On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions

Cambridge University Press
On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions
Author(s): Loren Trigo
Source: Phonology, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1991), pp. 113-136
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4420026
Accessed: 18-10-2015 16:54 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phonology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.144.93.190 on Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:54:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Phonology 8 (1991) 113-136

Printed in Great Britain
On
pharynx-larynx
interactions*
Loren Trigo
Boston University
The role which the pharynx plays in the production of speech sounds has
long been the subject of debate, in particular as regards the independence
of the pharynx from other speech articulators and in particular the larynx.
Given that the linguistic and anatomical information about the larynx and
the pharynx is quite complex, the objective of this paper is to review the
literature relevant to the relationship between these two articulators and to
recast some of this information in terms of current articulator-based
theories of phonological features such as the ones reviewed in McCarthy
(1988). ? 1 presents two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR]
'advanced
tongue root' and [LL/RL] 'lowered larynx' separately in two subsections,
with definitions, examples and arguments in favour of having two
pharyngeal features rather than one. ? 2 argues that pharyngeal features are
independent of the primary point of articulation features. ?3 discusses
how the pharynx may become involved in the articulation of consonants
that are not obviously pharyngealised.
1 Pharyngeal
features: [ATR/RTRI and [LL/RLJ
The vowel systems in the languages of Africa and Southeastern Asia

exhibit a voice quality or REGISTER contrast in which the pharynx and the
larynx seem to act in unison, but to date no satisfactory explanation for
this effect has been found. What has been called register in these languages
involves three dimensions - pharyngeal volume (F1), vocal cord tension
(pitch) and vocal cord opening (phonation). Each dimension appears to be
independent in that each may assume the primary role in the realisation of
register contrasts.' However, the three dimensions frequently cooccur or
work together as a team. The so-called 'chest' register has been variously
described as involving all or some of the following articulatory traits:
spread vocal cords, tongue root advancement, higher and fronter dorsal
placement, slack vocal cords, dilated pharyngeal walls, lowered larynx; the
'head' register is said to involve the opposite characteristics: constricted
vocal cords, tongue root retraction, lower and retracted dorsal placement,
113
114 Loren Trigo

higher pitch, contracted pharyngeal walls, raised larynx. It is often the
case that 'head' register vowels follow historically voiceless obstruents,
whereas 'chest' register vowels follow historically voiced obstruents.
In this section I shall argue that distinctions of register are made by
varying the volume of the pharynx in the following ways:
(1) a.
b.
c.
d.
by
by
by
by
protracting the root of the tongue

lowering the larynx
retracting the root of the tongue
raising the larynx
(a) and (c) correspond to opposite values of the feature [ATR/RTR]

(advanced tongue root); whereas (b) and (d) correspond to opposite values
of the feature [LL/RL] (lowered larynx). I shall also provide an explanation for the cooccurrence of pharyngeal and laryngeal effects in the
implementation of register distinctions. Henceforth, I will use the following notation: [ATR] will denote the value [+ ATR], [RTR] will
denote the value [- ATR]; [LL] will denote the value [+ LL] and [RL]
will denote the value [- LL]. I will not address the question of whether
in fact [RTR] is a value distinct from [-ATR] or [RL] a value distinct
from [-LL].
1.1 Phonetic independence:
[ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL]
Register distinctions can be made phonetically on the basis of tongue root

advancement alone or larynx lowering alone. This is not easy to see
because, while most descriptions of languages with register are impressionistic, the acoustic effect of both mechanisms is similar; for
instance, both larynx lowering and tongue root advancement cause a
lowering of Fl. The problem is compounded by the fact that languages
may distinguish register by combining the two mechanisms. For example,
Lindau's (1975) X-rays show that the 'chest' register in Igbo is produced
by simultaneously advancing the root of the tongue and lowering the
larynx, whereas the 'head' register is produced by simultaneously
retracting the root of the tongue and raising the larynx. The combination
of tongue root advancement with larynx lowering led Lindau to unify
these modifications into a single phonological feature: [expanded pharynx], a feature that is phonetically implemented in a number of (acoustically related) ways. Nonetheless, the two modifications can occur
independently of one another, at least phonetically and perhaps
phonologically as well.
1. 1.1 The feature [A TR/R TR]. Jakobson et al. (1 965) had thought of the
pharynx as having the same phonological function as the lips: that of
effecting a downward shift of a perceptually crucial set of formants, but
Stewart's (1 967a) X-ray study of the register contrasts in Akan established
that root of the tongue can be manipulated independently of the lips or
tongue dorsum to widen the pharynx. Halle & Stevens (1969) recognised
On pharynx-larynx interactions 115

the validity of Stewart's evidence and proposed a new pharyngeal feature
'advanced-unadvanced tongue root' ([ATR/RTR]). Lindau's (1975) Xray and acoustic study suggests that the principal protractor of the tongue
root is the posterior portion of the genioglossus muscle, which is also
important in implementing the value [+ high] (Perkell 1971; Westbury
1979). The principal retractors of the tongue root are the hyoglossus and
the styloglossus muscles (Perkell 1971 ; Westbury 1979); though the lower
pharyngeal constrictors may also be involved.2 These muscles do not
move the larynx.3 The most reliable acoustic cue of tongue root advancement is a lowered Fl, which is caused both by the larger volume of
the pharynx and by the fact that protracting the tongue root increases the
bulk of the tongue in the mouth, which gives a generally raised prepalatine
dorsum. Retraction of the root of the tongue raises Fl while depressing F2
and F3. Hence [ATR] vowels are acoustically non-compact whereas
[RTR] vowels are compact (see Kingston 1987). A number of studies (e.g.
Jackson 1988; Ladefoged 1980) demonstrate the existence of an inverse
correspondence between pharyngeal constriction and vowel height. This
inverse correspondence explains why the very high sonorants such as
glides ([w], and especially [y]4) are often classed as [ATR]. The movement
of the tongue root usually preserves the perceived primary height of
vowels in such a way that a mid [ATR] vowel is still perceived as mid, but
is heard as 'slightly higher' or 'more close' than the corresponding mid
[RTR] vowel. Often [ATR] vowels are transcribed as [i u e o 3] in contrast
with [RTR] vowels, which are transcribed [i u c c a] ([3] is a raised low
vowel which is sometimes transcribed [A] or [X]). The transcription [ATR]
[i] vs. [RTR] [i], [ATR] [e] vs. [RTR] [?], etc. is meant to capture the
slight variations in perceived height, but it is unfortunate that the
transcription is used elsewhere to distinguish between 'peripheral and
long' vs. 'centralised and short' vowels,5 usually referred to as distinctions
of tenseness (as in English). The literature on register often uses the terms
' tense' vs. 'lax' to refer to the pharynx' but their meaning in this context
has nothing to do with vowel peripherality or length.7 Since the terms
'tense' vs. 'lax' are ambiguous, I shall not use them here.
Lindau (1975) provides X-ray evidence showing that the register
distinctions in the eastern Nilotic language Ateso are based on tongue root
advancement alone: 'chest' register vowels are pronounced by protracting
the root of the tongue, 'head' register vowels are pronounced with the
tongue root in a neutral position and no vertical displacement of the larynx
is observed in either register. The protraction of the tongue root in Ateso
has the expected effect on tongue height. Lindau (1975: 70) describes the
two registers of Ateso as follows:
There are quite large differences in tongue root position among the
vowels, but the action of the posterior genioglossus to advance the
tongue root is here used to bunch up the tongue in addition to tongue
lifting for purposes of attaining a certain tongue height ... As this
speaker does not vary the height of the larynx, the tongue root is the
116 Loren Trigo

only mechanism he employs to categorise vowels into sets, and he only
uses it to distinguish members of each vowel pair. The vowel harmony
mechanism is thus the same as the vowel height mechanism if we take
vowel height to be correlated to the height of the tongue.
1.1.2 The feature [LL/RL]. Chomsky & Halle (1968) first recognised the
vertical displacement of the larynx as an independent phonological
mechanism in their definition of the feature [covered]: 'covered sounds
are produced with a pharynx in which the walls are narrowed and tensed
and the larynx raised; uncovered sounds are produced without a special
narrowing and tensing in the pharynx' (1968: 315).
I have decided to rename this feature [LL/RL] (larynx lowering). The
muscles which elevate and depress the larynx are respectively the
suprahyoid muscles (stylohyoid, digastric and especially mylohyoid,
geniohyoid) and the infrahyoid muscles (sternothyroid). As mentioned
above, the effect (on vocalic formant structure) of lowering the larynx is
similar to that of advancing the root of the tongue: all formants, including
Fl, become lower. Hence, [LL] vowels are acoustically flat, whereas [RL]
vowels are non-flat.8 Unfortunately, there is little instrumental evidence
that register distinctions can be made on the basis of larynx lowering
without an accompanying advancement of the root of the tongue. Tucker's
(1975: 49) description of his X-rays of the register distinction in the
vowels of southern Sudan languages, Shilluk, Dinka and Nuer (southern
Nilotic) suggests that larynx lowering plays an important role in the
distinction. Note that tongue root advancement is apparently not
observed:
As regards the physiological aspect of these two forms of voice
production ... the most noticeable aspect of the 'squeezed' voice was the
pinching together of the pillars of the fauces and the lowering of the
velum (without, however, allowing access to the nasal cavity). In the
'breathy' voice the velum was raised and the fauces furled back. The
larynx was also lowered perceptibly. The result was an increased
resonance cavity at the back of the mouth. I was unable to examine the
glottis itself, but gather from subsequent information that its shape is as
for whispered voice production.
The data given so far suggest that the features [ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL]
are phonetically independent. Below I consider the question of their
phonological independence. We shall see that the evidence, though
suggestive, is not conclusive. A major complicating factor is the relation of
[RL/LL] to the laryngeal features.
1.2 Phonetic and phonological independence:

laryngeal features
[RL/LL] and
The register distinctions based on [RL/LL] involve modifications not

only in the vertical positioning of the larynx as a whole but also in the size

of the glottis: the [RL] vowels are usually 'squeezed' or 'pressed '" voiced,
the [LL] vowels tend to be breathy voiced. It is therefore important to
determine that the pharyngeal modifications observed in languages with
[RL/LL] are not simply a mechanical consequence of distinctive
modifications in vocal cord positioning. In other words, I must establish
that the register distinction in these languages is based on pharyngeal
rather than laryngeal phonatory features (i.e. [constricted glottis] and
[spread glottis]). This is particularly important because there are attested
cases where the phonatory changes that accompany the register
distinctions are phonological, e.g. Akha. This language has two registers,
which Wyss (1976: 152) describes as involving pharyngeal and laryngeal
modifications (no X-rays provided):
Low [chest] register results from a relaxed pharyngeal and faucal
apparatus, expanding the entrance to the throat into an open pharyngeal
cavity. The acoustic effect is that of a 'hollow' or 'soft' vowel quality
accompanied by a free flow of pharyngeal air in varying degrees of
'breathiness' depending on the position and configuration of the vowel
articulators. High [head] register results from a contraction and tightening of the faucal pillars and pharyngeal walls, reducing the volume of
resonance of the narrowed pharyngeal cavity. This results in a tense,
restrained and 'choked' acoustic effect. A non phonemic glottal stop
always occurs with high register in pre-pausal position, but may or may
not occur on low register.
The laryngeal involvement is phonological. The 'head' register vowels
cause adjacent voiceless stops to become 'fortis' (Wyss 1976: 158; I
assume 'fortis' here means preglottalised).10 This is evidence that the
vowels are phonologically [+constricted glottis].
[RL/LL] and laryngeal features must be phonetically independent in so
far as changes in the state of the glottis can be effected without changing
the vertical laryngeal positioning and vice versa. They are phonologically
independent in so far as languages exploit the above-mentioned phonetic
independence to make phonological distinctions.
There is evidence that the vertical displacement of the larynx is not a
mere mechanical consequence of the position and tension of the vocal
cords. Though this is not exactly the claim made in Halle & Stevens
(1971), they predict that vertical laryngeal displacement is predictable
from vocal cord tension and positioning. If this claim is correct, then there
will be no independence between the laryngeal features and the feature
[RL/LL]. Halle & Stevens make a three-way distinction among glottalic
([+ constricted vocal cords]) obstruents, corresponding to the three
possible combinations of values for the laryngeal features [stiff vocal
cords] and [slack vocal cords]. In their system, ejectives (segments where
the larynx is forcefully elevated) and implosives (segments where the
larynx is forcefully depressed) are exhaustively distinguished in terms of
their intrinsic laryngeal features:
118
Loren Trigo
(2)
implosive
preglottalised
spread vocal cords

constricted vocal cords
stiff vocal cords
slack vocal cords
ejective
But the elevation of the larynx is not predictable from its internal state.
A prediction made by the system in (2) is that ejectives should all be
voiceless and implosives should all be voiced. This prediction is
contradicted by a few languages, including Igbo (Maddieson 1984), which
has two labial implosives that differ only in that one of them is voiced and
the other voiceless. A second prediction made by the system in (2) is that
ejectives should always elevate the pitch of a following vowel whereas
implosives should have no pitch effect. But Kingston (1985: 163-176) has
shown that the degree of vocal cord tension during the production of
ejectives and implosives is not universally predictable: in Tigrinya,
ejectives elevate the pitch of a following vowel (hence are pronounced with
stiff vocal cords) whereas in Quiche they lower it (hence are pronounced
with slack vocal cords); similarly, differences in periodicity and spectral
shape indicate that Niger-Congo implosives are pronounced with stiff
vocal cords whereas Hausa implosives are pronounced with slack vocal
cords. The existence of such contrasts suggests that the vertical displacement of the larynx is not a mechanical consequence of the intrinsic
laryngeal features.
If [RL/LL] is a feature phonologically independent of the laryngeal
features, we should find languages which exploit this independence in
making phonological distinctions. Evidence supporting this claim is weak.
In the Bushman language !X66 pharyngealised vowels can be breathy or
glottalised and similarly the non-pharyngealised vowels. The pharyngealised vowels are [RL], at least phonetically. According to Traill (1985),
vowels in !Xo6 can be (1) modal, (2) glottalised, (3) breathy, (4)
pharyngealised,
(5) breathy-pharyngealised
and (6) glottalisedpharyngealised:
(3)
RL
constricted glottis
spread glottis
2
h
v
?
v
+
-
4 5
S hs
v v
+ +
+
6
?s
v
+
+
-
That the pharyngealised vowels are [RL] is suggested by the marked

vertical laryngeal movement during the production of the so-called
'strident' vowels. Phonologically, 'strident' vowels are breathy-pharyngealised: they pattern with breathy vowels ('strident' vowels fill the
gap of breathy-pharyngealised vowels in the vowel typology chart) and
with pharyngealised vowels (both pharyngealised and 'strident' vowels
must be [+back] vowels). Traill's X-ray tracings show that during the
On pharynx-larynx interactions 1 19
production of 'strident' vowels the larynx is elevated and pressed against
the epiglottis. The 'stridency' is due to an aryepiglottic constriction
through which the air flows causing vigorous vibration of the arytenoid
cartilages and epiglottis:
With one qualification, the articulatory posture ... is the same as that
involved in closing the laryngeal sphincter for non-linguistic purposes
such as coughing. The well-known purse-string effect of the contraction
of the aryepiglottic muscle and its extension, the transverse arytenoid
muscle, pulls the tips of the arytenoid together and upwards to meet the
cushion of the epiglottis, and adducts the false vocal folds (1985: 78).
The weakness of the evidence lies in the fact that Traill's X-ray tracings
of the 'strident' vowels also show a retraction of the root of the tongue;"
hence, it is not altogether clear that [RL] is the distinctive register feature
(as opposed to [RTR]). In order to make a stronger case for the
independence of the feature [RL/LL] from laryngeal features one would
have to find a language that distinguished modal and breathy vowels in
two registers based exclusively on [RL/LL]. However, as already
mentioned, there are relatively few X-ray tracings of register contrasts,
most descriptions being impressionistic. To establish the matter conclusively more data will be needed.
One might object that if [RL/LL] and the laryngeal features are
independent, as proposed here, then the fact that [RL/LL] register
distinctions tend to cooccur with changes in phonation becomes mysterious, but an explanation of this tendency is readily available. Despite
their functional independence, there is a mechanical link between pharynx
and larynx. It appears that the pharyngeal musculature can mechanically
affect the size of the glottis. To neutralise this effect the intrinsic laryngeal
musculature must be activated. Experiments conducted by Shin et al.
(1981)12 show that it is possible to open/close the glottis after removal of
the intrinsic laryngeal musculature by activating the part of the pharyngeal
musculature which also helps depress/elevate the larynx.'3 The laryngeal
constriction in these experiments is apparently not at the level of the vocal
folds but at the level of the aryepiglottic folds which are involved in
gestures of protective closure. The mechanical link between pharynx and
larynx explains why [LL] vowels tend to be breathy voiced while [RL]
vowels tend to be pressed voiced.
1.3 Phonological independence:
[RL/LL] and [ATR/RTRJ
An argument for differentiating the features [ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL]

can be made upon consideration of the ' tense' vowels in Turkana
(Dimmendaal 1983). According to Dimmendaal's description Turkana
has eleven basic vowels, four non-low vowels that belong to the 'head'
register [i U E zD], four non-low vowels that belong to the 'chest' register
[i u e o], and a low vowel which is always a 'head' register, the vowel [a].
120 Loren Trigo

In addition, Turkana exhibits two 'tense' vowels [eo], which do not
classify either as 'head' or as 'chest' register.
The register distinction in Turkana is arguably based on [RL/LL]. If
the register contrast of a language is phonatory, changes in register will be
reflected consistently in breathy vs. pressed voice type changes. If the
phonatory changes associated with register are sporadic, this is an
indication that the changes are not intentional and are caused by the
pharyngeal musculature and its mechanical link to the larynx. Like many
eastern Nilotic languages, Turkana exhibits a register contrast which is
based on a combination of pharyngeal cavity volume and phonatory type.
However, Manuela Noske (personal communication) reports that the use
of breathy/pressed voice to effect register distinctions in this language is
sporadic (when present). This being the case, I suggest that register in this
language is based on a pharyngeal rather than on a laryngeal feature. But
which pharyngeal feature is involved? I have no X-ray data on this
language, but the 'chest' register vowels of this language tend to be
breathy'4 (the 'head' register vowels tend to be pressed voiced). There is
no evidence that implementing the pharyngeal value [ATR] causes the
vocal cords to spread. Let us therefore assume for a moment that the
register distinction in Turkana is based on [RL/LL].
Phonologically 'tense' vowels are simultaneously [ATR] and [RL].
This is evident from Dimmendaal's description and from their historical
derivation. According to Dimmendaal 'tense' vowels are pronounced with
a protracted tongue root and a 'tense' pharyngeal apparatus which
produces a harsh, pressed voice.'5 The distribution of 'tense' vowels in
Turkana is not predictable, but when they do occur, it is immediately after
a glide. It is crucial to note that in Turkana, glides trigger a harmony rule:
vowels following a glide may be of 'head' or 'chest' register, but vowels
preceding a glide are always of 'chest' register:
(4)
i-ce
i-kam
i-j k
'to carve'
'to catch'
'to be good'
i-syEn
i-wap
i-wok
'pity'
'to follow'
'to carry'
Why do glides have this effect? Glides are pronounced with a higher
tongue body position than are any of the vowels. Since, as already
mentioned above, the feature [ATR] seems to be intimately related to
tongue height, it appears that the feature which the glides are spreading is
the feature [ATR], which glides possess redundantly by virtue of their
articulatory configuration. Returning to the question of the 'tense'
vowels, it appears that the 'tense' vowels arise when a glide spreads its
[ATR] feature onto a following 'head' register (i.e. [RL]) vowel. Examples
of such spreading occur incidentally in the grammar and specific lexical
items. The target vowel is always a mid vowel:
On pharynx-larynx interactions
(5)
ATR
121
ATR
iry
iry
'tobe black'
RL
RL
Synchronically, a low vowel following a glide optionally becomes a 'tense'

vowel probably by a similar process. In addition to becoming 'tense', the
low vowel assimilates the values [aback, -low] from the preceding glide:
(6)
a-kwap
-wa
-dyal
-yat)
a-kwop
wo
dyel
yet
'land'
'stand'
'persuade'
'skin'
Other 'mixed' register vowels arise in the build-up of words and I will not
consider them here. What is important is that 'tense' vowels are 'mixed'
register vowels, which are impossible to describe unless [ATR/RTR] and
[LL/RL] are distinct features."6
In conclusion,
I have distinguished
two pharyngeal features
[ATR/RTR] 'advanced tongue root' and [LL/RL] 'lowered larynx' in
addition to the laryngeal phonatory features [constricted glottis] and
[spread glottis]. The basis of the distinction between the feature [LL/RL]
and the laryngeal features is largely phonetic. The evidence for their
phonological independence is not conclusive. The cooccurrence of pharyngeal and laryngeal effects has been attributed to a mechanical link
between pharynx and larynx. The distinction between [ATR/RTR] and
[LL/RL] has been shown to be useful in the description of 'mixed'
register vowels in Turkana.
2 The pharynx and the place component

Having distinguished two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR]
and
[LL/RL], I consider now their relationship to the other phonological
features. I will argue that in a certain class of segments, e.g. dorsopharyngeal uvulars, the pharyngeal component (which groups the features
and [LL/RL])
[ATR/RTR]
is independent of the primary place
component which groups together the other place articulators; to wit, the
lips, tongue blade and tongue dorsum. Following a proposal by Clements
(1989) distinguishing the primary (or consonantal) place component from
the secondary (or vocalic) place component, I suggest that the pharyngeal
component of dorso-pharyngeal uvulars in some languages is a secondary
place component. As the evidence hinges on the analysis of uvulars, I shall
begin with a general discussion of these segments.
122
Loren Trigo
2.1 Dorsal uvulars

Uvulars are not a homogeneous set of segments from the point of view of
articulation. There are languages where uvulars appear to be pure dorsals;
in other languages uvulars appear to have a pharyngeal component:
(7)
Dorso-pharyngeal uvulars
Dorsal uvulars
[-high]
[RTR]
[+back]
[RL]
Dorsum
Dorsum
Pharynx
1 place
1 place
2 place
[q]=[ki]
[q]
Evidence that uvularisation is not necessarily caused by assimilation of

a pharyngeal feature can be gathered from the way uvulars arise in
languages with register distinctions based on pharyngeal volume. For
example, in Turkana the voiceless velar obstruent /k/ obligatorily
becomes what is described as a 'uvular' obstruent when it stands next to
a tautosyllabic [o], [o] or [a] (when surrounded on both sides by [o], [3] or
[a] the uvular becomes a fricative; syllable boundaries are marked with a
period) :17
(8)
rji-kayo
lu-ka-bob-o-k
e-kaalees
ti-ka-lbk-a-k
a-kamu
rji-kodyo
e-kod
lo-kori
a-bokok
OI-k3rI
e-k3rI
na-bakobok
a-kooki-aan-ut
[rji. qa. yo]
[lu . qiaa. boq]

[?e.qa . lees]
[i)i. qa . 13.qaq]
[a. xa . mu]
[ni . qod . yo]
[e .qod]
[lo . Xo. ri]
[a. bo . yoq]
[rJI.q3 . rI]
[E. qz . ri]
[na . b. X. bzq]
[a . Xoo. kyaa . nut]
'myrsine africana (tree)'

'the sweet ones'
' ostrich'
' trapper'
'dry season'
'tax' PL
'tax' PL
'Lokori village'
'turtle'
ratel' PL
'ratel' SG
' elephant shrew'

'loneliness'
[k] remains unaltered if the above condition does not hold:

(9)
a-kiru
a-makuk
ri-keno
i)a-kima-k
a-rukum
a-kEpu
e-risik
na-kituk
[a. ki. ru]

[a . ma . kuk]
[ji. ke. no]
[ia . ki . maq]
[a. ru. kum]
[a.kc.pu]
[e. ri . sik]
[na . ki . tuk]
' rain '

'stool'
'fireplace' PL
'old women'
'cough'
'vein'
'anti-witchcraft charm'
'mouth'
PL

The assimilation of the pharyngeal register feature is irrelevant to
uvularisation because both 'head' register [o] and 'chest' register [o] are
capable of causing uvularisation when the structural condition of the rule
is met. Chomsky & Halle (1988) propose that uvulars are [-high, + back]
segments. It appears that in Turkana the value [-high] is crucial to
uvularisation. There is a rule in Turkana whereby a sequence of [u] or
[i] + consonant is optionally expanded with [w] if [u] precedes or with [y]
if [i] precedes: [rji-keno]-> [r3i-kyeno] 'fireplaces'; [e-lupe] -- [e-lupwe]
'clay'. When this happens [k] does not become uvular: [ri-turkana] -- [rjiturkwana] 'the Turkana people' vs. [e-turkana-it] -- [e-turqanait] 'a
Turkana person'. There is also a tendency not to uvularise [k] after a high
vowel independently of this rule, though it does not seem to be an absolute
prohibition: [E-ZadoZot], [rji-kadoZot] 'monkey' SG, PL; [a-mok-at], [rjamok] 'shoe' SG, PL; [e-Xor-ot], [ni-kor] 'Samburu' SG, PL; [louko] 'in
(this) lung'. A possible explanation of these facts is that the velars fail to
become uvular because they optionally assimilate the [+high] value of a
neighbouring [Ii y] or [u o w]. This would entail that uvulars in Turkana
are [-high].18
Additional evidence that uvularisation may not involve pharyngealisation
can be gathered from the behaviour of uvulars in Akha. There is a rule in
the language whereby the velar fricative [x] becomes what is described as
a 'backed velar fricative' [X] preceding [o ic a] ('head' register is indicated
with a superscript '"'; 'chest' register is left unmarked):
(10)
'chest' register
xhx 'to leave vacant'
xh* 'classifier for doors'
Xh3lb
'trough'
ZhumE 'mouth'
'head' register
'to break'
xxS 'to dig with finger'
3i
baXoS
x?*
'to draw water'

'skin'
It is clear that the pharyngeal register feature remains orthogonal to the

uvularisation process because [o :ca] each have contrasting 'head' and
'chest' register realisations, both of which cause [x] to become [X]. The
data given in this section thus suggest that some types of uvulars are
dorsal, [-high]. If this is correct, it should be possible to provide these
dorsal uvulars with a pharyngeal component. Pharyngealised uvulars have
been described in some Caucasian languages (cf. Catford 1983).
2.2 Dorso-pharyngeal
uvulars
In other languages, uvulars appear to have a pharyngeal component. It is

these dorso-pharyngeal uvulars which provide interesting information
about the relation of the pharyngeal features to the rest of the segmental
features. The pharyngeal component of these uvulars remains behind after
a process of oral depletion has removed the point of articulation features
of the uvular. This suggests that the pharyngeal component does not effect
5
P1H0 8
124 Loren Trigo

point of articulation. Two languages showing the peculiar behaviour of
dorso-pharyngeal uvulars under oral depletion are discussed below.
The northern dialects of Malay (Teoh 1988) have undergone a process
of oral depletion which removes the point of articulation of word-final
consonants. The degree to which oral depletion applies depends on the
dialect, as shown below:
( 11)
p
t
k
s
f
m
n
i)
I
r
h
Standard
?asap
kilat
masa?
balas
negatef
?alem
sabon
dukoxj
batal
jujo:
yumah
Kelantan
?asa?
kila?
mast)?
balah
negatih
alir
saboxj
dukoij
bata:
jujo:
yumih
Terengganu
?asa?
kila?
mas)?
balah
Kedah
?asap
kilat
masa?
balaih
?alerj
saboij
dukoU
bata:
jujo
yum5h
?alem
sabon
dukot
betai
jujoS
HumTh
'smoke'
'lightning'
'cook'
'finish'
' negative'
' pious'
' soap '
' carry'
' cancel'
' sincere'
'house'
Let us discuss the behaviour of non-uvular consonants first in each

dialect. Standard Malay preserves all word-final consonants with the
exception of /k/ and /r/. Final /k/ loses its point of articulation and
becomes [?]. /r/ is realised as a voiced velar continuant [y]; /rumah/
[yumah] 'house', but in final position it undergoes oral depletion
optionally and generates an empty timing slot which is filled in by the
preceding vowel by compensatory lengthening: /kaper/ [kape:] 'infidel '19
Terengganu and Kelantan exhibit the following processes: final /p t k/
lose their point of articulation and become [?], final /s f/ lose their point
of articulation and become [h]. The nasals /m n rj/ lose their point of
articulation and become [N] (i.e. a nasal lacking a point of articulation).
This [N] is realised as velar or uvular (Terengganu) or else disappears,
leaving behind the trace of nasality when the preceding vowel is low
(Kelantan): /?awam/ 'public', /kapan/ 'cloth shroud' and /sararj/ 'to
attack' become respectively [?aw?], [kapf], [sarg] ([?awar], [kaparj],
[saraij] in Terengganu). Word-final /1/ and /r/ (the latter realised as a
voiced velar continuant [y]) lose their point of articulation and generate an
empty timing slot which is filled by the previous vowel through compensatory lengthening. Kedah exhibits the following processes: final /k/
loses its point of articulation and becomes [?]. Final coronals, /1/ and /s/,
decompose to an intermediate stage, [il] and [is] and then undergo oral
depletion to become [i0] and [ih], respectively (0 is an empty slot).
Clearly, Malay exhibits a tendency to orally deplete word-final consonants.
Returning to the question of the uvulars, our focus of interest is the
behaviour of final /r/ in Kedah. The pronunciation of /r/ in Malay varies
from dialect to dialect, ranging from a voiced velar continuant [y] in the
standard, Terengganu and Kelantan dialects to a voiced uvular continuant
[Humah] 'house'). In Kedah, this uvular [H]
[B] in Kedah (/rumah/

undergoes oral depletion in final position, but unlike the velar realisation
of /r/ in other dialects, it does not leave behind an empty timing slot to
be filled through compensatory lengthening. Instead it leaves behind a
voiced pharyngeal continuant [S]; /jujoH/ --[jujoS] 'sincere'. The contrasting behaviour of the realisations of /r/ in the dialects of Malay
suggests that the uvular realisation has a pharyngeal component lacking in
the velar realisation. This pharyngeal component patterns with the laryngeal and nasal component of other final segments in that it is left
behind as a residue after oral depletion.20
Additional evidence for independence of the pharyngeal articulator
from the point of articulation features can be gathered from the development of pharyngeals in Nootka (Jacobsen 1969). In this language
pharyngeals developed from uvulars, as shown by the Nootkan correspondences involving these sounds:
(12)
Proto-Nootkan
q?
*NqW?
*yw
Makah
Nitinat
Nootka
q?
q?pa:k
Sapa:k
Sapa:k
qW?
qW?ica:k
Sica:k
Sica:k
'rotten'
zaci:
xaci:
haci:
'deep down'
Xw
Xw
ciXwa:
ciXwa:
ciha:
'willing'
'ghost'
Nootka pharyngeals have arisen in a consonantal system that distinguishes

many points of articulation and in which the non-glottal stops and
affricates and the sonorants occur in plain and glottalised pairs. There are
the voiceless stops and affricates /p t ILc c k kw q qw S ?/, glottalised stops
V kW?q? qW?/, voiceless fricatives in position
and affricates /p t? i c ? k?
matching all except the two frontmost voiceless stops /1 s s x xw X Zwh h/,
voiced nasals and semivowels /m n w y/ and their glottalised counterparts
/mi n? w2 y?/. The modern instances of /q' qw' XZW/are largely restricted
to borrowings from Makah and specialised vocabulary.
The focus of our interest is the step from Proto-Nootkan *[q?] to
Nootka [S]. The change suggests a simultaneous loss of labiality and
dorsality, with the pharyngeal component left behind as a residue. This
simultaneous loss can be analysed in one of two ways.
One is, according to Jacobsen (1969: 142), that 'the loss of labialisation
in Nootka... [is] a concomitant of the shift to a pharyngeal position of
articulation due to physiological or acoustic incompatibility'. Kingston
(1987) argues that such a physiological or acoustic incompatibility does
not exist since pharyngealisation and labialisation are able to cooccur on
one and the same segment in Ubykh.21 Other languages where
pharyngealisation and labialisation do not conflict are Columbian Salish
(Kinkade 1967) and Coeur d'Alene (Reichard 1938), which contrast plain
and glottalised /S/ and /SW/ (see McCarthy 1989).
5-2
126 Loren Trigo

An alternative explanation for the simultaneous loss of labiality and
dorsality is that like in Malay, pharyngeals in Nootka developed via an oral
depletion rule which deleted the point of articulation features of ProtoNootkan uvulars and consequently, the dorsal and labial features of the
protosegment, leaving behind its pharyngeal component only.
The data presented in this section show that the pharyngeal component
does not pattern with point of articulation features in that only the latter
are subject to oral depletion in Malay and Nootka.
2.3 Consequences
for feature geometry
The evidence of the preceding section can be interpreted in one of two

ways. One is that only the anterior articulators (the lips, the tongue tip and
the tongue dorsum) are place articulators, whereas the pharyngeal articulator is not. We can assume, following Clements (1985), that oral
depletion deletes the place node of a segment. This makes it possible to
group the pharyngeal articulator with some other articulator, e.g. the
laryngeal articulator under a new laryngo-pharyngeal node. On this view,
the oral depletion of a dorso-pharyngeal uvular is to be analysed as shown
below:
k
(13)
0
place
supralaryngeal
laryngopharyngeal
[q]
oral
supralaryngeal
laryngopharyngeal
[SJ
depletion
An alternative interpretation of the data can be made on the basis of a

proposal by Clements (1989) distinguishing the primary (or consonantal)
place component from the secondary (or vocalic) place component. The
idea is that the pharyngeal component of dorso-uvulars is a secondary
place articulator (as opposed to the primary one) and that oral depletion
deletes the primary but not the secondary place articulators (I owe this
suggestion to M. Kenstowicz). On this view, the oral depletion of a dorsopharyngeal uvular is to be analysed as shown below:
(14)
k
i
primary
place
secondary
place
[q]
secondary
place
oral
depletion
[i
There are two reasons why we want to say that uvulars in Proto-Nootka
and Kedah involve a secondary pharyngeal place component. First,
Clements (1989) has argued that each secondary (vocalic) place component
corresponds to an articulatorily analogous primary (consonantal) place

component and vice versa. For example, to the secondary pharyngeal
component in pharyngealised consonants, e.g. [q] (= [ks]), corresponds
the primary pharyngeal component in pure pharyngeals, e.g. [S]. If the
pharyngeal component of [q] in Proto-Nootka and Kedah had been a
primary place component, these languages should have exhibited pure
pharyngeal consonants in their consonantal inventory. The absence of
pure pharyngeals in Proto-Nootka and Kedah supports an analysis of the
pharyngeal component of [q] as a secondary component. Second, if the
pharyngeal component of [q] in these languages is a secondary place
component, then we correctly predict that it (the pharyngeal component)
will pattern after other secondary place components.
The pharyngeal place component of [q] in Kedah patterns after other
secondary place components. Recall that in Kedah word-final [1] and [s]
decompose to [il] and [is] and subsequently the second half of the
d~phthongs undergoes oral depletion to [i0] (0 = empty timing slot) and
[ih] respectively (cf. 'to cancel' and 'cockroach' in (15)). Word-final [H]
is subject to a similar decomposition process: [is] decomposes to [iis], then
depletes to [aS] (cf. 'infidel' and 'sand' in (15)). Changes in vowel height
will not be discussed here:
Standard Kelantan Terengganu Kedah
(15)
al batal
bata:
bata:
batai
'to cancel'
al tabal
taba:
' thick'
taba:
tabai
as lipas
lipah
lipah
lipaih
'cockroach'
as pulas
pulah
pulah
pulaih
'to wring'
us bagos
baguh
bagoh
bagoih
'good'
us mampos
mApuh
mapoh
mampoih 'dead'
ul pikol
piko
piko:
pikoi
'carry'
ul batol
bato
' right'
bato:
batoi
ir kape:
kape:
kape:
kapiaS
'infidel '22
ir pase:
' sand'
pase:
pase:
pasiaS
The [a] from [s] and the [i] from [s, l] surface if the resulting diphthong
is of the structure [axback][-aback]. If the structure of the resulting
diphthong is [xback][aback], monophthongisation occurs, followed by
shortening in closed syllables. Under the column labelled 'expected' I
have given the intermediate forms occurring before the application of
monophthongisation and shortening:
(16)
Standard Kelantan Terengganu Kedah
expected
ar lapa:
lapa:
lapo
lapal
'hungry'
[aaS]
ar tika:
tika:
tik3
' mat'
tikaS
ur jujo:
jujo
' sincere'
jujos
jujo:
[oaS]
ur talo:
talo:
talo
'egg'
taloS
is habes
habih
abih
habeh 'to finish'
[eih]
is kikes
kikih
kikih
kikeh
'to scrape'
il sambel
sambe:
sambe:
sambe: 'while'
[ei0]
il jahel
jahe:
jahe:
jahe:
'irreligious'
128 Loren Trigo

It is tempting to unify the decomposition of final [1], [s] and [s] in
Kedah. To do so one must assume that the [a] in [ai] is a 'pharyngeal'
component of [s] while the [i] in [i^0]and [ih] is a 'coronal' component in
[1] and [s]. These 'pharyngeal' and 'coronal' components can be grouped
together under a single node: the secondary (or vocalic) place node. This
grouping allows decomposition to manipulate the 'pharyngeal' and
'coronal' components simultaneously as required by the data. On this
view, decomposition and oral depletion in Kedah are to be analysed as
shown in (17). Node 1 stands for primary place node and node 2 stands for
secondary place node. Decomposition inserts a vowel before the relevant
consonant and spreads the secondary place features (node 2) of the consonant onto the vowel. Oral depletion deletes the primary place features
(node 1) of the final consonant:
(17)
a i s
a i s
1 2 1
1
a
V
s
decomposition
i a k
1 2 1
i
1 2 1
fiV
a i s
a i
-
oral
depletion
i a k
-
decomposition
121
I\I
i a 1%
12 0
kv
a i h
ia
12
oral
depletion
I \
i a i
The data presented in this section supports an analysis of the pharyngeal

component as a secondary place articulator of the uvulars of certain
languages.
3 Voiced obstruents, laryngeals
and the pharynx
In this section I shall discuss how the pharynx may become involved in the
production of consonants that are not obviously pharyngealised: voiced
obstruents and laryngeals.
3.1 Voiced obstruents

The relation between obstruent voicing and pharyngeal activity is evident
in a number of languages. It has been proposed that certain basic changes
in the vowel systems in the languages of Southeastern Asia have come
about historically as the result of the influence of consonants that were
initial in the syllable. In what Haudricourt (1946, 1965) has termed the
Mon-Khmer shift, voiceless stops were associated with a 'tenseness' of
voice quality in the following vowel, voiced stops with 'looseness', and
when the voiced and voiceless stops fell together the voice quality (or
register) contrast in the vowels became phonemically significant. The

register contrast can be found among the vowels of many Mon-Khmer
languages today and Phillips (1973) reports that in at least one of them,
Mnong (South Bahnaric), the register of vowels varies according to the
preceding stop in the manner predicted by Haudricourt.23 Other languages
which have been claimed to display a similar phenomenon are the Buchan
dialect of Scots (Kohler 1984) and the southern dialects of Akan (Stewart
1967b). The case of Madurese (Stevens 1968) detailed below will give the
reader an idea of the phenomenon in question.
Madurese, a West Indonesian language related to Javanese, has eight
surface vowels which divide into two groups corresponding to higher and
lower vowels. The higher vowels are 'chest' register and the lower vowels
are 'head' register:
(18)
-
+ high
' chest'
+ back
back
i
u
i
- back
'head'
+ back
+low
The 'chest' register vowels occur after the voiced and the 'heavy'
aspirated obstruent stops /b d dc g pfid tfi
t
k7/. The 'head' register
vowels occur word initially and after the remaining consonants i.e.
/p t t 4 k m n p re s I r (w) y ?/. Suffixal vowel alternations conditioned by
the preceding root consonant determine the following vowel correspondences:
(19)
a.
kapfiuct-ct
sznar-ra
b. xj--kiuy-i
rjaijkRi?-i
1J-Yp3y-6
C. J`Y-lhu
la3
'his water buffalo'

'its rays'
a-
'to use'
'to embroider'
'to provoke'
'to the south'

'south'
The distribution of 'chest' vs. 'head' register vowels in Madurese

words suggests that the vocalic register feature is derived by assimilation
to the preceding consonant.
Some of the evidence suggests that the assimilated feature is [LL/RL].
Phonetically, the 'heavy' stops of Madurese are [LL] in that they
resemble those of Javanese (K. Stevens personal communication), which
have been described as [LL]. According to Catford (1977), the 'heavy'
stops of Javanese [pfi tf kf] are pronounced with the larynx quite lowered
and the vocal cords relaxed and open at the cartilaginous part (this state
persists into the following vowel, giving it a lower pitch and breathy
phonation (cf. Dudas 1968: 6-7)). Like the 'heavy' stops of Javanese, the
'heavy' stops of Madurese lower the pitch of a following vowel (K. Stevens
personal communication). Voiced obstruents can also be argued to be
phonetically [LL]. Westbury (1979: 198) states:
130 Loren Trigo

As early as 1937, Hudgins and Stetson proposed that larynx lowering
during the production of voiced stops would effectively maintain
voicing during their closures. Virtually all studies since that time which
have monitored vertical position of the larynx relative to the production
of the voicing contrast among stops agree that the larynx is generally
lower in the neck for voiced than voiceless stops ... However, as
Riordan has pointed out (1978), a lower larynx position for a voiced stop
in and of itself is of no use in initiating or maintaining voicing during
its closure. Rather, the larynx can function as a voicing mechanism only
if it lowers during the stop closure itself, since movement of this sort
increases the volume of the cavity above the glottis and will thereby
absorb part of the ongoing transglottal flow necessary for voicing.
Other facts suggest that the feature involved in Madurese might be
[ATR/RTR]. Phonetically, voiced obstruent stops are [ATR] (the [ATR]
value helps maintain voicing during closure: cf. Westbury's 1979 X-ray
tracings of voiced obstruent stops in English). A problem with this
approach is that it is not clear that the 'heavy' stops are [ATR] (they are
phonetically voiceless during their occlusion). However, Stevens (1966)
argues that the 'heavy ' stops were voiced historically (synchronically, they
lower the pitch of following vowels); so it is possible that they are
phonologically [ATR].
If the voiced and 'heavy' obstruents are marked for some pharyngeal
feature (say, the feature [ATR/RTR]), we can assume that the distribution
of 'head' and 'chest' register vowels follows from Harmony, a rule which,
as stated in (20), spreads the pharyngeal feature of voiced and 'heavy'
obstruents to the immediately following string of oral sonorants:
(20)
Harmony (multi-targeted)
[ATR]
[-nas] [-nas1
+sonJ
Evidence that a pharyngeal register feature is being spread can be
gathered from the typology of blockers of Harmony. These are either
voiceless obstruents (T, S) or nasals (N):
(21)
transparent (L, G)
opaque (T, S, N)
' wash'
tfRil
' tongue'
abysso
byrxs
buwx
diyy
'health'
'fruit'
'here'
'language'
' stone)
bxta
k%iman 'weapon'
p%RYsa
Blocking reflects an incompatibility between the spreading 'chest' register

feature ([LL] or [ATR]) and the segment in question. Voiceless obstruents
are incompatible because the values [LL] [ATR] foster voicing. That
nasals are incompatible is apparent in Lindau's (1975) X-ray tracings,

which show extra raising of the velum in the case of 'chest' register
vowels. Other data point to affinity between nasals and the 'head' register.
Some investigators (e.g. Delattre 1965, cited in Entenman 1977: 21) have
proposed that pharyngealisation (i.e. 'head' register) enhances the perception of nasality by producing two resonating chambers (the lower
pharyngeal cavity and the naso-pharynx) whose resonances are close
enough together to cancel each other and reduce the force of the first
formant. This affinity might explain why in Dioula D'Odienne (Braconnier 1986) 'head' register vowels nasalised historically before heterosyllabic nasals, while 'chest' register vowels failed to do so. Nasality and
the 'head' register are also articulatorily related: at least one of the
muscles (i.e. palatopharyngeous) that constricts the pharynx can also
lower the soft palate (Lieberman & Blumstein 1988: 120).
3.2 Laryngeals
Another type of consonant which may involve the pharynx (in particular
the feature [LL/RL]), even though pharyngealisation may not be evident,
is the group which includes laryngeal consonants. Lindau (1975: 134)
reports that the lower pharynx can be active in the production of some [h]s
and [?]s:
The width of the pharynx is smaller for [h] than for surrounding
vowels ... but the vertical position of the larynx seems to be the same as
that of the vowels ... in the production of at least one type of glottal stop
the pharynx is considerably constricted and the larynx higher (Lindqvist
1969).
According to Lindqvist (1969, 1972) there are two different kinds of
laryngeal constriction: one at the level of the vocal folds and one higher
up at the level of the aryepiglottic folds. The latter constriction can be seen
in Lindqvist's pictures of a phonetician's glottal stop taken through a
fibreoptic laryngoscope. Catford (1983) reports that in a number of
Caucasian languages, pharyngeal approximants [h Si] and laryngeals [h ?]
contrast phonemically with the aryepiglottal approximants [H i] and stop
[?]; the 'strident' vowels described by Traill (see above) involve a similar
aryepiglottal constriction. The aryepiglottic folds extend from the sides of
the epiglottis to the apexes of the arytenoid cartilages. The role of aryepiglottic closure is basically protective (as in swallowing) and is
effected by the aryepiglottic muscles within the folds, the oblique
arytenoid muscles and the thyroarytenoid muscles. I have associated
aryepiglottic closure with the feature [RL/LL] (see above).
Given the pharyngeal involvement in their production, aryepiglottal
laryngeals will be expected to pattern phonologically with pharyngeals as
do laryngeals in some languages, e.g. Semitic (cf. McCarthy 1989).
However, the claim that the laryngeals which pattern after pharyngeals are
aryepiglottal has not been substantiated.
132
Loren Trigo
4 Conclusion
I have argued for the existence of two pharyngeal features [ATR/RTR]
'advanced tongue root' and [LL/RL] 'lowered larynx' independent of
the laryngeal features. The distinction between the feature [LL/RL] and
the laryngeal features is drawn by establishing their phonetic independence. Evidence for their phonological independence is not conclusive.
The cooccurrence of pharyngeal and laryngeal effects is attributed to a
mechanical link between pharynx and larynx. The distinction between
[ATR/RTR] and [LL/RL] proves useful in the description of 'mixed'
register vowels in Turkana. Pharyngeal features are shown to be independent of the so-called primary place features. It is argued that they
classify as secondary place features. Finally, it is shown that the pharynx
(in particular the feature [LL/RL]) may become involved in the articulation of voiced obstruents and laryngeals.
NOTES
*
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to M. Halle, D. Steriade, M.

Kenstowicz, K. Stevens and J. McCarthy, all of whom spent long hours
discussing this paper with me. All errors are exclusively mine.
According to Gregerson (1976), tongue root position constitutes the primary
element in the register contrast of many Mon-Khmer languages. Vocal cord
positioning (breathy vs. modal voice or modal vs. pressed voice) seems to constitute the primary acoustic cue to the register contrasts of the Chinese minority
languages Wa and Jingpho (cf. Maddieson & Ladefoged 1985; Maddieson &
Hess 1986). Pitch constitutes the primary acoustic cue in the register contrast
of Kammu (Svantesson 1983), a Mon-Khmer language.
Gauffin & Sundberg (1978) speculate that the lower pharyngeal constrictors are
also involved in bringing about a lateral narrowing of the pharynx observed
during the production of pharyngeal sounds.
According to Westbury (1979) the stylohyoid and the posterior belly of the digastric could perhaps retract the root of the tongue while elevating the larynx
simultaneously.
[y] classifies as an [ATR] segment in Akan (Clements 1981) and Turkana (see
below).
Peripheral vowels deviate from the vowel [a], which defines the neutral position
for vowels, whereas centralised vowels approach [a].
Much of the literature dealing with register uses the terms 'tense-lax' voice to
refer to the state of the pharyngeal walls and the larynx - not to qualities of
peripherality or length - e.g. Haudricourt (1965), Dimmendaal (1983), Tucker
(1975), Stewart (1967a), Laver (1980), Maddieson (1984) and Ladefoged (1975),
among others. For example, Stewart notes that 'head' register vowels in Akan
are pronounced in a 'strangled' way. Dimmendaal calls 'tense' those vowels
which are pronounced with tension in the pharynx (see further in the text).
Finally, Tucker (1975: 46) notes: 'it has been established in African languages,
both by Stewart and by us that by far the greater 'tension-1 ' occurs with ['head'
register] i and u etc., the so-called 'lax-2' vowels'. In this quote, the term
' tension- I ' relates to the pharynx, whereas the term 'lax-2' refers to
peripherality and length.
The peripheral-centralised distinction associated with 'tenseness' and 'laxness'
is irrelevant to many African languages with register based on [ATR]. However,
133
pharyngealisation ([RTR]) does tend to have an acoustic effect similar to that of

vowel centralisation in some Caucasian languages. This is due to a peculiar distortion of the tongue, which is similar to that caused by a common type of
American r. X-ray tracings (cf. Catford 1983) show that the tongue root bulges
backwards into the pharynx, while a depression is formed in the dorsal surface
of the tongue approximately opposite the uvula, with a further upward bulge
further forward on the tongue.
[8] In some languages it appears that Fl is not the only acoustic factor which
distinguishes between registers. In Akyem, for example; 'chest' register [i u]
have lower Fl than 'head' register [i o], but at the same time 'chest' register
[e o] have a lower Fl than 'head' register [i U] (see Lindau (1975: 40). Lindau's
X-ray shows that the register distinction in this language is effected by displacements of the tongue root and larynx.
[9] I use the term 'pressed' or 'squeezed voice' to refer to a type of phonation
which is glottalised and of a higher pitch. I follow Halle & Stevens (1971) in
reserving the term 'creaky voice' to refer to a type of phonation which is
glottalised and of a lower pitch.
[10] In Akha the 'head' register has the following characteristics: the vowels are
pronounced with narrowed pharyngeal walls, raised larynx and pressed voice,
and in addition they are centralised [a io], etc., shorter in duration and of a
normal pitch; the voiceless aspirated consonants are not aspirated, the voiceless
plain consonants are 'fortis' (Wyss 1976: 158). The 'chest' register has the following characteristics: the vowels are pronounced with dilated pharyngeal walls,
lowered larynx and breathy voice, and in addition they are peripheral [a i u],
etc. (Wyss 1976: 155, 171), longer in duration and of a lower pitch; the voiceless
aspirated consonants are voiceless aspirated, the voiceless plain consonants are
'lenis'. My sources do not specify what the terms 'fortis-lenis' mean. I assume
Akha distinguishes a series of plain voiceless stops from a series of voiceless
aspirated stops. However, our sources call the series of plain voiceless stops
'lenis' voiced stops. It is not clear if they are essentially voiceless, like the 'lenis'
voiced stops of certain English speakers.
A similar phenomenon has been observed in Igbo; cf. Lindau (1975: 133).
[11] The X-ray tracings of the other pharyngealised vowels show retraction of the
root of the tongue and do not provide information about the vertical position of
the larynx.
[12] The experiments conducted by Shin et al. were not performed on humans,
although they assume that their results are readily extensible to human physiology. The results show that the act of closing the glottis calls into action the
intrinsic laryngeal musculature, the lower pharyngeal constrictors (hyopharyngeal,
thyropharyngeal, cricopharyngeal) and the suprahyoid muscles that elevate the
larynx (stylohyoid, digastric and especially mylohyoid, geniohyoid). Opening
the glottis involves the intrinsic laryngeal musculature and at least one of the
infrahyoid muscles that lower the larynx (sternothyroid). The closure of the
glottis was a protective gesture stimulated by pouring liquid into the larynx.
[13] In addition to affecting larynx height and glottal opening, the pharyngeal
musculature also influences the length of the vocal cords, but since Shin et al.
did not measure vocal cord tension, it is not clear how the pharyngeal musculature affects pitch, though the existence of an effect is unquestionable. In most
but not all cases, stretched (longer) vocal cords are tense and vibrate at a higher
pitch.
[14] 'In languages like Turkana tongue root advancing seems to produce a wide
pharynx and, possibly as an articulatory correlate, breathy vowels. [-ATR]
vowels in Turkana sound tense, or harsh' (Dimmendaal 1983: 27).
[15] 'Vowels with the feature [- ATR] have a hard voice phonetically. The [+ ATR]
vowels normally sound somewhat breathy, but in the environment of specific
[-ATR] vowels, the [+ATR] vowels with the feature [-high, -low] do not
134
Loren Trigo
have this concomitant feature. Instead they are realized as tense vowels' (1983:
18). 'The tense ([+ATR]) mid vowels in Turkana seem to be due to an anticipation of the state of the vocal apparatus for the production of [-ATR]
vowels, while a [+ATR] vowel is being produced' (1983: 29).
[16] Other types of 'mixed' register vowels have been noted to exist, but it is not
clear how these other types should be analysed. See Tucker (1975).
[17] Additional evidence that uvulars are [-high] in at least some languages can be
gathered from Greenlandic Eskimo (Kenstowicz & Kisseberth 1979: 250). The
uvularisation data presented in the text come from Dimmendaal (1983) and
Noske (1987, field notes).
[18] Since in Turkana the vowels which cause uvularisation must be [+back] vowels
[o z a], this suggests (but does not prove) that uvulars in Turkana are also
[ + back].
[19] All the oral depletion processes of Malay should be stated in terms of the end
of the syllable rather than the end of the word because they also apply wordinternally (see Teoh 1988). Compensatory lengthening applies in Malay whenever there is an empty timing slot in coda position. These empty timing slots
can be created in two ways. One is by the oral depletion of liquids. The other
is by the formation of prenasalised nasal and oral stops: /tombarj/ [to:mbarj]'to
fall', /gurindam/ [guri:'dam] 'a type of poetry', /barjga/ [ba:0ga] 'to be
proud', /bantuk/ [ba:nto?] 'form', /bapci/ [ba:fci] 'census', /m3lj-bororj/
[m3:m-bororj]'wholesaler', /maTj-daki/ [m5:0-daki] 'to climb' (ACTIVE), /paggali/ [pa:)-gali] 'digger', /mat-catu/ [m5:0-catu] 'to ration' (ACTIVE), /ma1jpapi/ [m3:-payii]'to sing' (ACTIVE) (prenasalised nasals simplify to simple nasals).
Glides do not prenasalise: /m3tr-warji/[m5ij-waiji] 'to cause to finance', /m5rjya-kan/ [m5rj-yak-an] 'to cause to agree for'.
[20] It should be noted that oral depletion in Malay is a family of rules, not a single
rule. For discussion see Teoh (1988).
[21] The hypothesis that pharyngealisation is incompatible with labialisation is based
on the assumption that the two modifications induce the same acoustic effect,
and hence cannot be distinguished from one another. Kingston (1987) shows
this assumption to be factually incorrect: labialisation flattens the spectrum
whereas pharyngealisation makes it compact.
[22] In fact the surface pronunciation has a nasalised [a]: [kapiaS], [pasiiS]. The
nasalisation is probably due to a well-known acoustic effect of pharyngeals.
[23] Vowels in the Mon-Khmer languages of Vietnam generally vary far more in
relation to final consonants than to initial. Rhyming lists have been developed
on the basis of which subsystems of vowels in relation to the various final
consonants have been determined. The influence of final consonants on vowels
has been widely noted in some of the other language groups of the Far East as
well. For bibliographic information on this subject see Phillips (1973).
REFERENCES
Braconnier, C. (1986). De l'existence de trois types de nasalite a support vocalique en

dioula d'odienne. Mandenkan 11. 43-70.
Catford, J. (1977). Fundamental problems in phonetics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Catford, J. (1983). Pharyngeal and laryngeal sounds in Caucasian languages. In
D. Bless & J. Abbs (eds.) Vocal fold physiology: contemporaryresearch and clinical
issues. San Diego: College Hill Press.
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper &
Row.
Clements, G. N. (1981). Akan vowel harmony: a nonlinear analysis. Harvard Studies
in Phonology 2. 108-177.
135
Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook

2. 223-250.
Clements, G. N. (1989). A unified set of features for consonants and vowels. Ms,
Cornell University.
Delattre, P. (1965). La nasalite vocalique en franqais et en anglais. French Review 39.
92-109.
Dieth, E. (1932). A grammar of the Buchan dialect. Cambridge: Heffer.
Dimmendaal, G. J. (1983). The Turkana language. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dudas, K. M. (1968). The phonology and morphology of Modern Javanese. PhD
dissertation, University of Illinois.
Entenman, George (1977). The development of nasal vowels. Austin: Department of
Linguistics, University of Austin at Texas.
Gauffin J. & J. Sundberg (1978). Pharyngeal constrictions. Phonetica 35. 157-168.
Gregerson, K. J. (1976). Tongue root and register in Mon Khmer. In P. Jenners (ed.)
Austro Asiatic Studies 1. Hawaii: Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications of the
University of Hawaii. 323-369.
Halle, M. & K. Stevens (1969). On the feature Advanced Tongue Root. MIT
Quarterly Progress Report 94. 209-215.
Halle, M. & K. Stevens (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT Quarterly Progress
Report 191. 198-213.
Haudricourt, A. G. (1946). Propagation phonetique ou evolution phonologique?
Assourdissement et sonorisation d'occlusives dans l'Asie du Sud-Est. Bulletin de la
Societe de Linguistique de Paris 43. 82-92.
Haudricourt, A. G. (1965). Les mutations consonantiques des occlusives initiales en
mon-khmer. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 60. 160-172.
Jackson, M. T. T. (1988). Phonetic theory and cross-linguistic variation in vowel
articulation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 71.
Jacobsen, W. H. (1969). Origin of Nootka pharyngeals. IJAL 35. 125-153.
Jakobson, R., C. G. M. Fant & M. Halle (1965). Preliminaries to speech analysis.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kenstowicz, M. & C. Kisseberth (1979). Generative phonology. New York: Academic
Press.
Kingston, J. C. (1985). The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal
events. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Kingston, J. C. (1987). Pharyngealization in Chechen: its implication for phonetics
and phonology. Ms, Cornell University.
Kinkade, M. D. (1967). Uvular-pharyngeal resonants in Interior Salish. IJAL 33.
228-234.
Kohler, K. (1984). Phonetic explanation in phonology: the feature fortis/lenis.
Phonetica 41. 150-174.
Ladefoged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ladefoged, P. (1980). What are linguistic sounds made of? Lg 56. 485-502.
Laver, J. (1980). The phonetic description of voice quality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lieberman, P. & S. Blumstein (1988). Speech physiology, speech perception and
acoustic phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindau, M. (1975). Features for vowels. UCLA WorkingPapers in Phonetics 30. 1-55.
Lindqvist, J. (1969). Laryngeal mechanisms in speech. Quarterly Progress and Status
Report, Speech TransmissionLaboratory, Royal Institute of Technology 2-3. 26-32.
Lindqvist, J. (1972). A descriptive model of laryngeal articulation in speech. Quarterly
Progress and Status Report, Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of
Technology 2-3. 1-9.
McCarthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45.
84-108.
136
Loren Trigo
McCarthy, J. (1989). Guttural phonology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maddieson, I. & S. Hess (1986). 'Tense' and 'lax' revisited: more on phonation type
and pitch in minority languages of China. UCLA WorkingPapers in Linguistics 63.
103- 110.
Maddieson, 1. & P. Ladefoged (1985). 'Tense' and 'lax' in four minority languages of
China. YPh 13. 433-454.
Noske, M. (1987). Vokalharmonieim Turkana (Kenia). Magisterarbeit, University of
Cologne.
Perkell, J. S. (1971). A physiology of speech production: a preliminary study of two
suggested revisions of the features specifying vowels. MIT Quarterly Progress
Report 102. 123-139.
Phillips, R. L. (1973). Mnong vowel variations with initial stops. Mon-Khmer Studies
4. 118-125.
Reichard, G. (1938). Coeur d'Alene. Washington D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology.
Riordan, C. (1978). Larynx height and voicing. JASA 64. S89.
Shin, T., M. Hirano, T. Maeyama, I. Nozoe & H. Ohkubo (1981). The function of the
extrinsic laryngeal muscles. In K. Stevens & M. Hirano (eds.) Vocalfold physiology.
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 171-180.
Stevens, A. M. (1966). The Madurese reflexes of Proto-Malayo Polynesian. 7ournal of
the American Oriental Society 86. 147-156.
Stevens, A. M. (1968). Madurese phonology and morphology. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
Stewart, J. (1967a). Tongue root position in Akan vowel harmony. Phonetica 16.
185-204.
Stewart, J. (1967b). A theory of the origin of Akan vowel harmony. Proceedings of
the 6th International Congressof Phonetic Sciences. Prague: Publishing House of the
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 863-865.
Svantesson, J. 0. (1983). Kammu phonology and morphology.Malmo: CWK Gleerup.
Teoh, B. S. (1988). Aspects of Malay phonology revisited. PhD dissertation, University
of Illinois.
Traill, A. (1985). Phonetic and phonologicalstudies of !Xdd Bushman. Hamburg: Buske.
Tucker, A. N. (1975). Voice quality in African languages. In Sayyid Hamid Hurreiz
& Herman Bell (eds.) Directions in Sundanese linguistics and folklore. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University. 44-76.
Westbury, J. R. (1979). Aspects of the temporalcontrol of voicing in consonantclustersin
English. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Austin at Texas.
Wyss, P. (1976). Akha. In W. A. Smalley (ed.) Phonemes and orthography: language
planning in 10 minority languages of Thailand. Canberra: Australian National
University. 239-257.

On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

On Pharynx-Larynx Interactions

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cambridge University Press

Phonology 8 (1991) 113-136

features: [ATR/RTRI and [LL/RLJ

The vowel systems in the languages of Africa and Southeastern Asia

114 Loren Trigo

protracting the root of the tongue

(a) and (c) correspond to opposite values of the feature [ATR/RTR]

1.1 Phonetic independence:

[ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL]

Register distinctions can be made phonetically on the basis of tongue root

On pharynx-larynx interactions 115

116 Loren Trigo

1.2 Phonetic and phonological independence:

The register distinctions based on [RL/LL] involve modifications not

On pharynx-larynx interactions 117

spread vocal cords

That the pharyngealised vowels are [RL] is suggested by the marked

1.3 Phonological independence:

[RL/LL] and [ATR/RTRJ

An argument for differentiating the features [ATR/RTR] and [RL/LL]

120 Loren Trigo

Synchronically, a low vowel following a glide optionally becomes a 'tense'

2 The pharynx and the place component

2.1 Dorsal uvulars

Evidence that uvularisation is not necessarily caused by assimilation of

[rji. qa. yo]

[lu . qiaa. boq]

'myrsine africana (tree)'

' elephant shrew'

[k] remains unaltered if the above condition does not hold:

[a. ki. ru]

' rain '

On pharynx-larynx interactions 123

'to draw water'

It is clear that the pharyngeal register feature remains orthogonal to the

In other languages, uvulars appear to have a pharyngeal component. It is

124 Loren Trigo

Let us discuss the behaviour of non-uvular consonants first in each

On pharynx-larynx interactions 125

Nootka pharyngeals have arisen in a consonantal system that distinguishes

126 Loren Trigo

for feature geometry

The evidence of the preceding section can be interpreted in one of two

An alternative interpretation of the data can be made on the basis of a

On pharynx-larynx interactions 127

128 Loren Trigo

The data presented in this section supports an analysis of the pharyngeal

3 Voiced obstruents, laryngeals

and the pharynx

3.1 Voiced obstruents

On pharynx-larynx interactions 129

'his water buffalo'

'to the south'

The distribution of 'chest' vs. 'head' register vowels in Madurese

130 Loren Trigo

Blocking reflects an incompatibility between the spreading 'chest' register

On pharynx-larynx interactions 131

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to M. Halle, D. Steriade, M.

pharyngealisation ([RTR]) does tend to have an acoustic effect similar to that of

Braconnier, C. (1986). De l'existence de trois types de nasalite a support vocalique en

Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook

McCarthy, J. (1989). Guttural phonology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi