Does VOT distinguish homorganic stops in Blackfoot?

Does VOT Distinguish Homorganic Stops in Blackfoot?
Donald Derrick
th
38
University of British Columbia
Algonquian Conference, UBC, Vancouver, BC, 2006
Hypothesis
Introduction
• Blackfoot has no voiced / voiceless stop contrasts.
• Blackfoot stops contrast labial, alveolar, and velar (p, t, k)
• Blackfoot contrasts homorganic “voiceless” and “preaspirated” stops (Reis-Silva, 2006)
“voiceless”
t
[t]
mootokis
[motoks]
hide/skin
• Positive Voice Onset Time (VOT) is the time, in
milliseconds, from the stop burst to voicing onset
Summary of Reis-Silva’s Analysis
Evidence For “h” as “pre-aspiration” vs. Frantz “h” as back fricative
1) No word, phrase, or morpheme ends with “h” (F & R, 1995)
2) The “h” can only occur after vowels (F & R, 1995)
3) The “h” cannot be geminate (Reis-Silva, 2006)
4) The “h” precedes short stop/affricate and “s” only {p, t, k, ts,ks, s, ss} (Reis-Silva, 2006)
5) “h” devoices preceding vowels: V V / _(-)hC (Reis-Silva, 2006)
“pre-aspirated”
ht
[ht]
aakohto'tstsii
[áakototstsi ]
it will come from the north
a.
[iipiima]
ii-pii-m-(wa)
TH-enter-F-3PS
'He came in'
ii ii / _-hC
a.
[iipiji]
ii-hpi-yi-(wa)
TH-dance-TH-3PS
'He danced'
Burst
Pre-Voicing
a.
[ipiima]
a-i-pii-m-(wa)
DUR-TH-enter-F-3PS
'He comes in'
b.
[ipiji]
a-i-hpi-yi-(wa)
DUR-TH-dance-TH-3PS
'He dances'
i i / _-hC
Pre-Aspiration
Measurements were taken from two contexts
to insure the consistency of results:
silent
45
10
48
67
170
Syllable Position
Post-Aspiration by Position
110
100
90
aspiration duration
80
70
Significant
31% of the Effect
Tools
Waveform: PRAAT 4.4.32 Mac
Tabulation: MS Excel for Mac
Analysis: JMP IN 5.1 Mac
Positions
Position
word-onset
prevocalic
intervocalic
postvocalic
Number
72
139
183
24
Mean
37.7
23.3
23.1
10.0
Std Error
1.83
1.31
1.15
3.16
PostHoc: Students’s T-Test
60
50
Position
word onse t A
prevocalic
B
intervocalic
B
postvocalic
C
40
30
20
10
4) postvocalic
3) intervocalic
2) prevocalic
0
1) word-onset
plosive stops {p, t, k}
“voiceless” & “pre-aspirated”
silent
norma l
45
preaspirated 7 5
120
pre-voiced
138
183
14
24
8
56
5
72
165
335
Storytelling Data
• Pre-voicing Counts
• Positive VOT
• A discrete measure, whether there is voicing during
closure (pre-voicing counts), may be more useful
word-internally. (Lisker, 1986)
Test 2: Do “Voiceless” stops
have more “pre-voicing” and/or
shorter VOT than“pre-aspirated”
stops? (Lisker, 1986)
Each Pair
Student's t
0.05
position
F(3,414) = 24.91, P < 0.0001
Mean
37.7
23.3
23.1
10.0
Significant
Word Onsets have greater
Aspiration
Word Onset
Intervocalic
Before “s” (postvocalic)
After “s” (prevocalic)
Special thanks to our Blackfoot Language Consultant Beatrice Bullshields.
Conclusion
pre-voiced
138
183
8
83
146
266
Hypothesis Partially
Supported
R2 (1,264) = 29.8%
2 = 109.4, P < 0.0001
Significant
30% of the Effect
R2 (3,331) = 31.3%
2 = 145.3, P < 0.0001
Recorder: Marantz PMD 660
Microphone: Countryman EMW P4F05B Lapel
Conditions: Field (Signal to Noise 35-40db)
Context: Words in Isolation, from Consultant Memory
Tokens
•VOT measures are known to be different, and
sometimes irrelevant, word internally (Lisker, 1986)
Test 2
intervocalic
postvocalic
prevocalic
word onse t
Consultant: One female Native Blackfoot Speaker
Elicitor: Donald Derrick
Date: Multiple Recordings 2005/2006
Measurements
• But, Blackfoot homorganic stops can only be
distinguished word internally because “pre-aspirated”
stops only occur there (Reis-Silva, 2006)
Test 1
Citation Data
Recorder: Marantz PMD 670
Microphone: Sennheiser E845 dynamic
Conditions: Field (Signal to Noise 35db)
Context: Storytelling from Consultant Memory
• The original VOT studies, and most since, are based
on word onsets only (see Lisker, 1986)
Test 1: Do Word-initial stops
have longer VOT and less “prevoicing” than word-internal
stops? (Lisker & Abramson,
1964, 1971)
Results
Methods
Consultant: One female Native Blackfoot Speaker
Elicitor: Martina Wiltschko
Date: One Recording, Summer 2005
• Lisker and Abramson claim VOT is the best measure
for distinguishing homorganic stop categories (Lisker &
Abramson, 1964, 1971)
VOT and pre-voicing can
distinguish “voiceless” from
“pre-aspirated” stops
count post-aspiration
norma l
183
23.1
preaspirated 8 2
24.0
Consonant Type
Discrete Voicing measures, but
not VOT, help distinguish
“voiceless” and “pre-aspirated”
stops in Blackfoot.
Discussion
• Test 1: Word onset stops have more aspiration, less pre-voicing
• Test 2: Aspiration differences do not distinguish homorganic stops in Blackfoot
• Test 2: Discrete pre-voicing counts are much higher in “voiceless” stops
• Most VOT studies use word-initial stops; not representative of word-internal stops
VOT study methodologies need to change
• There are pre-voicing count differences between “voiceless” and “pre-aspirated”
stops, but the VOT measure is meaningless.
VOT cannot distinguish homorganic stop categories in Blackfoot
• Storytelling and citation measure differences were negligible, and not shown here.
Both citation and Storytelling speech may be used
• This study had only one speaker
More speakers are needed to make conclusive statements
References
Derrick, Donald D. 2005, Singleton and Geminate duration, UBC
Paper.
Frantz, Donald G., and Russell, Norma Jean. 1995. Blackfoot
Dictionary of Stems, Roots and Affixes. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Lisker, Leigh & Abramson, Arthur S. 1964. A cross-language study of
voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20:384-422.
Lisker, Leigh and Abramson, Arthur S. 1971. Distinctive Features and
Laryngeal Control. Language 47:767-785.
Lisker, Leigh. 1986. "Voicing" in English: A Catalog of Acoustic
Features Signaling /b/ Versus /p/ in Trochees. Language and Speech
29:3-11.
Reis-Silva, Amélia. 2006. Pre-aspiration in Blackfoot. 38th
Algonquian Conference, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Taylor, Allan Ross. 1969. A Grammar of Blackfoot. Linguistics PhD,
University of California, Berkeley.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Mario Chávez-Peón, Bryan Gick, Amélia
Reis-Silva and Joe Stemberger for help in organization and clarity, and
Rose-Marie Déchaine for printing costs.
Research funded by SSHRC Grant # 410-2006-2166, Grammatical categories and the universal functional hierarchy, Martina Wiltschko