sibilants vs. shibilants in dëne sųłiné 2008 denep. 3 sibilants in dëne sųłiné • even as...
Post on 31-Mar-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Sibilants vs. shibilants in Dëne SųłinéA near‐merger?
DARIN FLYNN University of Calgary
2008 DENE (ATHABASCAN)LANGUAGES CONFERENCE
Cold Lake First Nation, AB
Jul. 3‐6, 2008
p. 1
Introduction • Notably around Fort Chipewyan, one hears pronunciations like chá nechá ‘the beaver’s big’, jën ghejën
‘the muskrat sang’, or ch’áłk’é ch’ë n ‘to (place name)’.
• I shed some darkness on this pronunciation.
Background
Merger? • A merger is when two speech sounds evolve into one. For example, in Dëne Sųłiné:
o t has merged with k in certain varieties, notably Fond du Lac (SK) and Łutsëlk’é (NT). E.g., tu ‘water’ > ku; setá ‘my dad’ > seká; yałti ‘he/she speaks’ > yałki; tën ‘ice’ > kën.
o zh has merged with y. Compare yá ‘lice’, ya ‘sky’ with Tłįcho Yatiì zhà ‘lice’, ya ‘sky’.
Sibilant‐shmibilant?
• Sibilants are “hissing” consonants.
• They are articulated at the gum ridge.
• Shibilants are “hushing” consonants.
• They are articulated just behind the gum ridge.
s
z
ts
dz
ts’
sh
zh
ch
j
ch’
• Sibilants and shibilants are strident (noisy).
• s, z, sh, zh are strident continuants ―they have continuous, noisy airflow.
• ts, dz, ts’, ch, j, ch’ are strident stops ―they stop the airflow, then release it noisily.
p. 2
Shibilants in Dëne Sųłiné
• Did you know: shibilants are “recent” developments in Dëne Sųłiné! (Krauss 1982)
• Until the 1800s ...
ch was a “front k” (like key) j was a “front g” (like geese)
chągha , ʔechąghé ‘ribs’ o Kac‐hey (Alexander Mackenzie, 1793) o keay a (David Thompson, ca. 1795)
thecházi ‘soup’ o Thekezee (Andrew Graham, ca. 1775)
ts’i cho ‘ship’ o Cha‐co (Edward Thompson, 1742)
chëth ‘duck’ o haw ke the (James Isham 1743) o Keth (Alexander Mackenzie, 1793)
kw’othíchëdhi ‘hand‐kerchief’ o Coth‐e‐cothee (Edward Thompson, 1742)
dechën ‘wood, stick’ o Dea kin (James Isham 1743) o Teykin (Andrew Graham, ca. 1775) o Dethkin (Alexander Mackenzie, 1793)
chile ‘boy’ o Kille (James Isham 1743)
jëth ‘fishhook’o Gee‐eth (Edward Thompson, 1742) o Gith, Ge‐eth (James Isham 1743)
jis ‘mittens’ o E‐la‐gish (Edward Thompson, 1742) o Geese (Andrew Graham, ca. 1775)
ʔejëre ‘cattle, buffalo’ o Egid a Day (buffalo horn) (James
Isham 1743) o Giddede (buffalo horn) (Andrew
Graham, ca. 1775) o Giddy (Alexander Mackenzie, 1793)
jíe ‘berry’ o Gui‐eh (Alexander Mackenzie, 1793)
• The original sounds (“front k and g”) are preserved in Tsilhqot’in and Witsuwit’en. For example:
Witsuwit’en Dëne Sųłiné Witsuwit’en Dëne Sųłiné
gǝs jëth ‘fishhook’ cǝs ʔëchusë ‘down feathers’ gen ją ‘here’ cǝn’ ‐chin‐ë ‘base’ ‐git ‐jër ‘to be scared’ ‐ci ‐chë ‘tail’ diguh dejúli ‘mosquito’ cǝn she n ‘song’ dǝcǝn dechën ‘stick’ cǝs she th ‘hill’ ‐caq chągha ‘rib’
• Native speakers of Dëne Sųłiné never pronounce shibilants as sibilants (Cook 1991, contra Scollon and Scollon 1979).
o ‘duck’ is pronounced chëth, never tsëth; ‘fishhook’ is pronounced jëth, never dzëth; etc.
p. 3
Sibilants in Dëne Sųłiné
• Even as they converted “front k and g” into shibilants (Krauss 1982), some speakers of Dëne Sųłiné of‐ten pronounced sibilants like shibilants.
• In 1742 Edward Thompson reported in Hudson’s Bay
o ts pronounced like ch
tsątsa në ‘copper (iron)’: Cha cha nal cozee dënetsį ‘nose’: Tene‐chee
compare:
hotsáł ‘nail’: Hoot‐sal ‐tsë n ‘defecate’: et‐suna ’ëdza ‘cold’: Adzak
o s pronounced like sh at the ends of words
jis ‘mittens’: E‐la‐gish ’eretł’ís ‘pencil’: Ediclish, Eddiclish, Ediclish
compare:
’eretł’ís ‘pencil’: (pe)‐ti‐da‐clisse (see Scollon 1979 for discussion)
• In his 1876 dictionary, Émile Petitot comments on Dëne Sųłiné (according to Scollon 1979): “La routine et la mauvaise prononciation ont établi affinité entre les sifflantes et les chuintantes...” [“Habit and bad pronunciation have established a similarity between sibilants and shibilants...” ―DF]
• The Goddard‐Ennow texts recorded in Cold Lake around 1906 (cf. Wood et al. 2006):
o ts’ pronounced like ch’
ts’ékui ‘woman’ (p. 27, l. 2; p. 30, l. 12; etc.), ch’ékui (p. 27, l. 5; 29, l. 22). ts’i ye ‘in a boat’ (p. 40, l. 6), ch’i ye (p. 45, l. 3‐4) ts’ah ‘hat’, ch’a (p. 93, Fig. 65)
o s pronounced like sh at the ends of words
k’es ‘poplar’, k’esh (p. 93, Fig. 70) t’és ‘coal’ (p. 8, l. 2), t’esh (p. 93, Fig. 57)
p. 4
• Goddard (1912:75) “hoped some reason might appear for this variation”, so he carefully transcribed sibilants and shibilants, even though he (like LeGoff) believed that Dëne Sųłiné has only one series that is “intermediate” between sibilant and shibilant (p. 80).
• According to Edward Curtis, too, Cold Lake s is pronounced “with tip of the tongue retracted” (Curtis 1928:x).
• Historically, speakers were free to pronounce sibilants further back on the gum ridge because there were no other shibilants (until the 1800s).
• This “retracted” articulation may perhaps helpful in differentiating sibilants from thibilants, which are produced just in front of the gum ridge, at the teeth.
• In summary: native speakers never pronounce shibilants as sibilants, but some do pronounce sibilants like shibilants.
th
dh
tth
ddh
tth’
• Conclusion: Sibilants and shibilants have NOT merged.
Case study: Fort Chipewyan
• Sibilants are widely claimed to be the same as shibilants in Fort Chipewyan (Scollon and Scollon 1979, Cook 1991, 1996, etc.)
• But HA, an older native speaker of the Fort Chipewyan dialect, insisted to me that his sibilants were dif‐ferent from his shibilants, although they sound the same.
• HA’s claim is supported by some preliminary acoustic measurements.i
Acoustics?
• The “white noise” or energy has a lower frequency in shibilants than in sibilants:
o the energy may extend to lower frequencies in shibilants than it does in sibilants, or
o the “centre of gravity” (CoG) of this energy may be lower in shibilants than in sibilants.ii
p. 5
HA’s strident continuants:
• The energy extends to a lower frequency in sh than in s (about 1 kHz lower).iii, iv
HA1: she th ‘hill’ (CoG: 4.7 kHz) HA1: sa ‘sun’ (CoG: 4 kHz)
HA2: she th ‘hill’ (CoG: 4.8 kHz) HA2: sa ‘sun’ (CoG: 4.2 kHz)
HA’s strident stops:
• The energy extends to a lower frequency in ch vs. ts (about 1 kHz lower), and the center of gravity is similarly lower (again, about 1 kHz).
HA1: cheth ‘duck’ (CoG: 3.2 kHz) HA1: tsa ‘beaver’ (CoG: 4.2 kHz)
2 kHz
3kHz
2.5 kHz
3.5kHz
3.5kHz 2.5
kHz
p. 6
• Here ts and ch seem the same: their energy extends to the same (relatively) low frequency (about 2 kHz), and they have the same (relatively) low center of gravity (about 3.8 kHz).
HA2: cheth ‘duck’ (CoG: 3.8 kHz) HA2: tsa ‘beaver’ (CoG: 3.8 kHz)
• The energy of ts’ extends as low as that of ch’ (to about 2 kHz), but the center of gravity of ts’ is higher than that of ch’ (by a difference of about 1.5‐2 kHz).
HA1: ch’ądíe ‘ant’ (CoG: 3 kHz) HA1: ts’ah ‘hat’ (CoG: 5.1 kHz)
HA2: ch’ądíe ‘ant’ (CoG: 3.1 kHz) HA2: ts’ah ‘hat’ (CoG: 4.5 kHz)
• Conclusion: o HA’s sibilants may sound like shibilants, but they are usually different o His sibilants have not merged with his shibilants.
2kHz
2 kHz
2 kHz
2kHz
2kHz
2 kHz
p. 7
New speakers?
• The difference between sibilants and shibilants in Fort Chipewyan is subtle, so much so that new speakers have merged them, partially (Cook 1991, 1996).
• New speakers continue to distinguish sibilants from shibilants in continuants. o sa ‘sun’ is pronounced sa, never sha; shën ‘song’ is pronounced shën, never sën; etc.
• But they have merged sibilants with shibilants in stops. o tsá ‘beaver’ is pronounced chá, never tsá; dzën ‘muskrat’ is pronounced jën, never dzën; etc.
old new old new old new
sa sa ‘sun’ tsá chá ‘beaver’ chą chą ‘rain’
dëlzën dëlzën ‘it’s black’ dzën jën ‘muskrat’ ją ją ‘here’
shën shën ‘song’ ts’ë n ch’ë n ‘to’ ‐ch’é ‐ch’é ‘to be angry’
• Why do new speakers treat continuants and stops differently?
• I propose that they are following a universal tendency:
o Consonants that stop the airflow noisily tend to do so behind the gum ridge (Clements in press).
o In most languages of the world, consonants that stop the airflow at the gum ridge, like t, d and t’, are relatively quiet, whereas consonants that stop the airflow behind the gum ridge, like ch, j, and ch’, are noisy or strident.
o So when one hears a strident stop in, say, Amharic, Arabic, Catalan, English, Igbo, Galician, Per‐sian, Stoney, Taba or Thai, one can be sure that it is a shibilant, articulated behind the gum ridge.
o Sibilant stops like ts, dz and ts’ are simple, basic or “unmarked” in being articulated at the gum ridge,v yet they are strident, so speakers may choose to articulate them behind the gum ridge, in keeping with the universal tendency.
o Note that this tendency only concerns stops: continuant sibilants like s and z are also strident, but they show no tendency to become shibilants like sh and zh in Dëne Sųłiné or in any lan‐guage (pace Cook 1991:438, n. 5).
p. 8
References
Clements, G. N. in press. The role of features in speech sound inventories. In Eric Raimy and Charles E. Cairns (eds.), Con‐temporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook, Eung‐Do. 1991. Linguistic Divergence in Fort Chipewyan. Language in Society 20(3). 423‐440. Cook, Eung‐Do. 1996. Stability and variability in Chipewyan phonology. In John D. Nichols and Arden C. Ogg (eds.), Stu‐
dies in Honour of H.C. Wolfart/nikotwâsik iskwâhtêm, pâskihtêpayih!, 61‐76. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba. Curtis, Edward S. 1928. The North American Indian. Norwood, PA: Norwood. Goddard, Pliny Earle. 1912. Texts and analysis of Cold Lake dialect, Chipewyan.vol. X: Anthropological papers of the
American Museum of Natural History. New York: Wissler. Krauss, Michael. 1982. Proto‐Athapaskan *k in Chipewyan, 1742‐1800: Philological evidence. International Journal of
American Linguistics 48. 73‐82. Petitot, Émile. 1876. Dictionnaire de la langue Déné‐Dindjié. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Scollon, Ronald. 1979. 236 years of variability in Chipewyan consonants. International Journal of American Linguistics
45(4). 332‐342. Scollon, Ronald, & Suzanne B. K. Scollon. 1979. Linguistic convergence: An ethnography of speaking at Fort Chipewyan,
Alberta. New York: Academic Press. Wood, Valerie, Joyce McDonough, & Sally Rice. 2006. The Goddard‐Ennow texts: A path from our ancestors ... to the
future. Presentation at the Athabascan/Dene Languages Conference, Yellowknife, NT, Jun. 13‐15, 2006.
Masi‐chogh to HA for sharing his language and insights, to Joyce McDonough for helpful dis‐cussion, to Sally Rice for encouraging me to prepare this talk, and to Val Wood and the Cold Lake First Nation for allowing me to share it!
p. 9
i Recordings were made at 44.1 kHz in Sound Forge 6.0, with a Sony ECM‐MS907 microphone. ii Because the noise portions of sounds varied in length, I selected about 50 ms from the mid‐dle of each noise to measure the centre of gravity. iii Spectrographic analyses were made in Praat. 11 kHz are shown. iv The energy is much stronger in HA’s sh than in his s, so the center of gravity (CoG) measure‐ments are probably not comparable. v Linguists consider the gum ridge to be the basic, default or “unmarked” position for conso‐nants. Dene examples include the “sibilants” s, z, ts, dz and ts’, the “laterals” ł, l, tł, dl and tł’, the “stops” t, d and t’, the “nasals” n, nd, nh, and n’, and r. “Thibilants” (th, dh, tth, ddh, tth’), which are articulated at the teeth, are more complex or “marked”, so it is not surprising to lin‐guists that speakers have merged these sounds with sibilants in Southern Dakelh (among oth‐ers), and with laterals in Koyukon. “Shribilants” (sr, zr, tr, dr, tr’) and “shibilants” (sh, zh, ch, j, ch’), which are articulated at the palate, are marked too, so again it is not surprising that speakers have merged these with sibilants in varieties of Gwich’in and Tłįcho Yatiì. Indeed, by avoiding shibilants (and shribilants) altogether, modern Tłįchǫ has become like many of the world’s languages, including Cantonese, Swedish, Tukang Besi, Oowekyala, Kwakw’ala, Nuxalk, and Blackfoot.
top related