Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Figures
Conclusion
References
FAQs

The emergence of ejective fricatives in Upper Necaxa Totonac

Profile image of David BeckDavid Beck

2006

visibility

…

description

18 pages

Abstract

Upper Necaxa Totonac (a.k.a. Patla-Chicontla Totonac) has an unusual phonemic inventory in that it has a series of three ejective fricatives (including the rare / ̊’/), but no ejective stops. This paper examines the diachronic path that has lead to the current situation and dis- cusses some of the phonetic and phonological characteristics.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Upper Necaxa Totonac has three unique ejective fricatives, contrasting with typical ejective stop inventories.
  2. Diachronic changes led to the replacement of historical *q with *÷, creating a distinctive phonemic structure.
  3. Ejective fricatives are supported by instrumental measurements of air flow and intra-oral pressure.
  4. The phonotactic behavior of ejective fricatives parallels that of historical F÷ clusters, showing their origins.
  5. The study aims to confirm the existence and properties of ejective fricatives in Upper Necaxa Totonac.
Figures (12)
Table 2. Papantla consonants (based on Levy 1987) Table 1. Upper Necaxa consonants
Table 2. Papantla consonants (based on Levy 1987) Table 1. Upper Necaxa consonants
| *T] = Tlachichilco; PF = Pisa Flores; H = Huehuetla | /2/, as in le:?amén ‘toy’ (from Ti:- ‘INSTRUMENT’ + ?amd.n ‘to play with/at’).° Lowering of /i/ and /o/ by /q/ is attested in other Totonacan languages, although /e/ and /o/ are treated as allo- phones of /i/ and /u/ in Papantla (Levy 1987), Coatepec (McQuown 1990), and Misantla (MacKay 1999). In Apapantilla, on the other hand, Reid (1991) treats /e/ and /o/ as phonemic, and the same seems to be appropriate—at least impressionistically—in other languages of the Northern Sierra, more potential evidence for the proposed Northern grouping of Totonacan lan- guages (see fn. 3 above). Most occurrences of the mid-vowels in UNT do seem to have their ori- gins in lowering processes triggered by /?/ or by the velar fricative /x/, though there are a number of words (e.g. tsewani ‘pretty’) where it seems to be necessary to treat /e/ and (to a lesser extent) /o/ as phonemes in their own right. Table 3. Cognates of Upper Necaxa /'?/
| *T] = Tlachichilco; PF = Pisa Flores; H = Huehuetla | /2/, as in le:?amén ‘toy’ (from Ti:- ‘INSTRUMENT’ + ?amd.n ‘to play with/at’).° Lowering of /i/ and /o/ by /q/ is attested in other Totonacan languages, although /e/ and /o/ are treated as allo- phones of /i/ and /u/ in Papantla (Levy 1987), Coatepec (McQuown 1990), and Misantla (MacKay 1999). In Apapantilla, on the other hand, Reid (1991) treats /e/ and /o/ as phonemic, and the same seems to be appropriate—at least impressionistically—in other languages of the Northern Sierra, more potential evidence for the proposed Northern grouping of Totonacan lan- guages (see fn. 3 above). Most occurrences of the mid-vowels in UNT do seem to have their ori- gins in lowering processes triggered by /?/ or by the velar fricative /x/, though there are a number of words (e.g. tsewani ‘pretty’) where it seems to be necessary to treat /e/ and (to a lesser extent) /o/ as phonemes in their own right. Table 3. Cognates of Upper Necaxa /'?/
Klamath (Barker 1964).° All of these languages also have underlyingly ejective phonemes. Syn- chronic fusion processes that create ejective stops and ejective fricatives are found in Barbarefio Chumash (Beeler 1976) and Tsou (Ladefoged & Zeitoun 1993). Table 4. Cognates of Upper Necaxa F’
Klamath (Barker 1964).° All of these languages also have underlyingly ejective phonemes. Syn- chronic fusion processes that create ejective stops and ejective fricatives are found in Barbarefio Chumash (Beeler 1976) and Tsou (Ladefoged & Zeitoun 1993). Table 4. Cognates of Upper Necaxa F’
The typical phonetic properties of ejective fricatives found in our study are shown in Figure 1: For the purposes of this paper, measurements of peak intra-oral pressure, the timing of peak in- tra-oral pressure and peak oral air flow, and total duration of frication were made on multiple tokens o f one example each of an ejective /J’/, an /J/ in /Se?/ clusters, and a plain /J/ in a contrastive environment (between the vowels /i/ and /a/).'° Because both F’ and F? clusters are followed by an audib of the fo e hiatus, measurements were taken of the gap between the end of frication and the VOT lowing vowel for the words containing these sounds as well. These measurements show that on t hree of the four counts—timing of intra-oral pressure, timing of peak oral air flow, and duration—the ejective fricatives were distinct from both fricatives in F'’? clusters and from plain fricatives. Ejective fricatives were also shown to be distinct from Fr clusters in terms of the length of hiatus preceding VOT. The peak value of intra-oral pressure was found not to be sig- nificant (in all three segment types peak values ranged between 7 and 9 cm H,0). This diagram shows the cumulative results of spectral analysis and measurements of airflow and intra-oral pressure for one token of the word mifdm ‘your (mi-) cornhusks (f'am)’. In terms of air flow, the fricative shows a peak 22 ms after the onset of the fricative. The intra-oral pressure also spikes at the beginning of the fricative, but peaks about 10 ms before the peak in air flow (8 cm H,O at 12 ms). The total duration of the fricative is 112 ms (this is the shortest recorded to- ken, the mean duration of ejectives in the sample is 143 ms), and there appears to be very little hiatus (0.5 ms) between the end of frication and the onset of voicing in the following vowel.
The typical phonetic properties of ejective fricatives found in our study are shown in Figure 1: For the purposes of this paper, measurements of peak intra-oral pressure, the timing of peak in- tra-oral pressure and peak oral air flow, and total duration of frication were made on multiple tokens o f one example each of an ejective /J’/, an /J/ in /Se?/ clusters, and a plain /J/ in a contrastive environment (between the vowels /i/ and /a/).'° Because both F’ and F? clusters are followed by an audib of the fo e hiatus, measurements were taken of the gap between the end of frication and the VOT lowing vowel for the words containing these sounds as well. These measurements show that on t hree of the four counts—timing of intra-oral pressure, timing of peak oral air flow, and duration—the ejective fricatives were distinct from both fricatives in F'’? clusters and from plain fricatives. Ejective fricatives were also shown to be distinct from Fr clusters in terms of the length of hiatus preceding VOT. The peak value of intra-oral pressure was found not to be sig- nificant (in all three segment types peak values ranged between 7 and 9 cm H,0). This diagram shows the cumulative results of spectral analysis and measurements of airflow and intra-oral pressure for one token of the word mifdm ‘your (mi-) cornhusks (f'am)’. In terms of air flow, the fricative shows a peak 22 ms after the onset of the fricative. The intra-oral pressure also spikes at the beginning of the fricative, but peaks about 10 ms before the peak in air flow (8 cm H,O at 12 ms). The total duration of the fricative is 112 ms (this is the shortest recorded to- ken, the mean duration of ejectives in the sample is 143 ms), and there appears to be very little hiatus (0.5 ms) between the end of frication and the onset of voicing in the following vowel.
Here we see the air flow peak 16 ms after the beginning of the fricative, considerably sooner than for the ejective. The intra-oral pressure, on the other hand, peaks at a higher level (9 cm H,0) at 28 ms, 12 ms after the peak in air flow. The total duration of the fricative is 90 ms, less than that of the ejective, and it is followed by a hiatus of 4 ms.
Here we see the air flow peak 16 ms after the beginning of the fricative, considerably sooner than for the ejective. The intra-oral pressure, on the other hand, peaks at a higher level (9 cm H,0) at 28 ms, 12 ms after the peak in air flow. The total duration of the fricative is 90 ms, less than that of the ejective, and it is followed by a hiatus of 4 ms.
Figure 3. ifaraS 61 ‘his/her ear’ Although no deliberate effort was made to collect airflow data on tokens of plain fricatives. one of the elicitation forms did contain a non-ejective /J/ followed by a vowel, as in Figure 3:
Figure 3. ifaraS 61 ‘his/her ear’ Although no deliberate effort was made to collect airflow data on tokens of plain fricatives. one of the elicitation forms did contain a non-ejective /J/ followed by a vowel, as in Figure 3:
Table 5. Means for IOP, AF-IO, and D The means in this table show clearly that the ejective fricatives differ on all counts from the clus- ters and the plain fricatives, and that the latter, as expected, pattern together. This observation is confirmed by performing One-way ANOVA tests on these samples, giving the results summa- rized in Table 6:
Table 5. Means for IOP, AF-IO, and D The means in this table show clearly that the ejective fricatives differ on all counts from the clus- ters and the plain fricatives, and that the latter, as expected, pattern together. This observation is confirmed by performing One-way ANOVA tests on these samples, giving the results summa- rized in Table 6:
Table 6. One-way ANOVA for IOP, AF-IO, and D scores
Table 6. One-way ANOVA for IOP, AF-IO, and D scores
Pair-wise post-hoc comparisons using a Tukey test revealed that the difference in IOP is signifi- cant between ejectives and clusters (p=.023) and between ejectives and plain fricatives (p=.037). but not between clusters and plain fricatives (p=.971). Similarly, significant differences in AF-IO were found between ejectives and clusters (p=.000) and between ejectives and plain fricatives (p=.026), but not between clusters and plain fricatives (p=.149). The same was found for D. where there were significant differences between ejectives and clusters (p=.002) and betweer ejectives and plain fricatives (p=.001), but not between clusters and plain fricatives (p=.851). As with the previous tests, these results clearly show that the ejectives are readily distinguishable or all three measures from plain fricative and fricatives in /J?/ clusters, whereas the fricatives ir clusters and plain fricatives are indistinguishable on these counts.” Table 7. Tukey post-hoc test for IOP, AF-IO, and D According to these tests, the difference in IOP among all groups is significant (F'(2,16)=5.581. p=.014, main effect for IOP among all three groups), as are both the difference in AF-IO among all groups (F(2,16)=12.592, p=.001, main effect for AF-IO among all three groups) and the dif- ference in D among all groups (F(2,16)=14.271, p=.000, main effect for D among all three groups). In order to identify which group or groups was the source of the differences found by the One-way ANOVA test, a Tukey post-hoc test was carried out to provide for pair-wise com- parison among groups, as shown in Table 7:
Pair-wise post-hoc comparisons using a Tukey test revealed that the difference in IOP is signifi- cant between ejectives and clusters (p=.023) and between ejectives and plain fricatives (p=.037). but not between clusters and plain fricatives (p=.971). Similarly, significant differences in AF-IO were found between ejectives and clusters (p=.000) and between ejectives and plain fricatives (p=.026), but not between clusters and plain fricatives (p=.149). The same was found for D. where there were significant differences between ejectives and clusters (p=.002) and betweer ejectives and plain fricatives (p=.001), but not between clusters and plain fricatives (p=.851). As with the previous tests, these results clearly show that the ejectives are readily distinguishable or all three measures from plain fricative and fricatives in /J?/ clusters, whereas the fricatives ir clusters and plain fricatives are indistinguishable on these counts.” Table 7. Tukey post-hoc test for IOP, AF-IO, and D According to these tests, the difference in IOP among all groups is significant (F'(2,16)=5.581. p=.014, main effect for IOP among all three groups), as are both the difference in AF-IO among all groups (F(2,16)=12.592, p=.001, main effect for AF-IO among all three groups) and the dif- ference in D among all groups (F(2,16)=14.271, p=.000, main effect for D among all three groups). In order to identify which group or groups was the source of the differences found by the One-way ANOVA test, a Tukey post-hoc test was carried out to provide for pair-wise com- parison among groups, as shown in Table 7:
Table 8. Means for H As the table shows, the H associated with the cluster (3.44 ms) is considerably shorter than that associated with the ejective fricative (.943 ms). Running an independent samples T-test on this data shows that this difference is statistically significant (t(10)=-3.548, p=.005). These results seem to be in line with the analysis that the hiatus following the ejective fricative is the result of articulatory phonetic effects (an interruption of airflow at the point where the closed glottis reaches its maximum height), whereas the hiatus in the clusters is the realization of a phonemic glottal stop.
Table 8. Means for H As the table shows, the H associated with the cluster (3.44 ms) is considerably shorter than that associated with the ejective fricative (.943 ms). Running an independent samples T-test on this data shows that this difference is statistically significant (t(10)=-3.548, p=.005). These results seem to be in line with the analysis that the hiatus following the ejective fricative is the result of articulatory phonetic effects (an interruption of airflow at the point where the closed glottis reaches its maximum height), whereas the hiatus in the clusters is the realization of a phonemic glottal stop.
sist of a single consonant, a fricative + consonant cluster, or a stop + fricative cluster. Codas can be empty (not shown) or can consist of a single syllable, a stop + fricative cluster, or a nasal + fricative cluster. The major difference between this template and syllable structure in Papantle (Levy 1987) and Coatepec (McQuown 1990) is that both of these other languages allow NkF anc NgqF clusters in coda position, whereas UNT has only NF clusters.'® This difference seems tc stem from the fact that historical Nq clusters in UNT have become simply /n/ unless the original glottal stop is preserved by a syllable boundary (i.e., by appearing in the onset of the following syllable), reducing *NgF sequences simply to 9F. In *NkF clusters, the nasal would have assimi- lated to the following velar place of articulation, and modern UNT seems, not unreasonably, tc have neutralized the distinction between syllables with nF and ykF in coda position.
sist of a single consonant, a fricative + consonant cluster, or a stop + fricative cluster. Codas can be empty (not shown) or can consist of a single syllable, a stop + fricative cluster, or a nasal + fricative cluster. The major difference between this template and syllable structure in Papantle (Levy 1987) and Coatepec (McQuown 1990) is that both of these other languages allow NkF anc NgqF clusters in coda position, whereas UNT has only NF clusters.'® This difference seems tc stem from the fact that historical Nq clusters in UNT have become simply /n/ unless the original glottal stop is preserved by a syllable boundary (i.e., by appearing in the onset of the following syllable), reducing *NgF sequences simply to 9F. In *NkF clusters, the nasal would have assimi- lated to the following velar place of articulation, and modern UNT seems, not unreasonably, tc have neutralized the distinction between syllables with nF and ykF in coda position.

Related papers

Carvalho.2017.Fricative Debuccalization and Primary Split in Terena (Arawak) Historical Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 83 (3): 509-537.
Fernando O. de Carvalho

This paper discusses a set of morphophonemic alternations in Terena, an Arawak language of Brazil. I propose a number of non-alternating Pre-Terena forms and a sound change in a diachronic account of these alternations. Using internal, comparative, and philological (early documentary) evidence, I trace the development of these alternations from its precursors in allophonic variation to its partial morphologization. The proposed change debuccalized the voiceless allophones of the Pre-Terena coronal fricatives, changing them to glottal fricatives while leaving unaffected their voiced allophones, whose occurrence is restricted to nasal contexts related to the exponence of 1Psg possessors and subjects. I suggest that the partial merger between the Pre-Terena oral fricatives and h took place gradually rather than abruptly and that this accounts for the existence of a contrast between two glottals, h and hʲ, which existed as separate phonemes but that nowadays appear fully merged as h.

View PDFchevron_right
The case for a labialized velar fricative *xʷ in Proto-Uralic, draft version 1
Onno Hovers

2026

In this paper I argued that there is a need for a new Proto-Uralic phoneme, a labialized velar fricative *xʷ. It is reflected as either *w or *x or both, such as in the cases of *täxʷi ‘to fill’ and *nixʷ[ä/aw] ‘to unhair’. The new phoneme explains the different reflexes in Finnic of what previously was reconstructed as just PU *x such as: PU *wexi > Finnic vee- ‘to take, to bring’ versus *lexʷi > Finnic löö- ‘to shoot’ and PU *mexʷi > Finnic müü-/möö- ‘to sell’; PU *me̮xi > Finnic maa ‘earth’ versus PU *je̮xʷi > Finnic joo ‘to drink’; PU *joxi > Finnic joo-ksi ‘to run’ versus PU *ńoxʷi > Finnic nou-ta ‘to fetch, to retrieve’; PU *saxi > Finnic saa ‘to get’ versus PU *taxʷi (previously *toxi) > Finnic too ‘to bring, to fetch, to get’. With the addition of PU *xʷ the vowels in at least West-Uralic become a lot more regular.

View PDFchevron_right
Lexical, quasi-inflectional, and inflectional compounding in Upper Necaxa Totonac
David Beck

Multi-verb Constructions: A view from the Americas, 2011

Compounding, the combination of two potentially independent stems to form a single word-level morphological unit, is generally assumed to be a morphological process restricted to the realm of word-formation. This paper uses data from Upper Necaxa Totonac which show that lexical verb-verb compounding that forms new lexemes is in fact a relatively limited process in that language. Compounding is instead widely used for the formation of both quasi-inflectional and inflectional wordforms, the latter representing a unique example of the co- opting of single-word asymmetrical verb serialization to form part of an otherwise affixal inflectional paradigm.

View PDFchevron_right
On the History of the Paradigmatic Alternations of Labio-dental Fricatives in English
Radwan S Mahadin

Second Language Research, 1995

This article discusses and explains the sources of the alternations between the /f/ and /v/ sounds in English. It shows that the three main mechanisms of diachronic phonology responsible for such paradigmatic alternations are sound change, analogical change, and borrowing. Moreover, it explains the interplay between sound change and analogical change. 1 I / slashes indicate phonemes, and [ ] square brackets indicate sounds and allophones, and * indicates reconstructed forms. The sources of the examples are:

View PDFchevron_right
The fate of the interdental fricatives in Maltese
Andrei A Avram

Romano-Arabica XIV, 2014

It is well known that Modern Maltese no longer has interdental fricatives, which have been replaced with stops. The loss of the interdental fricatives is believed by some (e.g. Cohen 1964, 1967, Vanhoeve 1991, 1994, 2000) to have taken place in the so-called “pre-Maltese” stage, i.e. before the separation of Maltese from the Arab world. Instances of interdental fricatives in Caxaro’s Cantilena (c. 1450) or in Megiser’s wordlist (collected in 1588) have been dismissed as archaic, irrelevant or debatable (given the possibility of faulty transcriptions). The present paper re-examines the currently available textual evidence, including Thezan (c. 1640), Abela (1647) and de Soldanis (1750, 1750-1767). It is shown that varieties of Maltese appear to have preserved the interdental fricatives until the second half of the 18th century (cf. Avram 1999, 2012 and 2013, Vella 2013). Therefore, the loss of the fricative interdentals is a much more recent phenomenon than has hitherto been assumed. Also discussed are some of the implications of these findings.

View PDFchevron_right
The Laryngeal Specifications of Fricatives
Bert Vaux

Linguistic Inquiry, 1998

View PDFchevron_right
Laryngealized vowels and laryngealized consonants in the history of the Totonacan languages of Mexico
Albert Davletshin

Journal of Language Relationship, 2019

Laryngealized vowels and laryngealized consonants in the history of the Totonacan languages of Mexico The paper argues that Papantla Totonac has lost the original contrast between modal and laryngealized vowels after sonorants and thus developed a system of plain and glottalized stops, affricates and sibilants from the original system of modal and laryngealized vowels. Similarly, Misantla Totonac lost the contrast between modal and laryngealized vowels after sibilants, which resulted in a system of plain and glottalized stops, affricates and sonorants. These sound changes can be explained as being due to different mechanisms of glottalization regarding three classes of consonants-stops, sonorants and sibilants. Apapantilla Totonac and Zapotitlán de Méndez Totonac remain conservative in their treatment of the original Proto-Totonacan laryngealized vowels.

View PDFchevron_right
The rise and fall of aspirated fricatives
Radu Craioveanu

Proceedings of CLA 2013

* Thanks to Keren Rice and Alexei Kochetov for their extremely helpful comments and feedback over the course of this research; thanks go also to the participants of the CLA 2013 annual meeting for their insightful questions and suggestions.

View PDFchevron_right
Interconnected vowel shifts in Tocharian
Giulio Imberciadori

Indo-European Linguistics 13 (2025) 1–44

The present article sets two goals: (i) to investigate the inner-Tocharian evolution of the Proto-Indo-European vowel system in light of the general principles of vowel shifts; (ii) to examine not only how the Proto-Indo-European vowel system led to the Proto-Tocharian (PT) vowel system, but also how the latter system further evolved in the attested Tocharian languages. As for (i), I argue the Pre-Proto-Tocharian vowel shifts to have been triggered by two fundamental changes, namely, the fronting of Pre-PT */ɔ/ to */ɛ/ and the assimilation of Pre-PT */iu̯ / to */uu̯ /. As for (ii), I argue that, in Tocharian B, the central vowels /a, ǝ/ (< pt */a, ǝ/) developed the higher allophones [ǝ, ɨ] when unstressed. In Tocharian A, instead, the PT vowel system underwent a chain shift, whose trigger was the monophthongization of the pt diphthongs */ɛi̯ , ai̯ , ? ɔi̯ / and */ɛu̯ , au̯ /.

View PDFchevron_right
The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation
Alan Yu

2003

View PDFchevron_right

References (38)

  1. ARANA, EVANGELINA. 1953. Reconstrucción del prototonaco. In Ignacio Bernal (ed.), Huastecos, totonacos y sus vecinos. Revista mexicana de estudios antropológicos no. 23, pp. 123 -30.
  2. ASCHMANN, HERMAN P. 1946. Totonaco phonemes. International Journal of American Linguis- tics 12, 34 -43.
  3. ---1983. Vocabulario totonaco de la Sierra. Mexico: Summer Institute of Linguistics. BARKER, MUHAMMAD ABD-AL RAHMAN. 1964. Klamath grammar. University of California Pa- pers in Linguistics no. 32. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  4. BECK, DAVID. 2000. The syntax, semantics, and typology of adjectives in Upper Necaxa Toto- nac. Linguistic Typology 4, 213 -50.
  5. ---2001. Primer vocabulario del idioma totonaco del Río Necaxa. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
  6. ---2004. Upper Necaxa Totonac. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
  7. BEELER, MADISON S. 1976. Barbareño Chumash: A farrago. In Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver (ed.), Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan languages, pp. 251 -69. Janua linguarum, series practica, no. 181. The Hague: Mouton.
  8. BLUST, ROBERT. 1980. More on the origins of glottalic consonants. Lingua 52, 125 -56.
  9. BUCKLEY, EUGENE. 1992. Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. Disserta- tions in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  10. CHAFE, WALLACE L. 1976. The Caddoan, Iroquoian, and Souian languages. Trends in Linguis- tics: State-of-the-Art Reports, no. 3. The Hague: Mouton.
  11. COLARUSSO, JOHN. 1989. Proto-Northwest Caucasian (or how to crack a very hard nut). In How- ard I. Aronson (ed.), The non-Slavic languages of the USSR, Linguistic Studies, pp. 20 -55. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  12. FALLON, PAUL D. 2002. The synchronic and diachronic phonology of ejectives. Routledge Out- standing Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Routledge.
  13. GARCÍA RAMOS, CRESCENCIO. 1979. Fonología del totonaco del Tajín, Veracruz. Cuadernos An- tropológicos (Veracruz) 2, 133 -76.
  14. GARCÍA ROJAS, BLANCA. 1978. Dialectología de la zona totonaco-tepehua. Honours thesis: Na- tional School of Anthropology and History, Mexico.
  15. GREENBERG, JOSEPH. 1970. Generalizations concerning glottalic consonants. International Jour- nal of American Linguistics 36, 123 -45.
  16. GRIMES, BARBARA F. 2004. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. On-line database (http://ww.ethnologue .com). Summer Institute of Linguistics.
  17. ICHON, ALAIN. 1990 [l973]. La religión de los totonacos de la Sierra. Mexico City: Instituto Na- cional Indigenista.
  18. JACOBSEN, WILLIAM H., JR. 1969. Origin of the Nootka pharyngeals. International Journal of American Linguistics 35, 125 -53.
  19. ---1977. A glimpse of the Pre-Washo pronominal system. In Kenneth Whistler, Robert D. van Valin, Jr., Chris Chiarello, Jeri J. Jaeger, Miriam Petruck, Henry Thompson, Ronya Javkin, and Anthony Woodbury (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society no. 3, pp. 55 -73. Ber- keley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
  20. KIRCHNER, ROBERT, and ELENI VARELAS. 2002. A cue-based approach to the initial and final phonotactics of Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Leora Bar-el, Linda Watt and I. Wilson (eds.), Proceedings of WSCLA 7: The Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas, pp. 89 -102. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.
  21. LADEFOGED, PETER. 2001. A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace.
  22. LADEFOGED, PETER, and ELIZABETH ZEITOUN. 1993. Pulmonic ingressive phones do not occur in Tsou. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 23, 13 -15.
  23. LEVINE, ROBERT D. 1981. Review of the Haida Dictionary, by Erma Lawrence et al. Interna- tional Journal of American Linguistics 47, 354 -8.
  24. LEVY, PAULETTE. 1987. Fonología del totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
  25. MACKAY, CAROLYN J. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  26. MADDIESON, IAN. 1998. Why make life hard?-resolutions to problems of rare and difficult sound types. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 96, 106 -18.
  27. MADDIESON, IAN, NICOLA BESSELL, and CAROLINE LAWS SMITH. 1996. A preliminary report on the phonetics of Tlingit. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 93, 125 -48.
  28. MCLENDON, SALLY. 1973. Proto Pomo. University of California Papers in Linguistics no. 71. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  29. ---1976. The Proto-Pomo pronominal system. In Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver (eds.), Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan languages. Janua lingua- rum, series practica, no. 181, pp. 29 -54. Hague: Mouton.
  30. MCQUOWN, NORMAN A. 1977. La familia lingüística totonacana. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Library.
  31. Grámatica de la lengua totonaca. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. MITCHELL, T. F. 1990. Pronouncing Arabic: I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  32. NATER, HANK F. 1984. The Bella Coola language. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. REID, AILEEN A., and RUTH G. BISHOP. 1974. Diccionario totonaco de Xicotepec de Juárez. Mexico: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
  33. RICE, KEREN. 1994. Laryngeal features in Athapaskan languages. Phonology 11, 107 -47.
  34. ROBINS, ROBERT H. 1958. The Yurok language: Grammar, text, lexicon. University of California Papers in Linguistics no. 15. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  35. SKINNER, NEIL. 1971. /ts/ and /k'/ in Hausa. Anthropological Linguistics 133, 301 -10.
  36. TROIANI, DUNA. 2004. Aperçu grammatical du totonaque de Huehuetla, Puebla, Mexique. Mu- nich: LINCOM Europa.
  37. WATTERS, JAMES. n.d.a Una base de datos para la reconstrucción del idioma protototonaco. Ms., Summer Institute of Linguistics.
  38. ---n.d.b. Lexical database for Tlachichilco Tepehua. Shoebox database file.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What processes led to the emergence of ejective fricatives in Upper Necaxa Totonac?add

The study finds that ejective fricatives arose through a sequence of sound changes: Proto-Totonacan *q shifted to *÷, followed by the collapse of *F÷ to F'. This progression indicates a diachronic transformation unique to Upper Necaxa.

How do Upper Necaxa ejective fricatives differ from standard fricatives?add

Instrumental studies show that ejective fricatives exhibit distinct measurements in intra-oral pressure and airflow, with a mean fricative duration of 143 ms compared to 90 ms for non-ejectives. The research identifies these differences as significant using ANOVA tests (p < .05).

What phonetic characteristics distinguish ejective fricatives in Upper Necaxa?add

Ejective fricatives exhibit a peak in intra-oral pressure occurring 10 ms before airflow peaks, signaling a unique articulatory process. The data indicates that ejectives maintain a higher pressure and longer fricative duration than their pulmonic counterparts.

What phonological implications do ejective fricatives have in Upper Necaxa Totonac?add

Despite the close historical relation to F÷ clusters, ejective fricatives serve as distinct phonological segments, evidenced by their restricted placement in syllabic onsets. This distinction supports a phonemic classification despite the absence of overt contrastive environments.

When did the sound shift from *q to *÷ occur in Upper Necaxa Totonac?add

The complete shift from Proto-Totonacan *q to *÷ is evidenced by contemporary speakers, marking a significant phonological evolution within the language. This shift serves as a crucial dialect marker in the Upper Necaxa region, as noted in speaker observations.

About the author
David Beck
University of Alberta, Faculty Member
Papers
44
Followers
325
View all papers from David Beckarrow_forward

Related papers

Laryngealization in Upper Necaxa Totonac
Rebekka Puderbaugh

2019

This dissertation examines laryngealization contrasts in vowels and fricatives in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In vowels the contrast is presumed to be realized as a form of nonmodal phonation, while fricatives are supposed to differ according to their production mechanism. The goal of this dissertation is to provide evidence that will help to determine whether the phonetic characteristics of these sounds align with the impressionistic descriptions of their phonological categories. Laryngealization categories were first examined via a corpus analysis in Chapter 3. The analysis revealed a highly frequent co-occurrence of laryngealized vowels and following glottal stops. No relationship was found between vowel laryngealization and ejective fricatives. In Chapter 4 an analysis of the difference in amplitude between the first and second harmonics (H1-H2) in laryngealized and non-laryngealized vowels showed that H1-H2 values were not influenced by vowel laryngealization categories, but were influenced the presence of a glottal stop following the vowel. This finding suggests that the laryngealization contrast neutralizes in vowels before glottal stops. In order to consider the potentially glottalic nature of ejective fricatives in UNT, Chapter 5 compared durations of phonetic events that occur during fricative production, including oral closure and frication. Contrary to expectations, ejective fricatives were longer than pulmonic fricatives in overall duration due to longer silent intervals between the end of frication and the onset of vowel phonation. The closure intervals of the ejective fricatives fit nicely into a cross-linguistically attested continuum of decreasing closure duration at places of articulation nearer the back of the oral cavity, suggesting that ejective fricatives may be phonetic clusters in Upper Necaxa Totonac.

View PDFchevron_right
A grammatical sketch of Upper Necaxa Totonac
David Beck

2004

View PDFchevron_right
The evolution of English dental fricatives: variation and change
Mateusz Jekiel

Unpublished MA thesis, 2012

Non-sibilant dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ are highly marked sounds: they are rare in the world’s languages, occurring in 43 (7.6%) out of 566 UPSID languages (Maddieson 2005: 83), they bear a low functional load (few minimal pairs, e.g. thigh~thy) (Smith 2008: 1), are difficult and problematic in first and second language acquisition (Cruttenden 2008: 196- 197) and relatively understudied within the field of acoustic phonetics. Moreover, /θ/ and /ð/ undergo sound changes across many modern varieties of English, being replaced by alveolar stops /t/ and /d/ or labio-dentals /f/ and /v/ respectively (Blevins 2006: 11). The aim of this thesis is to outline the history of English dental fricatives and find potential parallels between the present ongoing changes and the past developments that occurred in OE, ME and EMnE. Although, traditionally, /θ/ and /ð/ in the PDE consonant system are considered as two separate phonemes, studies by Smith (2007, 2010a) show that the phonologization process of these sounds is still incomplete, meaning that they are not in contrastive, but rather in complementary distribution. Hence, the current phonological status of dental fricatives is similar to the one found in OE, when /θ/ was the only voiceless dental fricative phoneme while [ð] was a voiced allophone appearing between voiced sounds (Lass 1994: 71-72). However, while most linguists agree that the phonologization of English dental fricatives took place after the Norman Conquest due to the French influence (Lass 1992: 59), a different explanation is put forward by Laker (2009: 213), who suggests that /θ/ and th th /ð/ became phonemic as early as in the 5 -6 c. due to Old English-Late British language contact, further complicating the issue of the phonemicisation of these sounds. A matter of equivalent importance concerns the graphemes, as dental fricatives in OE were represented generally by thorn <þ> and edh <ð> (used interchangeably for /θ/ and [ð]) but also, in the earliest OE manuscripts, by a digraph <th> (Hogg 1992: 33). Although, in the ME period, the former two symbols were being successfully replaced by <th> (Bourcier 1981: 128), Barber et al. (2009: 162) argue that <þ> and <ð> remained even until ca 1400. Moreover, studies by Kristensson (1987, 1995, 2001) and Diensberg (1995) show that there was a great deal of variation in ME writing, as the proper symbols for /θ, ð/ were frequently replaced by <t> and <d>, providing a possible link to the current phonological changes. There are a number of modern varieties of English (e.g. Cockney English, West Midlands English, New York City English or AAVE), where /θ, ð/ are frequently realised as /f, v/ or /t, d/ sounds (Blevins 2006: 11). According to Blevins (2004: 134), the former change, th-fronting, is a perceptually based sound change, due to a strong perceptual simi- larity between dental and labio-dental fricatives. On the other hand, the latter change, th- stopping, can be also found in OE and ME, due to WGmc strengthening of fricatives (Lass 1994: 76) or pre-sonorant and post-fricative strengthening (Lass 1992: 64). This thesis is divided into four chapters: (1) a presentation of selected theories of and approaches to sound change (2) the presence of dental fricatives among the world’s languages, their phonetic features, production, perception and acquisition issues, (3) a dia- chronic study of dental fricatives in OE, ME and EMnE, as well as in other Gmc languages and (4) an analysis of the loss of dental fricatives in selected modern varieties of English. The results of this study will hopefully shed light on finding possible parallels between past and present phonological developments, confirming that the current loss of dental fricatives in PDE is not a novelty sound change, but rather a reoccurrence of earlier innovations that took place in the previous stages of the English language.

View PDFchevron_right
A panchronic study of aspirated fricatives, with new evidence from Pumi
Guillaume Jacques
View PDFchevron_right
(2013) A velar fricative in proto-Transeurasian. In: Demir, Nurettin, Karakoç, Birsel & Menz, Astrid: Turcology and linguistics : Eva Agnes Csato Festschrift. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, 375-400.
Martine Robbeets
View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved