Phonation Types in Santiago Laxopa ZapotecMaho Morimoto, Jeff AdlerUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

November-December 2016 • ASA Honolulu meeting • Website: http://people.ucsc.edu/~mamorimo • Email: mamorimo@ucsc.edu

3. Results

1. Introduction

Santiago Laxopa Zapotec (SLZ) • Understudied language in the Otomanguean

family from the Zapotec group, spoken in Santiago Laxopa, Ixtlàn, Oaxaca, Mexico

• Endangered, most speakers are natively bilingual of Spanish and SLZ

Acknowledgments

References

Many thanks to: Fe Silva-Robles ◦ Samuel Diaz-Ramirez ◦ Cecilio Robles-Jeroni m o ◦MaziarToosarvandani ◦Grant McGuire ◦ Field Methods (Linguistics 282) 2016 ◦ UCSC Linguistics Department ◦ Nicolas Fernandez ◦ Jacob Chemnick ◦ other consultants in Santiago Laxopa.The study was partially funded by a UC Mexus Small Grant.

1. Chávez-Peón, M. E. (2011). Non-modal phonation in Quiaviní Zapotec: An acoustic investigation. In Memorias del V Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica, 6–8 de octubre de 2011, Universidad de Texas en Austin (p. 274).2. Esposito, C. M. (2004). Santa Ana del Valle Zapotec Phonation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 103, 71-105.3. Gordon, M., & Ladefoged, P. (2001). Phonation types: a cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4), 383-406.4. Paul Boersma & David Weenink (2013): Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.51, retrieved 2 June 2013 from http://www.pr aat .o rg /.5. R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R- pr ojec t. or g/ .6. Shu e, Y .-L ., P. K eati n g , C . Vice nik, K . Yu (2 01 1) Voic eS auc e: A p ro gr am f or v oic e a nalysis, Proceedings of the ICPhS XVII, 1846-1849.7. Silverman, D. (1997). Laryngeal Complexity in Otomanguea n Vowels. Phonology, 1997, 14, 2, 1Chávez-Peón4( 2), 235-261. 8. Sjölander, K . (2004). Snack sound toolkit. KTH Stockholm, Sweden. http://www.spe ech .kt h.se /sn ack.9. Wikimedia Commons (2010). Regions and Municipalities of Oaxaca. Retrieved from https://uplo ad .wiki me dia .o rg /wik iped ia/co m mo ns/ th u mb/3 /3e /O axac a_r egi o ns_an d_ dis tricts.svg/1024px- Oax aca_ re gi ons_ an d_ dist ricts.sv g. png (with modification in color).

4. Future Direction

• Identification of acoustic correlates (esp. spectral measurements) that best predict phonation types in male and female voice• Closer examination of tone-phonation phasing• Further acoustic characterization of the

phonation types, along with interaction with tones, speech style, and their consonant types (especially fortis-lenis distinction)• Phonological and phonetic alternation of

laryngealized vowels• Cross-dialect and cross-linguistic comparison

2. Experiment

Production experiment during fieldwork• Participants: Two male native speakers, both in their thirties• Stimuli: 50 monosyllabic words with vowel [a]

Four different phonation types (B=13, C=9, M=11, R=17)Presented on a computer screen in Spanish and SLZ

• Procedure: Words were randomized and were repeated 5 timesCarrier sentence was una ___ ji tulas, 'say ___ again'Recording made using head-mounted microphone and Zoom handheld recorder, mono, 16kHz sampling rate

SLZ Resources & Contact at UCSC

1. Trilingual dictionary searchable in Spanish, Santiago Laxopa Zapotec, and Spanish: http://zapo tec. ucsc. e du /slz/2. Workshop on the Languages of Meso-America (WLMA): http://zapote c.ucsc .e du

Phonation Types• Preliminary analysis suggests contrastive

phonation types and tones

Disclaimer: results on this poster are only preliminary; the classification prior to the experiment was not perfect (and not rectified for current analysis); tone was ignored; deficit in carrier phrase; no fillers; not subjected to statistical analysis yet.

Sample slide:

Duration: Modals shorter than non-modals as expected, possibly to allow for realization of contrastive tone [7].

F0: lowest for B and higher for C & R, consistent with tone-phonation interrelation reported in some surrounding languages (e.g. [1])

CPP (Ceptral peak prominence): against expectation, higher value for C & R, compared to M; B as low as Modal is also unusual.

Spectral Tilt (H1*-H2*): as expected, largely positive value B and negative value for C & R.

Energy (RMS): expected low intensity for non-modalsoverall, but not consistent across duration.

caminarza

Examples (near-minimal quadruplet from Subj02)

Time (s)9.74 10.050

5000

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

9.73974996 10.0479793

M: n

an (g

rand

ma)

Time (s)337.6 3380

5000

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

337.612928 338.003575

B: n

ah (l

and

read

yfo

r see

ding

)

Time (s)48.21 48.640

5000

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

48.2133619 48.6354758

R: n

a’a

(now

)

Time (s)31.33 31.680

5000

Freq

uenc

y (H

z)

31.3327199 31.6808313

C: n

a’ (t

here

)

Mod

alBr

eath

yC

heck

edRe

artic

ulat

ed

Goal of the Experiment• Providing acoustic characterizations of phonation

types in SLZ, as a first step to investigating the interrelation between tone and phonation

Examination of Spectral Measurements

• Languages differ in measures categorizing phonation the best• Tryout of measures (mid-third) for a near-minimal quadruplet

(na’, ‘now’ for M, as ‘grandma’ not available for Subj01) [1]• H1*-A1* & H1*-A3* seem to be the most reliable as of now,

but laryngealized vowels (C & R) need timing-sensitive analysis

Measurement Breathy (B >M) Laryngealized (L<M)Na(5 tokenseach) Subj01 Subj02 Subj01 Subj02H1*-H2* ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖

H1*+H2*/2-A1* ✔ ✔ C✖, R? C✖, R✔H1*-A1* ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖

H1*-A2* ✔ ✔ C✖, R✔ ✖

H1*-A3* ✔ ✔ ✔ ✖

A2*-A3* ✔ ✔ C✔,R✖ ✖