The Articulation of Scottish Gaelic Plain and Palatalized Consonants Jae-Hyun Sung 1 , Diana Archangeli 1,2 , Ian Clayton 1,3 , Dan Brenner 1 , Sam Johnston 1 , Michael Hammond 1 , and Andrew Carnie 1 University of Arizona 1 ; University of Hong Kong 2 ; Boise State University 3 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; {dbrenner, sjcjohnston, hammond, carnie}@email.arizona.edu Research Questions What do articulatory gestures tell us about palatal/palatalized conso- nants in Scottish Gaelic (henceforth SG)? 1. How are plain, palatal, and palatalized consonants different? 2. Do liquids have the same articulation whether in plain or palatal/palatalized contexts? 3. How are different syllabic positions at play? (e.g., initial vs. final) 4. Is the typical description accurate, that Lewis Scottish Gaelic /l/ & /r/ has plain and palatal versions? What about Uist? Data • Palatalization appears as morphologically-conditioned consonant mu- tation in SG (Macaulay (1992), Ladefoged et al. (1998), Gillies (2002), Stewart (2004)) • Both phonemic and morphological Data 1: Plain vs. Palatal ( 1 ) vs. Palatalized ( 2 ) [p] vs. [p j ] 1 vs. [p j ] 2 plain go<b> ’beak’ (nom.sg.) palatal slai<b> ’muck’ palatalized gui<b> ’beak’s’ (gen.sg.) [l] vs. [L] 1 vs. [L] 2 plain Ga<ll> ’lowlander’ (nom.sg.) palatal ainmei<l> ’famous’ palatalized Goi<ll> ’lowlander’s’ (gen.sg.) Data 2: Initial vs. Final Palatal/Palatalized [p j ] initial <b>inn ’verdict’ final gui<b> ’beak’s’ (gen.sg.) [k j ] initial <c>inn ’grow’ final gli<c> ’wise’ Data Collection & Measurements • 26 speakers of SG recruited in Sabhal M ` or Ostaig, Isle of Skye • Data from 4 speakers: 3 Lewis speakers & 1 Uist speaker – Speaker #7: born in Lewis of parents both born in Lewis – Speaker #10: born in Uist of parents both born in Uist – Speaker #15: born in Lewis of parents both born in Lewis – Speaker #25: born in Lewis of parents both born in Lewis • 240 tokens per speaker considered for analysis (240 tokens × 4 speak- ers = 960 tokens in total) • Ultrasound images of gestural peaks selected & traced manually Results Result 1: Plain (green) vs. Palatal (red) vs. Palatalized (blue) Non-liquids 1a: Plain vs. Palatal/Palatalized #7 #10 #15 #25 /p/ −340 −280 −220 tongue height (pixels) final−p+pal final−p−pal −320 −260 −200 tongue height (pixels) final−p+pal final−p−pal −340 −280 −220 tongue height (pixels) final−p+pal final−p−pal −340 −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) final−p+pal final−p−pal /t/ −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−t+pal final−t−pal −320 −260 −200 tongue height (pixels) final−t+pal final−t−pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−t+pal final−t−pal −340 −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) final−t+pal final−t−pal 1b: Palatal vs. Palatalized #7 #10 #15 #25 /t/ −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−t+palatal final−t+palatalized −320 −260 −200 tongue height (pixels) final−t+palatal final−t+palatalized −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−t+palatal final−t+palatalized −340 −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) final−t+palatal final−t+palatalized Result 2: Plain (green) vs. Palatal (red) vs. Palatalized (blue) Liquids 2a: Plain vs. Palatal/Palatalized #7 #10 #15 #25 /l/ −300 −260 −220 tongue height (pixels) final−l+pal final−l−pal −300 −260 −220 tongue height (pixels) final−l+pal final−l−pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−l+pal final−l−pal −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) final−l+pal final−l−pal /r/ −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) final−r+pal final−r−pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−r+pal final−r−pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−r+pal final−r−pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−r+pal final−r−pal 2b: Palatal vs. Palatalized #7 #10 #15 #25 /l/ −300 −260 −220 tongue height (pixels) final−l+palatal final−l+palatalized −300 −260 −220 tongue height (pixels) final−l+palatal final−l+palatalized −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−l+palatal final−l+palatalized −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) final−l+palatal final−l+palatalized Result 3: Initial (red) vs. Final Palatal/Palatalized (green) #7 #10 #15 #25 /p/ −320 −260 −200 tongue height (pixels) initial−p+pal final−p+pal −300 −250 −200 tongue height (pixels) initial−p+pal final−p+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−p+pal final−p+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−p+pal final−p+pal /t/ −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−t+pal final−t+pal −320 −260 −200 tongue height (pixels) initial−t+pal final−t+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−t+pal final−t+pal −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) initial−t+pal final−t+pal /l/ −300 −260 −220 tongue height (pixels) initial−l+pal final−l+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−l+pal final−l+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−l+pal final−l+pal −300 −260 tongue height (pixels) initial−l+pal final−l+pal /r/ −300 −260 −220 tongue height (pixels) initial−r+pal final−r+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−r+pal final−r+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−r+pal final−r+pal −320 −280 −240 tongue height (pixels) initial−r+pal final−r+pal Discussion RQ Comparison Results Q1a plain vs. palatal(ized) mostly different Q1b palatal vs. palatalized obstruents no difference Q2a plain vs. palatal(ized) mostly no difference Q2b palatal vs. palatalized liquids mostly different Q3 initial vs. final palatal(ized) sometimes different Q4 dialectal difference not observed • Articulatory patterns of palatalization are different across consonant types (Q1a & Q1b). • Gestural patterns here also capture palatal vs. palatalized contrast in liquids (Q2b); partially confirms the theoretical claim on palatal/non- palatal contrast in liquids (Borgstrøm (1941), Lamb (2003), Ternes (2006), Maolalaigh (2008)) • Different syllabic positions play a greater role in liquids than in ob- struents (Q3). • The results do not reflect any dialectal difference between Lewis and Uist speakers (Q4). Conclusions • Overall, our preliminary results show a clear sign of palatalization in palatal(ized) consonants (i.e., plain vs. palatal/palatalized). • Different underlying representations (i.e., palatal vs. palatalized) and syllabic positions (i.e., initial vs. final) often create gestural differences, but do not always manifest as differences in tongue contours. Selected References Borgstrøm, C. H. 1941. The Dialects of Skye and Ross-shire: A Linguistic Survey of the Gaelic Dialects of Scotland. H. Aschehoug & Co. Gillies, W. 2002. Scottish Gaelic. In Ball, M. and Fife, J., editors, The Celtic Languages, pages 145–227. Routledge. Ladefoged, P., Ladefoged, J., Turk, A., Hind, K., and Skilton, S. J. 1998. Phonetic struc- tures of Scottish Gaelic. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 28:1–41. Lamb, W. 2003. Scottish Gaelic. Lincon Europa. Macaulay, D. 1992. The Scottish Gaelic language. In Macaulay, D., editor, The Celtic Languages, pages 137–248. Cambridge University Press. Maolalaigh, R. ` O. 2008. Scottish Gaelic in twelve weeks. Birlinn. Stewart, T. W. 2004. Mutation as morphology: bases, stems, and shapes in Scottish Gaelic. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University. Ternes, E. 2006. The phonemic analysis of Scottish Gaelic: based on the dialect of Applecross, Ross-shire. Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation grant to Andrew Carnie (award #BCS11443818) and James S. McDonnell Foundation grant to Diana Archangeli (award #220020045 BBNB).