Glottal and Epiglottal Stop in Wak

John H. Esling

Department of Linguistics, Universit

E-mail: esling@uvi

ABSTRACT

Direct laryngoscopic articulatory evidence from fourlanguages in three unrelated families demonstrates theexistence of epiglottal stop in the pharyngeal series. Ineach language, Nuuchahnulth (Wakashan), Nlaka’pamux(Salish), Arabic (Semitic), and Tigrinya (Semitic), glottalstop also exists in the glottal series as a complement toepiglottal stop, and in three of the languages, a voicelessglottal fricative and a voiceless pharyngeal fricative arealso found. In Nlaka’pamux, a pair of voiced pharyngealapproximants (sometimes realized as pharyngealizeduvulars) is found instead of the voiceless pharyngealfricative. As the most extreme stricture in either the glottalor the pharyngeal series, epiglottal stop is a product of fullconstriction of the aryepiglottic laryngeal sphincter andfunctions as the physiological mechanism for optimallyefficient complete airway occlusion. In this sense, glottalstop represents only slight engagement of the sphincterand functions physiologically as only minimum protectiveclosure, as specified by Gauffin [1].

1. INTRODUCTION

It has long been surmised that stop closure is possible atthe pharyngeal place of articulation. Catford discussed thephonetic nature of ‘epiglottopharyngeal’ articulation in theCaucasian languages, including the category ‘stop’ as apossibility [2,3,4], and Kodzasov described this sameauditory quality as an ‘epiglottalized glottal stop’ [5],citing the term ‘epiglottals’ as already in use by SovietArabists in the tradition of Troubetzkoy’s term ‘emphaticlaryngeals’. At the same time, Wakashan and Salishscholars including Kinkade were describing the so-calledvoiced pharyngeal as a ‘pharyngeal stop’ [6,7]. Researchinto Arabic was also considering the auditorily motivatedhypothesis that the non-fricative member of the pair ofpharyngeal consonants has a stop component [8,9,10].Laufer and Condax and Baer investigated this theme inorder to show that the Semitic pharyngeals involve theepiglottis and not only the tongue in their articulation[11,12,13]. In Thelwall and Sa’adeddin’s illustration ofArabic in 1999, \?\ is in fact described as a glottal stopwith a secondary voiced pharyngeal offglide [/?] [14]. Thepresent paper answers questions that no prior research hasbeen able to demonstrate conclusively: that a second kindof stop articulation is occurring in parallel to glottal stop,and that its articulatory parameters relate to the productionof glottal stop in a systematic physiological way.

We hthe pconso(SalisidentiIn genthe loto eademopharyproduresearspeakin pripossibmethohere ithe Oangledetailwill iepiglotakenprepaappro

The cNootkan indthe pr

bd

appv

u

pg

T

ashan, Salish, and Semitic

y of Victoria, Canada

c.ca

2. RESEARCH APPROACH

ave examined the laryngeal physiology involved inroduction of glottal, glottalized, and pharyngealnants in Nuuchahnulth (Wakashan), Nlaka’pamuxh), Arabic (Semitic), and Tigrinya (Semitic) tofy the role of the aryepiglottic sphincter mechanism.eral, we wish to discover how sounds originating inwer pharynx are produced and how they are relatedch other articulatorily. Specifically, we wish tonstrate how stop articulations in the laryngeal andngeal regions are produced and to document thection of epiglottal stop. The key element in thisch is to document linguistic examples from nativeers of the cardinal consonantal categories predictedor studies of laryngeal and pharyngeal articulatoryilities [15,16]. The fibreoptic laryngoscopic researchdology used to obtain the photographs illustratedncludes the Kay 9100 RLS and VCR (30 frames/s),lympus ENF-P3 flexible nasendoscope, 28mm wide-lens, and Panasonic KS152 camera, as described inelsewhere [17,18]. Data from the above languages

llustrate the differentiation between glottal stop andttal stop articulatory maneouvres in still photographsfrom consonant-medial positions in words spoken asred items in laryngoscopic recording sessions lastingximately 20 min. each.

3. WAKASHAN AND SALISH DATA

onsonant inventory of Nuuchahnulth (referred to asa in the research literature) includes glottal stop asependent phoneme and as a secondary component ofeglottalized resonants [19,18].

ilabial p p' m /menti-alveolar t t'

ts ts' spico-alveolar tÒ tÒ' Ò n /nostalveolar tS tS' Salatal j /jelar k k' x w /w

kW kW' xWvular q “X‘

qW “XW‘haryngeal © ?lottal / h

able 1: Consonant inventory of Nuuchahnulth.

Our focus is on pharyngeal \?\ (listed here in a voicedseries), on its phonetic components, and how it differsphonetically from \/\. The consonants of Nlaka’pamux(Thompson in the research literature) also include \/\ asan independent phoneme and as a secondary component ofpostglottalized resonants [20]. The issue here is notonly to distinguish the pharyngeals from phonetic [/]but also to distinguish plain \?, ?W\ phonetically fromglottalized \?', ?W'\, all of which are listed as voiced.

bilabial p p' m m/

alveolar t “t'‘ n n/

ts ts' s z z/

tÒ' Ò l l/

postalveolar tS Spalatal j j/

velar k k' x “V‘ “V/‘kW kW' xW w w/

uvular q q' XqW qW' XW

pharyngeal ? ?'?W ?W'

glottal / h

Table 2: Consonant inventory of Nlaka’pamux.

The two pharyngeals of Nuuchahnulth are both a functionof constriction of the aryepiglottic laryngeal sphinctermechanism. The mechanics of the laryngeal sphincter aremoderately well known anatomically [21,22] but are lesswell incorporated into phonetic explanations of pharyngealsounds. Articulatorily, with the glottis either adducted orabducted, the aryepiglottic sphincter closes first, beginningwith slight aryepiglottic-fold adduction with the cuneiformtubercles moving in a posterior-to-anterior direction,followed by progressive larynx raising and sphinctericadduction against the base of the epiglottis, followed byextreme tongue retraction back into the pharyngeal cavity.Perhaps the most striking aspect of the sphincteringmechanism for producing pharyngeal/epiglottal sounds isthat it moves upwards and forwards against the root of thetongue and epiglottis, whereas in the rest of the oral vocaltract the tongue is the active articulator. In Nuuchahnulth,both pharyngeals \©\ and \?\ have extreme concomitanttongue retraction and are difficult to see over theepiglottis, but occasionally the tongue advances to a pointwhere full aryepiglottic occlusion is visible, as in Fig. 1.

In Interior Salish, epiglottal stop appears in the glottalizedphonological series [23]. The non-glottalized pharyngeals\?, ?W\ and glottalized pharyngeals \?', ?W'\ differ in thatglottalization entails laryngeal closure at some point in thesound. The degree of closure in \?', ?W'\ is greater thanglottal stop because a pharyngeal articulation is alreadymore sphinctered than glottal stop. For the pre-pharyngealglottalized resonants, glottal stop closure is adequate toeffect a phonological distinction; but where resonantquality is pharyngeal, epiglottal stop closure is required.

Thus,stop tback-v

In Figvoice[÷?I©?ustop ifollowglottain Figcan be

Fig.

It is iin Figto maalso ththe toseen.in [/]opensthe enbetwedegree

Fig.

Compplain[ /] isslightvoicinventriglottisadducaryepepilarventriglottisventri

the glottalized series in Salish warps from glottalo epiglottal stop as a natural phonetic property ofocal-tract articulations [24].

. 1, Nuuchahnulth epiglottal stop is initial with ad pharyngeal approximant offglide, as in \ ?i©u…\…] ‘to cry after’. In Fig. 2, Nlaka’pamux epiglottal

s syllable-final with a voiced pharyngeal onglide anded by voiceless release, as in the labialized

lized pharyngeal \npa?W'\ [n… "pa?÷W9] ‘ice’. The view. 2 shows as much of the aryepiglottic sphincter as seen just after maximum [÷] occlusion.

1: Nuuchahnulth [÷] Fig. 2: Nlaka’pamux [÷]

nstructive to look at another view of the same item,. 3, where the aryepiglottic folds are just beginningke closure with the base of the epiglottis. In Fig. 4,e same lexical item, the sphincter is opening up and

ngue advancing so that the epilaryngeal tube can beThe vocal folds and ventricular folds remain closedposture for at least 120ms after the epilaryngeal tubeafter [÷] until the stricture is released into breath atd of [n… "pa?÷W9]. Fig. 4 represents a midway pointen full occlusion for epiglottal stop and the slight of sphinctering required for plain glottal stop.

3: Nlaka’pamux [-?÷] Fig. 4: Nlaka’pamux [÷/-]

aring the process of release of [ ÷] in Fig. 4 withglottal stop, in Figs. 5–6, the epilaryngeal space forclearly more open than in epiglottal stop, but it is

ly more sphinctered than it would be for vocalicg, where only adduction at the glottis is present. Thecular folds, on the other hand, are adducted over theto fill the epilaryngeal space. In the case of [/], the

ted vocal folds (as in [i]) cease vibrating when theiglottic folds advance slightly, making theyngeal tube slightly narrower. As this happens, thecular folds can be seen to adduct partially over the. The most likely explanation for this is that thecular folds, which have little muscle fibre of their

own, exert slight pressure on the vocal folds in response toslight sphincteric constriction, causing the vocal folds tostop vibrating. It is proposed here that the antero-posteriorand the vertical fibres of the two thyroarytenoid muscles,particularly fibres running from the epiglottis to thecuneiform tubercles of the aryepiglottic folds, areresponsible for initial constriction of the sphincter.

Fig. 5: Nuuchahnulth [/] Fig. 6: Nlaka’pamux [/]

Fig. 7 shows a modal voice \i…\ vowel in Nuuchahnulth,which can be taken as an example of a glottally adductedbut non-sphinctered state. Full opening of the airway, withneither glottal adduction nor sphincteric constriction, isshown in an example of Nuuchahnulth \h\ in Fig. 8.

Fig. 7: Nuuchahnulth [i] Fig. 8: Nuuchahnulth [h]

4. SEMITIC DATA

In laryngoscopic observations of Arabic and Tigrinya, thetwo glottal \h, /\ and two pharyngeal \©, ?\ phonemes areobserved directly in various close-vowel contexts andreviewed using video software with synchronous acousticdisplays. As in Wakashan and Salish, it appears that thetwo sounds usually transcribed in Arabic and Tigrinya as\/\ and \?\ are in fact moderate glottal stop and completeepiglottal stop. The Arabic data, as in Fig. 9 (slightly aftermaximum occlusion in order to see behind the epiglottis),demonstrate this less clearly, probably because of atendency to lower the larynx during the articulation ofpharyngeals, at least in this Palestinian dialect; but theacoustic evidence suggests early closure bursts followedby silence, and the visual evidence suggests stronglaryngeal sphincter occlusion. The phonemic glottal stopin Fig. 10 shows an adducted glottis but a non-sphincteredepilaryngeal tube by comparison. From these data, it is notclear that <’ain> is always an epiglottal stop in all Arabic,but the phonetic option to contrast epiglottal stop withglottal stop should be anticipated.

The dthe fiA sylmarkedistallarynx

F

Fromclearthan eWhilestopmechepigloarticucommarticu

In stavocalarytenthis ispresenarreststrictuthe arventristoppisphinwhichcompsphinconsti

Fig. 9: Arabic [÷] Fig. 10: Arabic [/]

ata from Tigrinya are much clearer in corroboratingndings based on the Wakashan and Salish evidence.lable-initial epiglottal stop in Fig. 11 contrastsdly with a syllable-initial glottal stop in Fig. 12. Theend of the endoscope in Figs. 11–12 is closer to the than in Arabic Figs. 9–10.

ig. 11: Tigrinya [÷] Fig. 12: Tigrinya [/]

the Tigrinya and Arabic laryngoscopic evidence, it isthat glottal stop has a more open epilaryngeal spacepiglottal stop but less open than in the state of voice.glottal stop requires slight sphinctering, epiglottal

exercises maximum engagement of the sphincteranism, closing the epilaryngeal space under thettis as the primary component of the pharyngeallation prior to tongue retraction. Although notonly attested, epiglottal stop is a more prevalent

lation than once expected.

5. CONCLUSIONS

tes of closure, the glottis is closed at the level of thefolds by adduction of the vocal processes of theoid cartilages at the posterior end of the glottis; butno different from the arytenoid adduction already

t in voicing. To effect a glottal stop, and thereby tovoicing, it is also necessary to apply some slightre of the aryepiglottic sphincter mechanism, pullingyepiglottic angle forward slightly and causing thecular folds to press down on the vocal folds, therebyng vibration. The small degree of engagement of thecter for a glottal stop is the beginning of a process

culminates, at its most extreme degree, in thelete closure of the airway in the process of laryngealctering, tongue retraction, and larynx elevation thattutes a full epiglottal stop.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by Grants 410-93-0539 and 410-2000-0901 from the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada. I would like to thank KatieFraser, Rhoda Spinks, Khaled Gaber, and Mekonnen Tedlafor providing the data used in the analysis of glottal andpharyngeal articulations, and Kimary Shahin for hercollaboration in the recording and analysis of Arabic. I amgrateful to Craig Dickson and to STR–SpeechTech Ltd.for accommodating laryngoscopic experimentation, to Dr.Michael Mawdsley, the attending physician, for hismedical collaboration, and to Greg Newton for histechnical image-processing assistance. Full-motion colourvideos of laryngoscopic research data are on theUniversity of Victoria Department of Linguistics web site:http://www.uvic.ca/ling/ (Research pages).

REFERENCES

[1] J. Gauffin, “Mechanisms of larynx tube con-striction,” Phonetica, vol. 34, pp. 307–309, 1977.

[2] J.C. Catford, “The articulatory possibilities ofman,” in Manual of Phonetics, B. Malmberg, Ed.,pp. 309–333. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1968.

[3] J.C. Catford, Fundamental Problems in Phonetics,Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1977.

[4] J.C. Catford, “Pharyngeal and laryngeal sounds inCaucasian languages,” In Vocal Fold Physiology:Contemporary Research and Clinical Issues, D.M.Bless and J.H. Abbs, Eds., pp. 344–350. San Diego:College Hill Press, 1983.

[5] S.V. Kodzasov, “Pharyngeal features in theDaghestan languages,” in Proceedings XIth Intern.Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 142–144.Tallinn: Academy of Sciences, Estonian SSR, 1987.

[6] S. Rose, Kyuquot Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,University of Victoria, 1981.

[7] E. Czaykowska-Higgins and M.D. Kinkade, Eds.,Salish Languages and Linguistics, Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter 1998.

[8] S.H. Al-Ani, Arabic Phonology: An Acoustical andPhysiological Investigation (Janua Linguarum, vol.61), The Hague: Mouton, 1970.

[9] Y. El-Halees, “The role of F1 in the place-of-articulation distinction in Arabic,” Journal ofPhonetics, vol. 13, pp. 287–298, 1985.

[10]A. Butcher and K. Ahmad, “Some acoustic andaerodynamic characteristics of pharyngeal con-sonants in Iraqi Arabic,” Phonetica, vol. 44, pp.156–172, 1987.

[11]AarA

[12]Aep2

[13]ApL

[14]RHAInC

[15]Jarp

[16]J‘epL

[17]JsppA3

[18]JgNJo

[19]B“N2

[20]LTO

[21]VsiM

[22]GAmg

[23]Bo

[24]Bppth

. Laufer and I.D. Condax, “The epiglottis as anticulator,” Journal of the International Phoneticssociation, vol. 9, pp. 50–56, 1979.

. Laufer and I.D. Condax, “The function of theiglottis in speech,” Language and Speech, vol.

4, pp. 39–62, 1981.

. Laufer and T. Baer, “The emphatic andharyngeal sounds in Hebrew and in Arabic,”anguage and Speech, vol. 31, pp. 181–205, 1988.

. Thelwall and M.A. Sa’adeddin, “Arabic,” in IPA,andbook of the International Phoneticssociation: A Guide to the Use of theternational Phonetic Alphabet , pp. 51–54.ambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

.H. Esling, “Pharyngeal consonants and theyepiglottic sphincter,” Journal of the IPA, vol. 26,

p. 65–88, 1996.

.H. Esling, “The IPA categories ‘pharyngeal’ andpiglottal’: Laryngoscopic observations of

haryngeal articulations and larynx height,”anguage and Speech, vol. 42, pp. 349–372, 1999.

.H. Esling and J.A. Edmondson, “The laryngealhincter as an articulator: Tenseness, tongue root and

honation in Yi and Bai,” in Phonetics and itspplications, A. Braun and H.R. Masthoff, Eds., pp.8–51. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002.

.H. Esling, K. Fraser and J.G. Harris, “Glottal stop,lottalized resonants, and pharyngeals inuuchahnulth (Nootka): A laryngoscopic study,”urnal of Phonetics, in press.

.F. Carlson, J.H. Esling and K. Fraser,uuchahnulth,” Journal of the IPA , Vol. 31, pp.

75–279, 2001.

.C. Thompson and M.T. Thompson, “Thehompson Language,” University of Montanaccasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 8, 1992.

.E. Negus, The Comparative Anatomy and Phy-ology of the Larynx, London: William Heinemannedical Books Ltd., 1949. Reprinted 1962.

.T. Williams, I.M. Farquharson and J.K.F.nthony, “Fibreoptic laryngoscopy in the assess-ent of laryngeal disorders,” Journal of Laryn-

ology and Otology, vol. 89, pp. 299–316, 1975.

.F. Carlson and J.H. Esling, “Spokane,” Journalf the IPA, vol. 30, pp. 101–106, 2000.

.F. Carlson and J.H. Esling, “Phonetics andhysiology of the historical shift of uvulars toharyngeals in Nuuchahnulth (Nootka),” Journal ofe IPA, in press.