana.

2 The pharynx and the place component

Having distinguished two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR] and [LL/RL], I consider now their relationship to the other phonological features. I will argue that in a certain class of segments, e.g. dorso- pharyngeal uvulars, the pharyngeal component (which groups the features [ATR/RTR] and [LL/RL]) is independent of the primary place component which groups together the other place articulators; to wit, the lips, tongue blade and tongue dorsum. Following a proposal by Clements (1989) distinguishing the primary (or consonantal) place component from the secondary (or vocalic) place component, I suggest that the pharyngeal component of dorso-pharyngeal uvulars in some languages is a secondary place component. As the evidence hinges on the analysis of uvulars, I shall begin with a general discussion of these segments.



122 Loren Trigo

2.1 Dorsal uvulars

Uvulars are not a homogeneous set of segments from the point of view of articulation. There are languages where uvulars appear to be pure dorsals; in other languages uvulars appear to have a pharyngeal component:

(7) Dorsal uvulars Dorso-pharyngeal uvulars

[-high] [+back] [RTR] [RL]

Dorsum Dorsum Pharynx

1 place 1 place 2 place

[q] [q]=[ki]

Evidence that uvularisation is not necessarily caused by assimilation of a pharyngeal feature can be gathered from the way uvulars arise in languages with register distinctions based on pharyngeal volume. For example, in Turkana the voiceless velar obstruent /k/ obligatorily becomes what is described as a 'uvular' obstruent when it stands next to a tautosyllabic [o], [o] or [a] (when surrounded on both sides by [o], [3] or [a] the uvular becomes a fricative; syllable boundaries are marked with a period) :17

(8) rji-kayo [rji. qa. yo] 'myrsine africana (tree)' PL

lu-ka-bob-o-k [lu . qiaa. boq] 'the sweet ones' e-kaalees [?e. qa . lees] ' ostrich' ti-ka-lbk-a-k [i)i. qa . 13. qaq] ' trapper' a-kamu [a. xa . mu] 'dry season' rji-kodyo [ni . qod . yo] 'tax' PL

e-kod [e .qod] 'tax' PL

lo-kori [lo . Xo. ri] 'Lokori village' a-bokok [a. bo . yoq] 'turtle' OI-k3rI [rJI. q3 . rI] ratel' PL

e-k3rI [E. qz . ri] 'ratel' SG

na-bakobok [na . b. X. bzq] ' elephant shrew' a-kooki-aan-ut [a . Xoo . kyaa . nut] 'loneliness'

[k] remains unaltered if the above condition does not hold:

(9) a-kiru [a. ki. ru] ' rain ' a-makuk [a . ma . kuk] 'stool' ri-keno [ji. ke. no] 'fireplace' PL

i)a-kima-k [ia . ki . maq] 'old women' a-rukum [a. ru. kum] 'cough' a-kEpu [a.kc.pu] 'vein' e-risik [e. ri . sik] 'anti-witchcraft charm' na-kituk [na . ki . tuk] 'mouth'




The assimilation of the pharyngeal register feature is irrelevant to uvularisation because both 'head' register [o] and 'chest' register [o] are capable of causing uvularisation when the structural condition of the rule is met. Chomsky & Halle (1988) propose that uvulars are [-high, + back] segments. It appears that in Turkana the value [-high] is crucial to uvularisation. There is a rule in Turkana whereby a sequence of [u] or [i] + consonant is optionally expanded with [w] if [u] precedes or with [y] if [i] precedes: [rji-keno]-> [r3i-kyeno] 'fireplaces'; [e-lupe] -- [e-lupwe] 'clay'. When this happens [k] does not become uvular: [ri-turkana] -- [rji- turkwana] 'the Turkana people' vs. [e-turkana-it] -- [e-turqanait] 'a Turkana person'. There is also a tendency not to uvularise [k] after a high vowel independently of this rule, though it does not seem to be an absolute prohibition: [E-ZadoZot], [rji-kadoZot] 'monkey' SG, PL; [a-mok-at], [rja- mok] 'shoe' SG, PL; [e-Xor-ot], [ni-kor] 'Samburu' SG, PL; [louko] 'in (this) lung'. A possible explanation of these facts is that the velars fail to become uvular because they optionally assimilate the [+high] value of a neighbouring [Ii y] or [u o w]. This would entail that uvulars in Turkana are [-high].18

Additional evidence that uvularisation may not involve pharyngealisation can be gathered from the behaviour of uvulars in Akha. There is a rule in the language whereby the velar fricative [x] becomes what is described as a 'backed velar fricative' [X] preceding [o ic a] ('head' register is indicated with a superscript '"'; 'chest' register is left unmarked):

(10) 'chest' register xhx 'to leave vacant' Xh3lb 'trough' xh* 'classifier for doors' ZhumE 'mouth'

'head' register x?* 'to break' 3i 'to draw water' xxS 'to dig with finger' baXoS 'skin'

It is clear that the pharyngeal register feature remains orthogonal to the uvularisation process because [o :c a] each have contrasting 'head' and 'chest' register realisations, both of which cause [x] to become [X]. The data given in this section thus suggest that some types of uvulars are dorsal, [-high]. If this is correct, it should be possible to provide these dorsal uvulars with a pharyngeal component. Pharyngealised uvulars have been described in some Caucasian languages (cf. Catford 1983).

2.2 Dorso-pharyngeal uvulars

In other languages, uvulars appear to have a pharyngeal component. It is these dorso-pharyngeal uvulars which provide interesting information about the relation of the pharyngeal features to the rest of the segmental features. The pharyngeal component of these uvulars remains behind after a process of oral depletion has removed the point of articulation features of the uvular. This suggests that the pharyngeal component does not effect

5 P1H0 8



124 Loren Trigo point of articulation. Two languages showing the peculiar behaviour of dorso-pharyngeal uvulars under oral depletion are discussed below.

The northern dialects of Malay (Teoh 1988) have undergone a process of oral depletion which removes the point of articulation of word-final consonants. The degree to which oral depletion applies depends on the dialect, as shown below:

( 11) Standard Kelantan Terengganu Kedah p ?asap ?asa? ?asa? ?asap 'smoke' t kilat kila? kila? kilat 'lightning' k masa? mast)? mas)? masa? ' cook' s balas balah balah balaih 'finish' f negatef negatih ' negative' m ?alem alir ?alerj ?alem ' pious' n sabon saboxj saboij sabon ' soap ' i) dukoxj dukoij dukoU dukot ' carry' I batal bata: bata: betai ' cancel' r jujo: jujo: jujo jujoS ' sincere' h yumah yumih yum5h HumTh 'house'

Let us discuss the behaviour of non-uvular consonants first in each dialect. Standard Malay preserves all word-final consonants with the exception of /k/ and /r/. Final /k/ loses its point of articulation and becomes [?]. /r/ is realised as a voiced velar continuant [y]; /rumah/ [yumah] 'house', but in final position it undergoes oral depletion optionally and generates an empty timing slot which is filled in by the preceding vowel by compensatory lengthening: /kaper/ [kape:] 'infidel '19

Terengganu and Kelantan exhibit the following processes: final /p t k/ lose their point of articulation and become [?], final /s f/ lose their point of articulation and become [h]. The nasals /m n rj/ lose their point of articulation and become [N] (i.e. a nasal lacking a point of articulation). This [N] is realised as velar or uvular (Terengganu) or else disappears, leaving behind the trace of nasality when the preceding vowel is low (Kelantan): /?awam/ 'public', /kapan/ 'cloth shroud' and /sararj/ 'to attack' become respectively [?aw?], [kapf], [sarg] ([?awar], [kaparj], [saraij] in Terengganu). Word-final /1/ and /r/ (the latter realised as a voiced velar continuant [y]) lose their point of articulation and generate an empty timing slot which is filled by the previous vowel through compensatory lengthening. Kedah exhibits the following processes: final /k/ loses its point of articulation and becomes [?]. Final coronals, /1/ and /s/, decompose to an intermediate stage, [il] and [is] and then undergo oral depletion to become [i0] and [ih], respectively (0 is an empty slot). Clearly, Malay exhibits a tendency to orally deplete word-final consonants.

Returning to the question of the uvulars, our focus of interest is the behaviour of final /r/ in Kedah. The pronunciation of /r/ in Malay varies from dialect to dialect, ranging from a voiced velar continuant [y] in the standard, Terengganu and Kelantan dialects to a voiced uvular continuant [B] in Kedah (/rumah/ [Humah] 'house'). In Kedah, this uvular [H]




undergoes oral depletion in final position, but unlike the velar realisation of /r/ in other dialects, it does not leave behind an empty timing slot to be filled through compensatory lengthening. Instead it leaves behind a voiced pharyngeal continuant [S]; /jujoH/ -- [jujoS] 'sincere'. The contrasting behaviour of the realisations of /r/ in the dialects of Malay suggests that the uvular realisation has a pharyngeal component lacking in the velar realisation. This pharyngeal component patterns with the laryngeal and nasal component of other final segments in that it is left behind as a residue after oral depletion.20

Additional evidence for independence of the pharyngeal articulator from the point of articulation features can be gathered from the development of pharyngeals in Nootka (Jacobsen 1969). In this language pharyngeals developed from uvulars, as shown by the Nootkan corre- spondences involving these sounds:

(12) Proto-Nootkan Makah Nitinat Nootka q? q? S S

q?pa:k Sapa:k Sapa:k 'willing' *NqW? qW? S S

qW?ica:k Sica:k Sica:k 'rotten'

zaci: xaci: haci: 'deep down' *yw Xw Xw h

ciXwa: ciXwa: ciha: 'ghost'

Nootka pharyngeals have arisen in a consonantal system that distinguishes many points of articulation and in which the non-glottal stops and affricates and the sonorants occur in plain and glottalised pairs. There are the voiceless stops and affricates /p t ILc c k kw q qw S ?/, glottalised stops and affricates /p t? i c ? k? V kW? q? qW?/, voiceless fricatives in position matching all except the two frontmost voiceless stops /1 s s x xw X Zw h h/, voiced nasals and semivowels /m n w y/ and their glottalised counterparts /mi n? w2 y?/. The modern instances of /q' qw' XZW/ are largely restricted to borrowings from Makah and specialised vocabulary.

The focus of our interest is the step from Proto-Nootkan *[q?] to Nootka [S]. The change suggests a simultaneous loss of labiality and dorsality, with the pharyngeal component left behind as a residue. This simultaneous loss can be analysed in one of two ways.

One is, according to Jacobsen (1969: 142), that 'the loss of labialisation in Nootka... [is] a concomitant of the shift to a pharyngeal position of articulation due to physiological or acoustic incompatibility'. Kingston (1987) argues that such a physiological or acoustic incompatibility does not exist since pharyngealisation and labialisation are able to cooccur on one and the same segment in Ubykh.21 Other languages where pharyngealisation and labialisation do not conflict are Columbian Salish (Kinkade 1967) and Coeur d'Alene (Reichard 1938), which contrast plain and glottalised /S/ and /SW/ (see McCarthy 1989).

5-2



126 Loren Trigo An alternative explanation for the simultaneous loss of labiality and

dorsality is that like in Malay, pharyngeals in Nootka developed via an oral depletion rule which deleted the point of articulation features of Proto- Nootkan uvulars and consequently, the dorsal and labial features of the protosegment, leaving behind its pharyngeal component only.

The data presented in this section show that the pharyngeal component does not pattern with point of articulation features in that only the latter are subject to oral depletion in Malay and Nootka.

2.3 Consequences for feature geometry

The evidence of the preceding section can be interpreted in one of two ways. One is that only the anterior articulators (the lips, the tongue tip and the tongue dorsum) are place articulators, whereas the pharyngeal articulator is not. We can assume, following Clements (1985), that oral depletion deletes the place node of a segment. This makes it possible to group the pharyngeal articulator with some other articulator, e.g. the laryngeal articulator under a new laryngo-pharyngeal node. On this view, the oral depletion of a dorso-pharyngeal uvular is to be analysed as shown below:

(13) k

place 0

supra- laryngo- supra- laryngo- laryngeal pharyngeal oral laryngeal pharyngeal

[q] depletion [SJ

An alternative interpretation of the data can be made on the basis of a proposal by Clements (1989) distinguishing the primary (or consonantal) place component from the secondary (or vocalic) place component. The idea is that the pharyngeal component of dorso-uvulars is a secondary place articulator (as opposed to the primary one) and that oral depletion deletes the primary but not the secondary place articulators (I owe this suggestion to M. Kenstowicz). On this view, the oral depletion of a dorso- pharyngeal uvular is to be analysed as shown below:

(14) k i

primary secondary 0 secondary place place oral place

depletion [q] [i

There are two reasons why we want to say that uvulars in Proto-Nootka and Kedah involve a secondary pharyngeal place component. First, Clements (1989) has argued that each secondary (vocalic) place component corresponds to an articulatorily analogous primary (consonantal) place



On pharynx-larynx interactions 127 component and vice versa. For example, to the secondary pharyngeal component in pharyngealised consonants, e.g. [q] (= [ks]), corresponds the primary pharyngeal component in pure pharyngeals, e.g. [S]. If the pharyngeal component of [q] in Proto-Nootka and Kedah had been a primary place component, these languages should have exhibited pure pharyngeal consonants in their consonantal inventory. The absence of pure pharyngeals in Proto-Nootka and Kedah supports an analysis of the pharyngeal component of [q] as a secondary component. Second, if the pharyngeal component of [q] in these languages is a secondary place component, then we correctly predict that it (the pharyngeal component) will pattern after other secondary place components.

The pharyngeal place component of [q] in Kedah patterns after other secondary place components. Recall that in Kedah word-final [1] and [s] decompose to [il] and [is] and subsequently the second half of the d~phthongs undergoes oral depletion to [i0] (0 = empty timing slot) and [ih] respectively (cf. 'to cancel' and 'cockroach' in (15)). Word-final [H] is subject to a similar decomposition process: [is] decomposes to [iis], then depletes to [aS] (cf. 'infidel' and 'sand' in (15)). Changes in vowel height will not be discussed here:

(15) Standard Kelantan Terengganu Kedah al batal bata: bata: batai 'to cancel' al tabal taba: taba: tabai ' thick' as lipas lipah lipah lipaih 'cockroach' as pulas pulah pulah pulaih 'to wring' us bagos baguh bagoh bagoih 'good' us mampos mApuh mapoh mampoih 'dead' ul pikol piko piko: pikoi 'carry' ul batol bato bato: batoi ' right' ir kape: kape: kape: kapiaS 'infidel '22

ir pase: pase: pase: pasiaS ' sand'

The [a] from [s] and the [i] from [s, l] surface if the resulting diphthong is of the structure [axback][-aback]. If the structure of the resulting diphthong is [xback][aback], monophthongisation occurs, followed by shortening in closed syllables. Under the column labelled 'expected' I have given the intermediate forms occurring before the application of monophthongisation and shortening:

(16) Standard Kelantan Terengganu Kedah expected

ar lapa: lapa: lapo lapal 'hungry' [aaS] ar tika: tika: tik3 tikaS ' mat' ur jujo: jujo: jujo jujos ' sincere' [oaS] ur talo: talo: talo taloS 'egg' is habes habih abih habeh 'to finish' [eih] is kikes kikih kikih kikeh 'to scrape' il sambel sambe: sambe: sambe: 'while' [ei0] il jahel jahe: jahe: jahe: 'irreligious'



128 Loren Trigo It is tempting to unify the decomposition of final [1], [s] and [s] in

Kedah. To do so one must assume that the [a] in [ai] is a 'pharyngeal' component of [s] while the [i] in [i^0] and [ih] is a 'coronal' component in [1] and [s]. These 'pharyngeal' and 'coronal' components can be grouped together under a single node: the secondary (or vocalic) place node. This grouping allows decomposition to manipulate the 'pharyngeal' and 'coronal' components simultaneously as required by the data. On this view, decomposition and oral depletion in Kedah are to be analysed as shown in (17). Node 1 stands for primary place node and node 2 stands for secondary place node. Decomposition inserts a vowel before the relevant consonant and spreads the secondary place features (node 2) of the consonant onto the vowel. Oral depletion deletes the primary place features (node 1) of the final consonant:

(17) a i s a i s a i

1 2 1 1 2 1 - 12 0 1 V decompo- fiV oral k v a s sition a i s depletion a i h

i a k i a k ia

1 2 1 - 121 12 0 i V decompo- I\I oral I \ i i sition i a 1% depletion i a i

The data presented in this section supports an analysis of the pharyngeal component as a secondary place articulator of the uvulars of certain languages.

3 Voiced obstruents, laryngeals and the pharynx

In this section I shall discuss how the pharynx may become involved in the production of consonants that are not obviously pharyngealised: voiced obstruents and laryngeals.

3.1 Voiced obstruents

The relation between obstruent voicing and pharyngeal activity is evident in a number of languages. It has been proposed that certain basic changes in the vowel systems in the languages of Southeastern Asia have come about historically as the result of the influence of consonants that were initial in the syllable. In what Haudricourt (1946, 1965) has termed the Mon-Khmer shift, voiceless stops were associated with a 'tenseness' of voice quality in the following vowel, voiced stops with 'looseness', and when the voiced and voiceless stops fell together the voice quality (or register) contrast in the vowels became phonemically significant. The




register contrast can be found among the vowels of many Mon-Khmer languages today and Phillips (1973) reports that in at least one of them, Mnong (South Bahnaric), the register of vowels varies according to the preceding stop in the manner predicted by Haudricourt.23 Other languages which have been claimed to display a similar phenomenon are the Buchan dialect of Scots (Kohler 1984) and the southern dialects of Akan (Stewart 1967b). The case of Madurese (Stevens 1968) detailed below will give the reader an idea of the phenomenon in question.

Madurese, a West Indonesian language related to Javanese, has eight surface vowels which divide into two groups corresponding to higher and lower vowels. The higher vowels are 'chest' register and the lower vowels are 'head' register:

(18) ' chest' 'head' - back + back - back + back

+ high i i u

+low a

The 'chest' register vowels occur after the voiced and the 'heavy' aspirated obstruent stops /b d dc g pfi d tfi t k7/. The 'head' register vowels occur word initially and after the remaining consonants i.e. /p t t 4 k m n p re s I r (w) y ?/. Suffixal vowel alternations conditioned by the preceding root consonant determine the following vowel correspon- dences:

(19) a. kapfiuct-ct 'his water buffalo' a - X

sznar-ra 'its rays' b. xj--kiuy-i 'to use' E - i

rjaijkRi?-i 'to embroider' 1J-Yp3y-6 'to provoke'

C. J`Y-lhu 'to the south' 3 - u la3 'south'

The distribution of 'chest' vs. 'head' register vowels in Madurese words suggests that the vocalic register feature is derived by assimilation to the preceding consonant.

Some of the evidence suggests that the assimilated feature is [LL/RL]. Phonetically, the 'heavy' stops of Madurese are [LL] in that they resemble those of Javanese (K. Stevens personal communication), which have been described as [LL]. According to Catford (1977), the 'heavy' stops of Javanese [pfi tf kf] are pronounced with the larynx quite lowered and the vocal cords relaxed and open at the cartilaginous part (this state persists into the following vowel, giving it a lower pitch and breathy phonation (cf. Dudas 1968: 6-7)). Like the 'heavy' stops of Javanese, the 'heavy' stops of Madurese lower the pitch of a following vowel (K. Stevens personal communication). Voiced obstruents can also be argued to be phonetically [LL]. Westbury (1979: 198) states:



130 Loren Trigo As early as 1937, Hudgins and Stetson proposed that larynx lowering during the production of voiced stops would effectively maintain voicing during their closures. Virtually all studies since that time which have monitored vertical position of the larynx relative to the production of the voicing contrast among stops agree that the larynx is generally lower in the neck for voiced than voiceless stops ... However, as Riordan has pointed out (1978), a lower larynx position for a voiced stop in and of itself is of no use in initiating or maintaining voicing during its closure. Rather, the larynx can function as a voicing mechanism only if it lowers during the stop closure itself, since movement of this sort increases the volume of the cavity above the glottis and will thereby absorb part of the ongoing transglottal flow necessary for voicing.

Other facts suggest that the feature involved in Madurese might be [ATR/RTR]. Phonetically, voiced obstruent stops are [ATR] (the [ATR] value helps maintain voicing during closure: cf. Westbury's 1979 X-ray tracings of voiced obstruent stops in English). A problem with this approach is that it is not clear that the 'heavy' stops are [ATR] (they are phonetically voiceless during their occlusion). However, Stevens (1966) argues that the 'heavy ' stops were voiced historically (synchronically, they lower the pitch of following vowels); so it is possible that they are phonologically [ATR].

If the voiced and 'heavy' obstruents are marked for some pharyngeal feature (say, the feature [ATR/RTR]), we can assume that the distribution of 'head' and 'chest' register vowels follows from Harmony, a rule which, as stated in (20), spreads the pharyngeal feature of voiced and 'heavy' obstruents to the immediately following string of oral sonorants:

(20) Harmony (multi-targeted)

[ATR]

[-nas] [-nas1 +sonJ

Evidence that a pharyngeal register feature is being spread can be gathered from the typology of blockers of Harmony. These are either voiceless obstruents (T, S) or nasals (N):

(21) transparent (L, G) opaque (T, S, N) tfRil ' tongue' abysso ' wash' byrxs 'health' p%RYsa 'language' buwx 'fruit' bxta ' stone) diyy 'here' k%iman 'weapon'

Blocking reflects an incompatibility between the spreading 'chest' register feature ([LL] or [ATR]) and the segment in question. Voiceless obstruents are incompatible because the values [LL] [ATR] foster voicing. That nasals are incompatible is apparent in Lindau's (1975) X-ray tracings,




which show extra raising of the velum in the case of 'chest' register vowels. Other data point to affinity between nasals and the 'head' register. Some investigators (e.g. Delattre 1965, cited in Entenman 1977: 21) have proposed that pharyngealisation (i.e. 'head' register) enhances the perception of nasality by producing two resonating chambers (the lower pharyngeal cavity and the naso-pharynx) whose resonances are close enough together to cancel each other and reduce the force of the first formant. This affinity might explain why in Dioula D'Odienne (Bra- connier 1986) 'head' register vowels nasalised historically before hetero- syllabic nasals, while 'chest' register vowels failed to do so. Nasality and the 'head' register are also articulatorily related: at least one of the muscles (i.e. palatopharyngeous) that constricts the pharynx can also lower the soft palate (Lieberman & Blumstein 1988: 120).

3.2 Laryngeals

Another type of consonant which may involve the pharynx (in particular the feature [LL/RL]), even though pharyngealisation may not be evident, is the group which includes laryngeal consonants. Lindau (1975: 134) reports that the lower pharynx can be active in the production of some [h]s and [?]s:

The width of the pharynx is smaller for [h] than for surrounding vowels ... but the vertical position of the larynx seems to be the same as that of the vowels ... in the production of at least one type of glottal stop the pharynx is considerably constricted and the larynx higher (Lindqvist 1969).

According to Lindqvist (1969, 1972) there are two different kinds of laryngeal constriction: one at the level of the vocal folds and one higher up at the level of the aryepiglottic folds. The latter constriction can be seen in Lindqvist's pictures of a phonetician's glottal stop taken through a fibreoptic laryngoscope. Catford (1983) reports that in a number of Caucasian languages, pharyngeal approximants [h Si] and laryngeals [h ?] contrast phonemically with the aryepiglottal approximants [H i] and stop [?]; the 'strident' vowels described by Traill (see above) involve a similar aryepiglottal constriction. The aryepiglottic folds extend from the sides of the epiglottis to the apexes of the arytenoid cartilages. The role of aryepiglottic closure is basically protective (as in swallowing) and is effected by the aryepiglottic muscles within the folds, the oblique arytenoid muscles and the thyroarytenoid muscles. I have associated aryepiglottic closure with the feature [RL/LL] (see above).

Given the pharyngeal involvement in their production, aryepiglottal laryngeals will be expected to pattern phonologically with pharyngeals as do laryngeals in some languages, e.g. Semitic (cf. McCarthy 1989). However, the claim that the laryngeals which pattern after pharyngeals are aryepiglottal has not been substantiated.



132 Loren Trigo

4 Conclusion

I have argued for the existence of two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR] 'advanced tongue root' and [LL/RL] 'lowered larynx' independent of the laryngeal features. The distinction between the feature [LL/RL] and the laryngeal features is drawn by establishing their phonetic independence. Evidence for their phonological independence is not conclusive. The cooccurrence of pharyngeal and laryngeal effects is attributed to a mechanical link between pharynx and larynx. The distinction between [ATR/RTR] and [LL/RL] proves useful in the description of 'mixed' register vowels in Turkana. Pharyngeal features are shown to be independent of the so-called primary place features. It is argued that they classify as secondary place features. Finally, it is shown that the pharynx (in particular the feature [LL/RL]) may become involved in the articulation of voiced obstruents and laryngeals.

NOTES

* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to M. Halle, D. Steriade, M. Kenstowicz, K. Stevens and J. McCarthy, all of whom spent long hours discussing this paper with me. All errors are exclusively mine.

[1] According to Gregerson (1976), tongue root position constitutes the primary element in the register contrast of many Mon-Khmer languages. Vocal cord positioning (breathy vs. modal voice or modal vs. pressed voice) seems to con- stitute the primary acoustic cue to the register contrasts of the Chinese minority languages Wa and Jingpho (cf. Maddieson & Ladefoged 1985; Maddieson & Hess 1986). Pitch constitutes the primary acoustic cue in the register contrast of Kammu (Svantesson 1983), a Mon-Khmer language.

[2] Gauffin & Sundberg (1978) speculate that the lower pharyngeal constrictors are also involved in bringing about a lateral narrowing of the pharynx observed during the production of pharyngeal sounds.

[3] According to Westbury (1979) the stylohyoid and the posterior belly of the digastric could perhaps retract the root of the tongue while elevating the larynx simultaneously.

[4] [y] classifies as an [ATR] segment in Akan (Clements 1981) and Turkana (see below).

[5] Peripheral vowels deviate from the vowel [a], which defines the neutral position for vowels, whereas centralised vowels approach [a].

[6] Much of the literature dealing with register uses the terms 'tense-lax' voice to refer to the state of the pharyngeal walls and the larynx - not to qualities of peripherality or length - e.g. Haudricourt (1965), Dimmendaal (1983), Tucker (1975), Stewart (1967a), Laver (1980), Maddieson (1984) and Ladefoged (1975), among others. For example, Stewart notes that 'head' register vowels in Akan are pronounced in a 'strangled' way. Dimmendaal calls 'tense' those vowels which are pronounced with tension in the pharynx (see further in the text). Finally, Tucker (1975: 46) notes: 'it has been established in African languages, both by Stewart and by us that by far the greater 'tension-1 ' occurs with ['head' register] i and u etc., the so-called 'lax-2' vowels'. In this quote, the term ' tension- I ' relates to the pharynx, whereas the term 'lax-2' refers to peripherality and length.

[7] The peripheral-centralised distinction associated with 'tenseness' and 'laxness' is irrelevant to many African languages with register based on [ATR]. However,



On pharynx-larynx interactions 133 pharyngealisation ([RTR]) does tend to have an acoustic effect similar to that of vowel centralisation in some Caucasian languages. This is due to a peculiar dis- tortion of the tongue, which is similar to that caused by a common type of American r. X-ray tracings (cf. Catford 1983) show that the tongue root bulges backwards into the pharynx, while a depression is formed in the dorsal surface of the tongue approximately opposite the uvula, with a further upward bulge further forward on the tongue.

[8] In some languages it appears that Fl is not the only acoustic factor which distinguishes between registers. In Akyem, for example; 'chest' register [i u] have lower Fl than 'head' register [i o], but at the same time 'chest' register [e o] have a lower Fl than 'head' register [i U] (see Lindau (1975: 40). Lindau's X-ray shows that the register distinction in this language is effected by dis- placements of the tongue root and larynx.

[9] I use the term 'pressed' or 'squeezed voice' to refer to a type of phonation which is glottalised and of a higher pitch. I follow Halle & Stevens (1971) in reserving the term 'creaky voice' to refer to a type of phonation which is glottalised and of a lower pitch.

[10] In Akha the 'head' register has the following characteristics: the vowels are pronounced with narrowed pharyngeal walls, raised larynx and pressed voice, and in addition they are centralised [a io], etc., shorter in duration and of a normal pitch; the voiceless aspirated consonants are not aspirated, the voiceless plain consonants are 'fortis' (Wyss 1976: 158). The 'chest' register has the following characteristics: the vowels are pronounced with dilated pharyngeal walls, lowered larynx and breathy voice, and in addition they are peripheral [a i u], etc. (Wyss 1976: 155, 171), longer in duration and of a lower pitch; the voiceless aspirated consonants are voiceless aspirated, the voiceless plain consonants are 'lenis'. My sources do not specify what the terms 'fortis-lenis' mean. I assume Akha distinguishes a series of plain voiceless stops from a series of voiceless aspirated stops. However, our sources call the series of plain voiceless stops 'lenis' voiced stops. It is not clear if they are essentially voiceless, like the 'lenis' voiced stops of certain English speakers.

A similar phenomenon has been observed in Igbo; cf. Lindau (1975: 133). [11] The X-ray tracings of the other pharyngealised vowels show retraction of the

root of the tongue and do not provide information about the vertical position of the larynx.

[12] The experiments conducted by Shin et al. were not performed on humans, although they assume that their results are readily extensible to human physiology. The results show that the act of closing the glottis calls into action the intrinsic laryngeal musculature, the lower pharyngeal constrictors (hyopharyngeal, thyropharyngeal, cricopharyngeal) and the suprahyoid muscles that elevate the larynx (stylohyoid, digastric and especially mylohyoid, geniohyoid). Opening the glottis involves the intrinsic laryngeal musculature and at least one of the infrahyoid muscles that lower the larynx (sternothyroid). The closure of the glottis was a protective gesture stimulated by pouring liquid into the larynx.

[13] In addition to affecting larynx height and glottal opening, the pharyngeal musculature also influences the length of the vocal cords, but since Shin et al. did not measure vocal cord tension, it is not clear how the pharyngeal musculature affects pitch, though the existence of an effect is unquestionable. In most but not all cases, stretched (longer) vocal cords are tense and vibrate at a higher pitch.

[14] 'In languages like Turkana tongue root advancing seems to produce a wide pharynx and, possibly as an articulatory correlate, breathy vowels. [-ATR] vowels in Turkana sound tense, or harsh' (Dimmendaal 1983: 27).

[15] 'Vowels with the feature [- ATR] have a hard voice phonetically. The [+ ATR] vowels normally sound somewhat breathy, but in the environment of specific [-ATR] vowels, the [+ATR] vowels with the feature [-high, -low] do not



134 Loren Trigo have this concomitant feature. Instead they are realized as tense vowels' (1983: 18). 'The tense ([+ATR]) mid vowels in Turkana seem to be due to an an- ticipation of the state of the vocal apparatus for the production of [-ATR] vowels, while a [+ATR] vowel is being produced' (1983: 29).

[16] Other types of 'mixed' register vowels have been noted to exist, but it is not clear how these other types should be analysed. See Tucker (1975).

[17] Additional evidence that uvulars are [-high] in at least some languages can be gathered from Greenlandic Eskimo (Kenstowicz & Kisseberth 1979: 250). The uvularisation data presented in the text come from Dimmendaal (1983) and Noske (1987, field notes).

[18] Since in Turkana the vowels which cause uvularisation must be [+back] vowels [o z a], this suggests (but does not prove) that uvulars in Turkana are also [ + back].

[19] All the oral depletion processes of Malay should be stated in terms of the end of the syllable rather than the end of the word because they also apply word- internally (see Teoh 1988). Compensatory lengthening applies in Malay when- ever there is an empty timing slot in coda position. These empty timing slots can be created in two ways. One is by the oral depletion of liquids. The other is by the formation of prenasalised nasal and oral stops: /tombarj/ [to:mbarj] 'to fall', /gurindam/ [guri:'dam] 'a type of poetry', /barjga/ [ba:0ga] 'to be proud', /bantuk/ [ba:nto?] 'form', /bapci/ [ba:fci] 'census', /m3lj-bororj/ [m3:m-bororj] 'wholesaler', /maTj-daki/ [m5:0-daki] 'to climb' (ACTIVE), /pag- gali/ [pa:)-gali] 'digger', /mat-catu/ [m5:0-catu] 'to ration' (ACTIVE), /ma1j- papi/ [m3:-payii] 'to sing' (ACTIVE) (prenasalised nasals simplify to simple nasals). Glides do not prenasalise: /m3tr-warji/[m5ij-waiji] 'to cause to finance', /m5rj- ya-kan/ [m5rj-yak-an] 'to cause to agree for'.

[20] It should be noted that oral depletion in Malay is a family of rules, not a single rule. For discussion see Teoh (1988).

[21] The hypothesis that pharyngealisation is incompatible with labialisation is based on the assumption that the two modifications induce the same acoustic effect, and hence cannot be distinguished from one another. Kingston (1987) shows this assumption to be factually incorrect: labialisation flattens the spectrum whereas pharyngealisation makes it compact.

[22] In fact the surface pronunciation has a nasalised [a]: [kapiaS], [pasiiS]. The nasalisation is probably due to a well-known acoustic effect of pharyngeals.

[23] Vowels in the Mon-Khmer languages of Vietnam generally vary far more in relation to final consonants than to initial. Rhyming lists have been developed on the basis of which subsystems of vowels in relation to the various final consonants have been determined. The influence of final consonants on vowels has been widely noted in some of the other language groups of the Far East as well. For bibliographic information on this subject see Phillips (1973).

REFERENCES

Braconnier, C. (1986). De l'existence de trois types de nasalite a support vocalique en dioula d'odienne. Mandenkan 11. 43-70.

Catford, J. (1977). Fundamental problems in phonetics. Bloomington: Indiana Uni- versity Press.

Catford, J. (1983). Pharyngeal and laryngeal sounds in Caucasian languages. In D. Bless & J. Abbs (eds.) Vocal fold physiology: contemporary research and clinical issues. San Diego: College Hill Press.

Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.

Clements, G. N. (1981). Akan vowel harmony: a nonlinear analysis. Harvard Studies in Phonology 2. 108-177.




Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 223-250.

Clements, G. N. (1989). A unified set of features for consonants and vowels. Ms, Cornell University.

Delattre, P. (1965). La nasalite vocalique en franqais et en anglais. French Review 39. 92-109.

Dieth, E. (1932). A grammar of the Buchan dialect. Cambridge: Heffer. Dimmendaal, G. J. (1983). The Turkana language. Dordrecht: Foris. Dudas, K. M. (1968). The phonology and morphology of Modern Javanese. PhD

dissertation, University of Illinois. Entenman, George (1977). The development of nasal vowels. Austin: Department of

Linguistics, University of Austin at Texas. Gauffin J. & J. Sundberg (1978). Pharyngeal constrictions. Phonetica 35. 157-168. Gregerson, K. J. (1976). Tongue root and register in Mon Khmer. In P. Jenners (ed.)

Austro Asiatic Studies 1. Hawaii: Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications of the University of Hawaii. 323-369.

Halle, M. & K. Stevens (1969). On the feature Advanced Tongue Root. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 94. 209-215.

Halle, M. & K. Stevens (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 191. 198-213.

Haudricourt, A. G. (1946). Propagation phonetique ou evolution phonologique? Assourdissement et sonorisation d'occlusives dans l'Asie du Sud-Est. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 43. 82-92.

Haudricourt, A. G. (1965). Les mutations consonantiques des occlusives initiales en mon-khmer. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 60. 160-172.

Jackson, M. T. T. (1988). Phonetic theory and cross-linguistic variation in vowel articulation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 71.

Jacobsen, W. H. (1969). Origin of Nootka pharyngeals. IJAL 35. 125-153. Jakobson, R., C. G. M. Fant & M. Halle (1965). Preliminaries to speech analysis.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kenstowicz, M. & C. Kisseberth (1979). Generative phonology. New York: Academic

Press. Kingston, J. C. (1985). The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal

events. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Kingston, J. C. (1987). Pharyngealization in Chechen: its implication for phonetics

and phonology. Ms, Cornell University. Kinkade, M. D. (1967). Uvular-pharyngeal resonants in Interior Salish. IJAL 33.

228-234. Kohler, K. (1984). Phonetic explanation in phonology: the feature fortis/lenis.

Phonetica 41. 150-174. Ladefoged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ladefoged, P. (1980). What are linguistic sounds made of? Lg 56. 485-502. Laver, J. (1980). The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Lieberman, P. & S. Blumstein (1988). Speech physiology, speech perception and

acoustic phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindau, M. (1975). Features for vowels. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 30. 1-55. Lindqvist, J. (1969). Laryngeal mechanisms in speech. Quarterly Progress and Status

Report, Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology 2-3. 26-32. Lindqvist, J. (1972). A descriptive model of laryngeal articulation in speech. Quarterly

Progress and Status Report, Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology 2-3. 1-9.

McCarthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45. 84-108.



136 Loren Trigo McCarthy, J. (1989). Guttural phonology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maddieson, I. & S. Hess (1986). 'Tense' and 'lax' revisited: more on phonation type

and pitch in minority languages of China. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 63. 103- 110.

Maddieson, 1. & P. Ladefoged (1985). 'Tense' and 'lax' in four minority languages of China. YPh 13. 433-454.

Noske, M. (1987). Vokalharmonie im Turkana (Kenia). Magisterarbeit, University of Cologne.

Perkell, J. S. (1971). A physiology of speech production: a preliminary study of two suggested revisions of the features specifying vowels. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 102. 123-139.

Phillips, R. L. (1973). Mnong vowel variations with initial stops. Mon-Khmer Studies 4. 118-125.

Reichard, G. (1938). Coeur d'Alene. Washington D.C.: Bureau of American Eth- nology.

Riordan, C. (1978). Larynx height and voicing. JASA 64. S89. Shin, T., M. Hirano, T. Maeyama, I. Nozoe & H. Ohkubo (1981). The function of the

extrinsic laryngeal muscles. In K. Stevens & M. Hirano (eds.) Vocalfold physiology. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 171-180.

Stevens, A. M. (1966). The Madurese reflexes of Proto-Malayo Polynesian. 7ournal of the American Oriental Society 86. 147-156.

Stevens, A. M. (1968). Madurese phonology and morphology. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Stewart, J. (1967a). Tongue root position in Akan vowel harmony. Phonetica 16. 185-204.

Stewart, J. (1967b). A theory of the origin of Akan vowel harmony. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 863-865.

Svantesson, J. 0. (1983). Kammu phonology and morphology. Malmo: CWK Gleerup. Teoh, B. S. (1988). Aspects of Malay phonology revisited. PhD dissertation, University

of Illinois. Traill, A. (1985). Phonetic and phonological studies of !Xdd Bushman. Hamburg: Buske. Tucker, A. N. (1975). Voice quality in African languages. In Sayyid Hamid Hurreiz

& Herman Bell (eds.) Directions in Sundanese linguistics and folklore. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. 44-76.

Westbury, J. R. (1979). Aspects of the temporal control of voicing in consonant clusters in English. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Austin at Texas.

Wyss, P. (1976). Akha. In W. A. Smalley (ed.) Phonemes and orthography: language planning in 10 minority languages of Thailand. Canberra: Australian National University. 239-257.



Documents

On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions