Are young male speakers losing Tone 3 breathiness in Shanghai Chinese? An acoustic and electroglottographic study. ICPLC – Dec 4th 2013, Hong Kong
Jiayin Gao1 & Pierre Hallé1,2
(
[email protected])
1. Laboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie 2. Laboratoire Mémoire et Cognition
Shanghai Chinese 1
¨ ¨ ¨
nearly 14 million speakers belongs to the Wu family
(about 80 million speakers)
characterized phonologically by its three-way laryngeal contrast voiceless unaspirated （全清：fully clear） ¤ voiceless aspirated（次清：secondary clear） ¤ voiced（全濁：fully muddy） ¤
* 次濁 (secondary muddy) is used to describe ‘sonorants’ Onsets p, pʰ, t, tʰ, ts, tsʰ, tɕ, tɕʰ, k, kʰ, # f, s, ɕ, h, l, m, n, Ø# b, d, (dz), dʑ, g,# v, z, ʑ, l, m, n, Ø#
Tones 53 (T1)
34 (T2)
23 (T3)
5 (T4)
yin tones (high)
2 (T5)
yang tones (low)
Phonological association between onsets and tones in Shanghai Chinese.
2
Voiced onsets with Muddy airflow: impressionistic descriptions ¨
¨
¨
Voiced stops of Wu dialects are accompanied by some voiced aspiration (‘aspiration sonore’) at the release. But the aspiration is too weak to worth its name (‘trop faible pour mériter d’être désignée’). (Karlgren, 1915-1926: 260) The real nature of voiced initials, as was first noticed by Dr. Liou Fuh, and later verified experimentally by the present writer, is that they begin with a quite voiceless sound and only finish with a voiced glide, usually quite aspirated, in the form of a voiced h. (Chao, 1928: xii) 在這次所做過的方音裡，大多數把這個讀成‘清音濁 流’的音。[In this dialectological study, most speakers pronounce (the voiced obstruents) as ‘clear sounds with muddy airflow’. ] (Chao, 1928: 21)
3
Question 1: How can we describe this ‘muddy airflow’? ¨
“muddy” ¤ used
in Chinese phonology ¤ to describe what we call today “voiced” or “sonant” ¤ in contrast with “clear” ¤ Perhaps “muddy” implies some special voice quality? ¨
“muddy airflow” ¤ breathy
voice, breathiness (e.g., Sherard, 1972; Norman 1988), as will be used in this study ¤ slack voice (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996; Chen & Downing, 2011) ¤ depression, “depressor” (Rose 1989, 2001; Chen & Downing, 2011)
4
Voiced onsets with Muddy airflow: experimental investigations ¨
Yes, breathier! ¤ H1-H2
(Cao & Maddieson, 1992; Gao & Hallé, 2012), H1-A1 (Cao & Maddieson, 1992): higher for “muddy” ¤ fiberoptic transillumination (1 speaker) (Ren, 1988):
maximal glottal openness (MGO): aspirated > “muddy” > voiceless.
¨
No evidence for breathiness ¤ ePGG
(1 speaker) (Gao et al., 2011): MGO: aspirated > “muddy” ≈ voiceless. ¤ AF/AP (ratio of air flow to air pressure) (Cao & Maddieson, 1992): no diff. between “muddy” and voiceless.
5
Question 2: Where does ‘muddy airflow’ come from? Old Chinese p-V, p-N# b-V, b-N# p-ʔ# b-ʔ# p-s > p-h# b-s > b-h# p-p,t,k# b-p,t,k#
PHONATION DIFFERENCE Early Middle Chinese Late Middle Chinese 平 even tone
上 rising tone 去 departing tone 入 entering tone
loss of coda > contour tones
modal
平 Yin even
breathy
平 Yang even
modal
上 Yin rising
breathy
上 Yang rising
modal
去 Yin departing
breathy
去 Yang departing
modal
入 Yin entering
breathy
入 Yang entering
loss of onsets’ voicing > register tones (TONE SPLIT: Haudricourt 1954)
6
Voicing contrast > phonation contrast > tone contrast ¨
Evidence in development of Middle Chinese and language contact (Pulleyblank, 1977): In level tone, Middle Chinese breathiness was replaced by onsets’ voiceless aspiration in Mandarin and in Cantonese. ¤ In Vietnamese, the huyen tone (corresponding to Chinese low level) has a breathy quality and the ngang tone (high level) has a clear quality (Thompson, 1965). ¤
¨
Evidence in other languages (among others) Mon-Khmer: voicing contrast > phonation contrast (head register/ modal vs. chest register/breathy) (Shorto, 1967; Henderson, 1952; Wayland & Jongman, 2003). ¤ East Cham: two registers combining pitch, phonation, duration and vowel quality (high tone & modal voice vs. low tone & breathy voice) (Edmondson & Gregerson, 1992; Brunelle, 2005, 2006). ¤
Purpose of this study 7
¨
To provide quantitative EGG data for the “muddy” series EGG data by Chen (2010): observation of EGG signals, no quantitative data reported ¤ Measure of degree of contact of the vocal folds during phonation => “open quotient” (OQ) as an indication of voice quality ¤ Has been used to study languages with phonations: e.g., Vietnamese, Naxi (Michaud, 2005), Tamang (Mazaudon & Michaud, 2006; Mazaudon, 2012), White Hmong (Esposito, 2012), etc. ¤
¨
To study the variation of “muddy” realization and to gain an insight on the evolution of “muddy” voice in Shanghai Chinese during the last century ¤
most rapid change among all the Wu dialects contact with migrant dialects n more recently with Mandarin Chinese, the latter lacking breathiness n
Method 8
¨
Participants: ¤ 11
native speakers of Shanghai Chinese ¤ Elderly group: 3M + 1F, mean 67.3, range 64-72 ¤ Young group: 4M + 3F, mean 24.9, range 24-28 ¨
Speech materials Tone T1 T2 T3
Zero (ʔ)ɛ 哀 (ʔ)ɛ 爱 ɛ咸
Stop pɛ 杯 tɛ 堆
Fricative fɛ 翻 sɛ 三
pɛ 板 tɛ 胆
fɛ 反 sɛ 伞
bɛ 办 dɛ 谈 vɛ 饭 zɛ 才
Nasal (ʔ)mɛ 蛮 (ʔ)mɛ 美 mɛ 梅
frame sentence /__ gə ə zɨ ŋo nin tə ə/ (“__” this character, I know it), written in Chinese characters
Method: EGG (electroglottographe) 9
¨
Calculate the dEGG signal (derivative of EGG, Henrich et al., 2003) with a semi-automatic Matlab program “peakdet.m” (Michaud). In the case of double or multiple peaks, the largest peak was retained. ¨
¨
¨
Obtain F0 and OQ values for each glottal period in the /ɛ/ vowel. Interpolate F0 and OQ values every 5 ms. Compute average F0 and OQ for each consecutive fifth of the vowel’s duration.
http://voiceresearch.free.fr/egg/
F0 and OQ at five positions
Method: H1-H2 10
¨
Computed on 30 ms windows for each consecutive fifth of the vowel’s duration, with a Praat script (based on Gendrot)
H1-H2 at five positions Gordon & Ladefoged, 2001
Results: F0 (elderly group) 11
1
150
150
F0 (Hz)
F0 (Hz)
200
200
250
250
3
1
Tone 2 2
3
Tone 3 4
Tone 1
100
100
Tone 1
5
1
Position
Tone 2 2
3
Tone 3 4
Position
F0 averaged across items and speakers
F0 averaged across items
156 vs. 211 Hz
5
Results: F0 (young group) 350
12
Tone 3
250 200 150
4
F0 (Hz)
251 vs. 144 Hz
Tone 2
300
3
Tone 1
1
2
3
4
Position
F0 averaged across items and speakers.
5
Results: open quotient (all) 60 40
50
*
50
*
Open quotient (%)
*
40
Elderly
Open quotient (%)
60
70
70
13
1
2
Tone 2 3
Tone 3 4
5
3
Tone 1
30
30
Tone 1
1
2
Position
4
5
1
65
65
55 45
50
Open quotient (%)
60
60 55 50 1
2
Tone 2 3 Position
Tone 3 4
5
4
Tone 1
40
Tone 1
40
*: higher T3, p < .05.
3
Tone 3
Position
45
Open quotient (%)
Young
Tone 2
1
2
Tone 2 3 Position
Tone 3 4
5
3
Some examples
0
Frequency (Hz)
7000
0 Time (s)
Frequency (Hz)
7000
0
0
0.5 Time (s)
7000
0
0.5
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
14
0
0.5 Time (s)
young female: age 25
7000
0
0 Time (s)
7000
0
0
0.47 Time (s)
7000
0
0.47
0
0.46 Time (s)
elderly female: age 67
Some examples 7000
0.3573 0
0 0
0.4 Time (s)
7000
-0.5582
0
0
7000
0
0.4 Time (s)
0
0.4
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
15
0 Time (s)
7000
0
0.48
0
0.48 Time (s)
Time (s)
elderly male: age 64
elderly male: age 66
4
5
Tone 1 1
2
Tone 2 3 Position
Tone 3 4
160 140 120 100 1
5
2
Tone 2 3
Tone 3 4
5
Position
*
45
50
Open quotient (%)
55
60
Position
Tone 1
60
3
Tone 3
55
2
Tone 2
2 YM: smaller F0 range (abt. 50 Hz) and lower mean F0 (125 Hz)
50
F0 (Hz)
180
180 160 100
Tone 1 1
Open quotient (%)
Averaged OQ
140 120
F0 (Hz)
2 YM: larger F0 range (abt. 80 Hz) and higher mean F0 (163 Hz)
45
Averaged F0
200
200
220
220
16
Results: variations in F0 and OQ among young male speakers
Tone 1 1
2
Tone 2 3 Position
Tone 3 4
5
Some examples
0.33
Time (s)
7000
0
0
0.5 Time (s)
7000
0
0.5
0
0.5 Time (s)
young male: age 25, larger and higher F0
Frequency (Hz)
0
0 Time (s)
7000
0
0
0.33 Time (s)
7000
0
0.33 Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
0
7000
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
0.33
0
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
0.33
7000
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
17
0
0.33 Time (s)
young male: age 28, smaller and lower F0
7000
0
0
7000
0
0
7000
0
0
Summary of EGG results 18
¨
Tone realization: ¤ YF
speakers have greater F0 range and extremely higher F0 than YM speakers. ¤ Variation among YM speakers. ¨
Open quotient: ¤ Values
at the beginning: “muddy” OQ=0.58-0.6 for speakers that show the difference between “muddy” and modal, which is around 0.1 for EM and 0.05 for YM. ¤ No difference for female speakers. ¤ Some F0-phonation tradeoff in young male speakers. (cf. in Risiangku Tamang, Mazaudon, 2012)
Results: H1-H2
0
H1-H2 (dB)
-4
-2
0
*
-2
*
-4
Elderly
H1-H2 (dB)
2
2
4
4
19
1
2
Tone 2 3
Tone 3 4
5
3
Tone 1
-6
-6
Tone 1
1
2
5
H1-H2 (dB)
0
5
1
-10
Tone 1
*: higher T3, p < .05.
4
-5
0
5
*
-5
H1-H2 (dB)
*
-10
Young
*
3
Tone 3
Position
Position
*
Tone 2
1
2
Tone 2 3 Position
Tone 3 4
5
4
Tone 1 1
2
Tone 2 3 Position
Tone 3 4
5
3
Summary of H1-H2 results 20
Positional effect: the diff. between modal and “muddy” is more pronounced at the 1st than the 2nd half of the vowel (consistent with Cao & Maddieson, 1992, but not with Rose, 1989). ¨ Values at the beginning: “muddy” H1-H2 = 3 dB for EM and 7 dB for YM; difference of around 5 dB between “muddy” and modal for both young and elderly males. ¨ No difference for female speakers. ¨ Less variation among male speakers. ¨
General discussion 21
¨
Cross-gender difference: ¤ ¤ ¤
¨
Female speakers, elderly or young, do not produce OQ or H1-H2 difference between the “muddy” and “clear” voice. (NB: only 1 EF) a) Female speakers usually have large F0 dynamics, perhaps this is why they need not phonation difference. b) There is perhaps a sociolinguistic factor: “In the good majority of linguistic changes, women are a full generation ahead of men.” (Labov, 2001) => a trend toward loss of breathiness.
Cross-age difference: ¤
¤ ¤ ¤
Among male speakers, all EM produce OQ difference between “muddy” and “clear”. Only YM with a smaller F0 range and lower F0 produce this difference, which is smaller than that of EM. suggests F0-phonation tradeoff => a trend toward loss of breathiness. However, H1-H2 results show more consistent difference for all male speakers.
To do list 22
Additional EGG (esp. EF) and H1-H2 data ¨ Additional analyses: H1-A1, A1-A2, etc. ¨ Perception test: is the breathiness perceived by native speakers? and cross-linguistically? ¨
¨
Participants are welcome!
Acknowledgements 23
¨
We would like to thank ¤
¤
¤ ¤
Andrea Levitt and Marc Brunelle for their suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper; Alexis Michaud for adapting “peakdet.m” to our use and his last minute severe critics on this paper; our dear participants; LabEx EFL (ANR/CGI) support;
¤ YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
