Transcript The phonetics and phonology of emphatics in Mehri Janet C.E. Watson & Alex Bellem Workshop on Pharyngeals & Pharyngealisation Newcastle University – 26 March.

The phonetics and phonology
of emphatics in Mehri
Janet C.E. Watson & Alex Bellem
Workshop on Pharyngeals & Pharyngealisation
Newcastle University – 26 March 2009
Overview
 Background
Modern South Arabian (MSAL)
Emphatics across Semitic
Emphatics in MSAL?
 Data
 Mehri evidence
Previous descriptive accounts
Fieldwork
 Native speaker views
 Acoustic analyses
Prepausal glottalisation in Ṣan’āni Arabic
Phonological patterning
 Summary, conclusion, further work
Modern South Arabian (MSAL)
Semitic languages
Based on the work of Hetzron (1972, 1974). See Faber (1997), Bennett (1998), Appleyard (2003) for overviews of
Semitic classification. See Corriente (1996) for a recent alternative classification.
Emphatics in Semitic…
Proto-Semitic
Proto-Semitic is generally reconstructed
as having a series of consonantal triads
Emphatics in Semitic…
Proto-Semitic
 These consonantal triads have a voiced member and a
voiceless member, with the third member being
‘emphatic’
 The ‘emphatic’ member has been the subject of
controversy
 ‘backed’ (Arabic-style)
 ejective
 It is now increasingly hypothesised that the early Semitic
emphatics (inherited from Afroasiatic) were ejectives
 Our work (on Arabic, not just Mehri) supports this
 Under such a system, ‘emphatic’ is a laryngeal
(phonation) contrast in obstruents
Emphatics across modern Semitic…
 Ethiosemitic
 Emphatics are ejectives, and thus ‘emphatic’ is a third laryngeal contrast
(voiced–voiceless–emphatic)
 Neo-Aramaic
 Dialects vary – ‘trajectory’ of emphatic development can be traced through
different dialects*
 Most often ‘emphatic’ seems to be realised in some kind of ‘backing’ feature
alongside non-aspiration (voiceless non-emphatics are aspirated)
 Arabic
 Generally, most salient correlate is ‘backing’ (uvularisation /
pharyngealisation)
 Certain dialects (/dialect types) show remnant of ‘laryngeal’ function, so
there is dialectal variation in terms of the development of emphatics (2-way
vs 3-way phonation systems)**
 MSAL
 Where do they fit into this typology?
* Dolgopolsky (1977)
** See Watson & Bellem (in press), Bellem (2007); also see Heselwood (1996)
Emphatics in MSAL: the literature
 Works based on fieldwork in the first half of the 20th C generally describe MSAL emphatics
as similar to those of Arabic (but less salient)
 Viennese expedition in the early 20th C (e.g. Jahn 1902, Müller 1909, Bittner 1909)
 Bertram Thomas’ fieldwork (Thomas, 1937)
 Wolf Leslau’s work (1947), based on Thomas (1937)
 Leslau also notes, in the discussion following Johnstone 1975, his view that ‘[MSAL] glottalization did not
sound to me to be of the same type as that in Ethiopic’
 T.M. Johnstone’s work in the 1970s breaks with this tradition – he describes MSAL
emphatics as (post-)glottalised
 For Harsusi, he observes that glottalisation is ‘energetically articulated in initial and final position,
but in other positions…rather weak’ (1977, see also 1975, 1987)
 Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle & Antoine Lonnet, 1983–
 Simeone-Senelle (1997) describes the ‘prevailing’ articulation of MSAL emphatics as postglottalised, but ‘The degree of this glottalization varies, depending on the position of the consonant
in the word and on the dialects concerned…’
 Lonnet (2009) states that emphatics in some MSAL dialects tend to be pharyngealised–uvularised,
and sees this in terms of a gradual sound change
 Russian researchers in Soqotra
 Naumkin & Porkhomovskij (1981) say that glottalisation in Soqotri is restricted to the emphatic
stops, with the emphatic fricatives (and occasionally stops) pharyngealised – they suggest that
there is an ongoing transition from glottalised to pharyngealised
Question: What are the MSAL emphatics?
 Until 1973, Ethiosemitic was believed to be the
only Semitic language sub-family in which
emphatics were realised as ejectives
 From the 1970s we find varying reports
 Without assuming that emphatics are uniform
across MSAL varieties, we can still say that
overall there is no clear consensus, and it is not
clear from the literature where the MSAL
emphatics fit into the emphatic typology
Question: What are the MSAL emphatics?
This paper takes a closer look at one
variety of an MSAL – the Mahriyōt dialect
of Mehri, spoken in eastern Yemen
We aim to show why there has been such
a lack of consistency in previous
descriptions
Mahriyōt: Data
111 texts recorded by Alexander Sima, to
be published by Harrassowitz 2009
Oral material recorded and transcribed by
Janet Watson in al-Ghaydha Jan–March
2008
5 oral narratives
Oral descriptions and examples of emphatics
and laterals in Mahriyōt
Mahriyōt consonants
lab
vcd
dent
b
alv
pal-alv
d
j
pal
vel
PLOSVE
vceless
t
k
emph
ṭ
ḳ
vcd
FRICTVE
vceless
f
emph
ð
z
θ
s
š
θ̣
ṣ
č̣
l
vcd
LATERAL
vceless
ś
emph
ź
sonorants
m
n
r
y
w
uvu
phar
glott
ʔ
ġ~q
ʕ
x
ћ
h
Mahriyōt emphatics
emphatic
non-emphatic
ṣ
s
č̣
š
ṭ
t
ź
ś
θ̣
θ
ḳ
k
z
d
ð
Mahriyōt evidence
 Inconsistency of much previous descriptive work
 E.g. transcriptions vary considerably and are inconsistent even
within one work
 Hein, ed. Müller (1909)
 /ḳ/ as g and k: ġalgōt ‘she saw’ for ġalḳōt, occasionally as k, as
in tekefôd ‘she goes down’, but ugofôd ‘and he went down’
 /ṣ/ as z, ṣ and s: zóṭer ‘basket’ for ṣōṭar, zayd ‘fish’ for ṣayd, but
also as ṣ and s, particular in the word for ‘morning’, as in kṣôbaḥ
and hesôbaḥ ‘in the morning’
 The inconsistencies most often relate to laryngeal
category
Mahriyōt evidence: fieldwork
 Native-speaker descriptions:
Five sounds not attested in Arabic: /ḳ/, /ṣ/, /č ̣/, /ś/, /ź/
/ḳ/ = /k/ + ʕayn
/č ̣/ = ‘heavy Egyptian jīm’ + ʕayn
Mehri /ṣ/ considerably tenser than Arabic /ṣ/,
sometimes partially voiced
/ṭ/ and /θ̣/ not grouped by informant with ‘five sounds
not found in Arabic’
/ṭ/ = ‘same’ or ‘like’ Arabic /ṭ/
/θ̣/ = varies between voiced and voiceless
/ṭ, ṣ, č ̣/
 ṣā’ / ṣā’ / wa-ṭā’ wa-č ̣ā / yaʕnī / anṭughā bi-šakl at-tālī /
ṣā’ ṣā’ ṣā’ ṣā’ / wa-ṭ-ṭā’ hūwa nafs aṭ-ṭā’ fi l-... bi-lʕarabīyah / ṭā’ / allī hū ʕalayh al-ʕūd hass-mā ygūlū / e:h
ṭa’ / ṭā’ ṭā’ ṭā’ ṭā’ ṭā’ / wa-ṣā’ ṣā’ ṣā’ / wa-ḥarf č ̣āʕ / e:h č ̣āʕ
č ̣āʕ č ̣āʕ / allī hēh kama l-jīm bi-l-ʕarabī wa-taḥthā θalāθa
nugaṭ tarmīz hāðā kama ttafagnā ʕalayh fī ’almāniyā iθnā
tadrīsnā fī almāniyā maʕ al-jānib al-almāni / wa-hī tunṭug
miθl al-jīm al-maṣrīyah aθ-θagīlah wa-l-ʕayn / č ̣āʕ / č ̣āʕ
č ̣āʕ / yaʕnī law bayn-axað maθāl maθalan al-ḥarf ṣād /
maθalan / ana xað amθilah bi-xtiṣār / ṣā’ / ṣā’ maθalan
ṣayd / ṣā’ ṣayd / ṣā’ ṣayd ṣayd / maθalan ṣā’ bi-ḥarf ṣā
kīnaḥ maθalan / ṣift / ṣift / ṣift / maθal .../
Mahriyōt evidence: fieldwork
Native-speaker judgements:
Rejection by native speakers of ejective tokens
of /ṣ/, /č ̣/, /ṭ/, /ź/, /θ̣/
…except in pre-pausal position
Let’s look more closely at the Mahriyōt
emphatics and consider the acoustic
evidence…
w-tarnīk ‘and tarnīk [type of fish]’
w-wīḳad ‘and wīḳad [type of fish]’
ḳannatt ‘small’
w-ō-ð-alhōḳ ‘and I am chasing’
śīwōṭ ‘fire’
ћaṭṭōt ‘a bean / grain’
Mahriyōt evidence: conclusion I
 Of the ‘emphatic’ stops:
only ḳ turns out to be ejective in all positions
ṭ is ejective only in final and prepausal position
otherwise, ṭ is similar to (the local) Arabic ṭ
non-prepausally, ṭ is ‘backed’ and unaspirated
 This ‘backing’ is also the main correlate of
‘emphatic’ in the other (fricative) emphatics…
/ś/ and /ź/
5000
0
0
0.84517
5000
Time (s)
F2
0
0
0.466301
Time (s)
F2
śātū ‘winter’
źābal ‘cold’
bā nwās ‘Abu Nuwas’
F2
xalāṣ ‘that’s it!’
F2
marwōź ‘sick [m.pl.]’
krōṣ ‘fleas’
č ̣aʕrīr ‘back of the neck’
yā šadd ‘oh what trouble!’
Importance of environment!
Pre-pausal glottalisation
 Voiced and emphatic obstruents:
 ġayj > ġayč’# ‘man’
 yanhōč ̣ > yanhōč’# ‘he shouts to s.o.’
 ṭād > ṭāt’# ‘one’
 śīwōṭ > śīwōt’# ‘fire’
 ṣwārāb > ṣwārāp’# ‘harvest period [dim.]’
 mōnaġ > mōnax’# [place name]
 Liquids (after long vowel):
 syōr > syōr’ # ‘he went’, b-ḥāwēl > b-ḥāwēl’ # ‘firstly’
 …but:
 šīt > šītʰ # ‘penis’ and yaṣkūk > yaṣkūkʰ # ‘he closes’
ṣwārāb ‘harvest period [diminutive]’
b-ħāwāl’ ‘at first’
Pre-pausal glottalisation
With the exception of ḳ, the emphatics are
only clearly glottalised prepausally,
otherwise they are ‘backed’
This glottalisation seems to be part of a
wider process of prepausal glottalisation,
which affects certain segment types:
voiced obstruents
emphatics
liquids in the environment VVL#
Pre-pausal glottalisation
Areal feature
Feature of many Yemeni Arabic dialects
In prepausal position in Ṣan’āni Arabic:
all voiced consonants are devoiced
all voiced stops and emphatics are realised as
ejectives
all (non-nasal) sonorants are devoiced and
glottalised
Yemen
Ṣan’āni dajāj ‘chicken’
Glottal
release
Ṣan’āni dagīg ‘flour’
Glottal
release
Ṣan’āni mubargaṭ ‘lumpy’
Glottal
release
Ṣan’āni nār ‘flame’
Mehri emphatics: phonological patterning
 Mehri emphatics pattern with pharyngeals and uvulars
when it comes to vowel allophones
 Mahriyōt ay and aw may occur to the exclusion of ī and ū
following an emphatic, uvular or pharyngeal:
ba-ḥḥays ‘with energy’
ḳayṯ ̣ ‘hot/pre-monsoon period’
ʕayd ‘sardines’
ʕaylūj ‘camel calf’
ḥayḏān ‘ear’
mṣawġat ‘jewellery shop’
śaṭrayr ‘cloth’
(strict adjacency not necessary)
Mehri emphatics: phonological patterning
 Allomorphy
feminine nominal, adjectival and numeral ending:
normally -īt, but -ayt in certain words:
ṣarʕayt ‘smell under the armpits’
(cf. šabdīt ‘liver’)
bīźayt ‘egg’
(cf. rēśīt ‘snake’)
habʕayt ‘seven’
(cf. ṯamnīt ‘eight’)
ṣalḥayt ‘fat f.s.’
(cf. xaṯmīt ‘thin f.s.’)
Mehri emphatics: phonological patterning
 Allomorphy
nominal feminine suffix:
-āt after an emphatic, uvular or pharyngeal, but -ēt after
other segments (except nasals):
ḳaṣṣāt ‘story’
barzēt ‘small hole in boat to let water out’
mṭarḳāt ‘hammer’
raḥbēt ‘village; town’
ṣafḥāt ‘hinge’
mbaxrēt ‘iron frame for incensing clothes’
xabzēt ‘piece of bread’
ḳaśrēt ‘naughtiness’
Summary I
 Emphatics:
 /ḳ/ = ejective
 All other emphatics = non-ejective
 There is a process of prepausal glottalisation that affects
(among other segments) the emphatics
 Why the inconsistency in the reporting of Mehri (possibly
MSAL) emphatics?
 The perception of ejective emphatics in one position (pre-pausally)
 Presence of one ejective – /ḳ/ – in all positions
 Assumption that ‘emphasis’ had one main phonetic correlate
 = assumption that emphatics as a class were ejectives
Summary II
With the exception of ḳ, Mahriyōt
emphatics are phonologically
(‘underlyingly’) of the (local) Arabic type:
‘backed’
unaspirated (in the case of voiceless emphatics)
(…although the Mahriyōt emphatics are
less ‘backed’ than Arabic emphatics tend
to be)
Implications and further work I
 What about other MSAL?
 Our data is from Mahriyōt, but we believe that
the situation may be similar in other MSAL
 First impressions are:
 that other MSAL varieties may also have some degree of
prepausal glottalisation (not just either ‘ejective emphatics’ or
freely varying emphatics)
 the degree of any prepausal glottalisation may vary across the
individual varieties, and that aside from the possibly varying
prepausal phenomena, the phonetic correlates of /ṭ/ may also
vary
Implications and further work II
It seems that there is a move across
MSAL from ejective emphatics >
pharyngealised emphatics
For Soqotri, two types of ‘emphasis’ are
described:
ejective stops
pharyngealised fricatives and occasionally
stops
(Naumkin & Porkhomovskij 1981: 12–13)
Conclusion III: postscript
 Our view of the emphatics, in at least this dialect
of Mehri, is thus the flip-side of Johnstone et al’s
coin
 We claim that they are lexically of the ‘backed’
type, but glottalised prepausally (as part of a
wider process of prepausal glottalisation)
 This does not negate the claim that MSAL
emphatics were historically ejectives – our claim
relates to the synchronic status of the
emphatics, and thus their phonological identity
Selected References
 Johnstone, T.M. 1975. The Modern South Arabian languages. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1/5: 93–
121.
 Ladefoged, P. & I. Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Leslau, W. 1947. Four Modern South Arabian languages. Word 3: 180–203.
 Lonnet, A. 2009. South Arabian, Modern. In K. Versteegh (ed.) Encyclopedia of Arabic
Language and Linguistics. Vol. IV.
 Maddieson, I. 2008. Glottalized Consonants. In: M. Haspelmath, M.S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie
(eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.
 Naumkin, V.V. & V.Y. Porkhomovskij 1981. Ocherki po etnolingvistike Sokotry. Moskva.
 Sima, A. (in press) (edited, introduced and annotated by J.C.E. Watson & W. Arnold). MehriTexte im Dialekt der jemenitischen Šarqiyyah.Wiesbaden.
 Simeone-Senelle, M-Cl. 1997. The Modern South Arabian languages. In R. Hetztron (ed.), The
Semitic Languages. London: Routledge. 378–423.
 Watson, J.C.E. & Y. Asiri. 2007. Pre-pausal devoicing and glottalisation in varieties of the
south-western Arabian peninsula. ICPhS.
 Watson, J.C.E. & A. Bellem (in press). Glottalisation and neutralisation in Yemeni Arabic and
Mehri. In B. Heselwood & Z. Hassan (eds) Instrumental Studies in Arabic Phonetics
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
For a more complete list of references, see Watson & Bellem (in press).