Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:09:05.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nivaĉle (shichaam lhavos variety)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2016

Analía Gutiérrez
Analía Gutiérrez*
Affiliation:
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Buenos Aires, Argentinaanaliagutie@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nivaĉle [niβaˈe] (ISO 639-3: cag) is a Mataguayan language spoken in the Argentinean and Paraguayan Chaco by approximately 16,350 speakers in Paraguay (DGEEC 2012) and 553 in Argentina (INDEC 2004–2005).

Information

Type
Illustrations of the IPA
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , December 2019, pp. 401 - 417
Copyright
© International Phonetic Association 2016 

Nivaĉle [niβaˈe] (ISO 639-3: cag) is a Mataguayan language spoken in the Argentinean and Paraguayan Chaco by approximately 16,350 speakers in Paraguay (DGEEC 2012) and 553 in Argentina (INDEC 2004–2005).

The word Nivaĉle means ‘human being’ in a broad sense (Chase-Sardi Reference Chase-Sardi1990: 7); for the Nivaĉle people, it means ‘person’ and ‘man’ (Fritz Reference Fritz1994: 35). The Nivaĉle language has also been referred to in the literature as Gentuse/Wentusi/Wentusix (Greenberg Reference Greenberg and Wallace1956, Loukotka Reference Loukotka1968, as cited in Stell Reference Stell1989: 20), Ashlushlay (Nordenskiöld Reference Nordenskiöld1910, Henry Reference Henry1936, Wicke & Chase-Sardi Reference Wicke and Chase-Sardi1969, Stell Reference Stell1972), Chulupí (Junker, Wilkskamp & Seelwische Reference Junker, Wilkskamp and Seelwsiche1968, Stell Reference Stell1989) and Chunupí or Suhin (Hunt Reference Hunt1915, Reference Hunt1924), among other names.Footnote 1 While Chulupí is commonly used in Argentina, Nivaĉle is the term used in Paraguay. Here I adopt the name Nivaĉle, rather than Nivaclé, Nivakle, or Niwakle, following the conventions established during the II Nivaĉle Linguistic Conference (Uj'e Lhavos, Paraguay, 3–5 December 2010).

Besides Nivaĉle, the Mataguayan (Swadesh Reference Swadesh1959, Najlis Reference Najlis1984, Fabre Reference Fabre2005, Nercesian Reference Nercesian, Lieber and Štekauer2014a) language family comprises three other languages: Chorote, Maká, and Wichí. This language family has also received alternative names in the literature, such as Mataco (Loukotka Reference Loukotka1968: 53–55; Voegelin & Voegelin Reference Voegelin and Voegelin1977: 223–224), Mataco-Mataguayan (Tovar Reference Tovar1951: 400; Reference Tovar1961), Mataco-Maka (Kaufman Reference Kaufman and Payne1990: 46), and Matacoan (Campbell Reference Campbell, Campbell and Grondona2012).

The location of the Mataguayan languages and peoples span across Northeastern Argentina, Southeastern Bolivia, and Southwestern Paraguay – a region known as the Gran Chaco (from Quechua chaku ‘hunting land’). The Gran Chaco comprises about 1,000,000 square kilometers divided between Northern Argentina, Eastern Bolivia, West of Paraguay and South-East of Brazil. Approximately twenty-nine languages belonging to seven language families with different degrees of vitality (Arawakan, Guaycuruan, Lule-Vilela, Mataguayan, Tupí-Guaranían, Maskoyan (or Enlhet-Enenlhet) and Zamucoan) and two language isolates, Chiquitano (or Besiro) and Guató, are spoken in this region (Golluscio & Vidal Reference Golluscio and Vidal2009–Reference Golluscio and Vidal2010).

Priest Seelwische's Nivaĉle grammar (Seelwische Reference Seelwische1975), and his Nivaĉle-Spanish dictionary (Seelwische Reference Seelwische1990) are the standard references on the language available to the Nivaĉle communities. The current phonemic orthographic system, which has been revised by the Linguistic Committee of the Nivaĉle People (Comisión Linguística del Pueblo Nivaĉle, CLPN), is based on his works. In the Paraguayan Chaco, Nivaĉle writing and reading skills are taught until the sixth grade of primary school.

According to Chase-Sardi (Reference Chase-Sardi1981) and Stell (Reference Stell1989), there exist five dialects: (i) chishamnee lhavos ‘the highlanders/Upriver’, (ii) shichaam lhavos ‘the lowlanders/Downriver’ (both of these groups are known as tovoc lhavos ‘people of the (Pilcomayo) river’), (iii) yita’ lhavos ‘people of the scrubland’, (iv) jotoy lhavos ‘people of the sandy spot’, and (v) tavashay lhavos ‘people from the inland’. Stell (Reference Stell1989) and Campbell & Grondona (Reference Campbell2007) worked with the chishamnee lhavos variety. Also, Stell (Reference Stell1989) worked with some shichaam lhavos speakers. I have worked with shichaam lhavos and yita’ lhavos speakers. During my fieldwork, I mostly found lexical differences between the chishamnee lhavos and the shichaam lhavos varieties, and some phonological dialectal differences between the yita’ lhavos and the other varieties. For instance, in the yita’ lhavos variety, there is no low back unrounded vowel /ɑ/, and the sequence /ʔ/ is pronounced as [kʼ], rather than [ʔ], in comparison with the shichaam lhavos variety.Footnote 2 Further, I have documented a number of lexical and morphosyntactic differences that have been arising between younger and older generations, currently under study.

The data for this illustration come from two shichaam lhavos speakers: a 72-year-old male speaker, Félix Ramírez (FR), and a female 50-year-old speaker, Teresita Sánchez (TS). Both FR and TS were raised in the shichaam lhavos variety and now live in Uj'e Lhavos, a Nivaĉle community located 1 km from Filadelfia, Boquerón Department, Paraguay. Nivaĉle is their native first language and they continue to speak it in their community. They are also bilingual in Spanish; FR learned it when he started Catholic Boarding School at Misión San Leonardo, Fischat, at the age of 7. TS also learned Spanish during primary school. Both FR and TS are Nivaĉle teachers and members of the Nivaĉle Linguistic Team (ELN). Recordings for this illustration were made in a quiet room using a Zoom HN4 handy portable digital recorder and a Countryman lapel microphone (phantom power).

Consonants

Instances of phonemic contrasts for onset and, in some cases, coda position, are given through the following illustrative minimal and near-minimal pairs:

Nivaĉle has 21 phonemic consonants. These consonants contrast in five places and five manners. Similarly to other Mataguayan languages, Nivaĉle has a two-way laryngeal distinction in non-continuant obstruents (plain vs. ejectives) – except for the complex segment [

] – and no voicing contrast (voice vs. voiceless) within the obstruent class. Ejective [p’] is not as frequently found as [t’] and [k’]; labial is the most marked place of articulation in this language; for example, there are no labial–labial consonant clusters. The series of stops tend to be aspirated word-finally.

Fricatives contrast in four places, and there is a lateral fricative. A remarkable contrast with Chorote, Maká and Wichí is that Nivaĉle has a palato-alveolar fricative [ʃ] and a palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ].Footnote 3 Besides the existence of roots with [ʃ] and [ʧ], there exists an alternation between Nivaĉle palatal and velar-initial suffixes: [ʧ] ~ [k], [ʃ] ~ [x]. The palatal vs. velar realization of the consonant-initial suffix is motivated by the vowel quality of the rightmost vowel of the preceding root.Footnote 4 If there is a front vowel, the palatal variant is used. In that regard, it can be observed that whereas [a] patterns with front vowels, [ɑ] patterns with back vowels (see ‘Vowels’ section below). It can be also noted that a small number of stems with [ʧ] and [k] spirantize to [x] in the context of pluralization. However, this is a marginal phenomenon that is not present in other areas of the grammar.

The sound /w/ has both labial and dorsal properties and hence is listed under both place of articulation columns. In the shichaam lhavos variety, [β] and [ʋ] appear to have replaced the use of /w/. However, the latter can still be found preceding back vowels /ɑ o u/. Further, in the variety described here, the alternation between velar and uvular places of articulation is mostly based on the vowel quality present in the immediate environment of the consonant: front /i e a/ vs. back /ɑ o u/ vowels, respectively. Nevertheless, uvular articulations can sometimes be found before front vowels as well.

Laterals

One of the marked characteristics of the Nivaĉle phonological inventory is the absence of a sonorant lateral /l/; a language with one or more laterals typically has one voiced lateral approximant. According to Maddieson (Reference Maddieson, Dryer and Haspelmath2013), only 1.4% of the 567 surveyed languages have no /l/, but nonetheless have lateral obstruents. Nivaĉle shares this marked phonological feature with genetically unrelated (and areally remote) languages like Athna (Athabascan), Kutenai/Ktunaxa (isolate), Nuu-chah-nulth (Wakashan), Tlingit (Na-Dene), Kiowa (Kiowa Tanoan), Chukchi (Chukotko-Kamchatkan), Kabardian (Northwest Caucasian), and Tigak (Austronesian).

The Nivaĉle lateral system is comprised of the alveolar lateral fricative /ɬ/ and the complex segment //. These two sounds are interesting from both typological and theoretical perspectives in that:

  1. (i) To the best of my knowledge, // is neither attested in any of the genetically related languages, nor in other indigenous languages of the area.

  2. (ii) On the one hand, // has been described as a non-homorganic affricate that involves a ‘simultaneous articulation and release of a velar stop and a dento-alveolar lateral’ (Stell Reference Stell1989: 58; my translation from Spanish – AG). Interestingly, the articulators do not agree in voice and the lateral release is not fricated. On the other hand, /ɬ/ has been described by Stell (Reference Stell1989: 58) as ‘a voiceless dento-velar fricative’.

  3. (iii) As originally pointed out by Maddieson (Reference Maddieson1984: 77) ‘velar laterals are extremely rare . . . the three complex laterals segments reported to have both velar and dental/alveolar articulations are all somewhat obscurely described. All three are voiceless and fricative or affricate, being interpreted as /xɬ/ /kɬ/ (Ashuslay [Nivaĉle], 814) and /kɬ’/ (Zulu, 126)’.

  4. (iv) A language with two or more liquids is expected to have a contrast of a lateral and a non-lateral. Nevertheless, in Nivaĉle, both liquids are laterals and there are no non-lateral liquids (that is, there are no ‘r’ sounds).Footnote 5

  5. (v) A language with two or more laterals contrasts them either in place or in manner and voicing, but not both (Maddieson Reference Maddieson1984: 88). However, the two Nivaĉle laterals – /ɬ/ and // – contrast both in place (coronal vs. dorsal, respectively) and manner of articulation [continuant] (Gutiérrez Reference Gutiérrez2015).

As can be seen in (1), comparative data show that Nivaĉle [] corresponds to /l/ in other Mataguayan languages, and that it must have developed from Proto-Mataguayan *l.

  1. (1)

Gutiérrez (Reference Gutiérrez2014) argues that // is the diachronic result of lateral hardening, where ‘hardening’ is defined in terms of the amount of contact between active and passive articulators, and duration of the contact (Keating Reference Keating, Harrington and Tabain2006).Footnote 6 Regarding the phonetic explanations behind the historical development of //, Gutiérrez (Reference Gutiérrez2015) hypothesizes that the lateral approximant was realized with a brief stop closure which was misinterpreted as a real stop burst and reanalyzed as a laterally released stop. Further, the development of *l into [] and not into [tl] can be explained by the ambiguous nature of laterals in consonant clusters; it has been shown that the lateral release has a substantial effect on the acoustics of coronal stops, shifting them acoustically closer to velars (Kawasaki Reference Kawasaki1982, Hallé, Best & Bachrach Reference Hallé, Best and Bachrach2003, Flemming Reference Flemming2007).

Prosodic structure

The Nivaĉle prosodic system consists of the following structures: C, CV, CVC, and CCV(C). The only consonant that can be syllabic is the lateral fricative [ɬ]. Contra Stell (Reference Stell1989), I claim that there are no onsetless syllables in the language. Onset is undominated; an epenthetic glottal stop is inserted word-initially or intervocalically to comply with this constraint. All Nivaĉle consonants may appear in singleton onsets. At most, there can be two heterosyllabic consonants in word-internal position. Complex onsets are allowed in the language but only word-initially. Ejectives /p’ t’ k’ ʦ’ ʧ’/ cannot occur as the first member of a complex onset, but can occur as the second member, e.g. [tʧ’akfaj] ‘s/he is married (with children)’.Footnote 7

While closed syllables are very common, complex codas are not allowed in this language. It has been extensively observed that certain marked structures are banned in coda (Itô Reference Itô1986, Reference Itô1989) position. In Nivaĉle, all consonants may appear in coda position except for the ejectives /p’ t’ k’ ʦ’ ʧ’/ and the complex segment //. The affricates /ʦ/ and /ʧ/ marginally occur in coda position.Footnote 8 The affricate /ʦ/ simplifies to [s] and to [t] in coda position, except before [x].

The contrast between plain and ejective non-continuant obstruents only occurs in onset position. Steriade (Reference Steriade1997) claims that the timing of the laryngeal constriction in ejective obstruents is tied to their release. Thus, ‘an optimal identification of an ejective . . . will depend on the nature of the right hand context’ (Steriade Reference Steriade1997: 78); ejectives neutralize in the absence of a following sonorant. In (2a), it can be observed that Nivaĉle ejectives lose their [constricted glottis] feature when not followed by a vowel, see (2b).

  1. (2)

    1. a. -qɑˈʦʼex

    2. ‘diarrhea’

    3. b. -ˌqʦxe-ˈnax

    4. diarrhea-resFootnote 9

    5. ‘person that has diarrhea’

In turn, the complex segment // in (3a) also neutralizes (delateralizes) to [k] in coda position, see (3b).

  1. (3)

    1. a. βosoˈ-is

    2. butterfly-pl

    3. ‘butterflies’

    4. b. βoˈsok

    5. ‘butterfly’

Figures 1 and 2 show the alternation found in (3a) and (3b), that is, between [] and [k], respectively. In Figure 2, no trace of the lateral realization is present; the complex segment delateralizes to [k] and not to [l] in coda position. The fact that [] neutralizes to [k], and not to [l], indicates that:

  1. (i) the synchronic underlying representation is //; the dorsal component is a major articulator phase. In other words, it is not the case that // is a prestopped lateral, but rather, it is a laterally released velar stop (Gutiérrez Reference Gutiérrez2015).

  2. (ii) // is not a consonant cluster. During fieldwork and workshops on the Nivaĉle language, my consultants indicated the importance of differentiating Nivaĉle [] from Spanish consonant clusters [kl] or [ɡl]. Further, they also claimed that the two components cannot be separated by any (excrescent) vowel, as it may be the case of Spanish obstruent + liquid consonant clusters (Colantoni & Steele Reference Colantoni, Steele, Gess and Rubin2005). There is no independent lateral approximant segment in Nivaĉle and speakers do not identify [l] as a native sound in their language (though they acknowledge that there are few words with [l]); this sound is present in few loanwords such as [ele] ‘missionary’, and [palaβaj] ‘Paraguay’.

Figure 1

Waveform and spectrogram of [βosoˈis] ‘butterflies’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 2

Waveform and spectrogram of [βoˈsokh] ‘butterfly’ by male speaker FR.

Vowels

There are six vowels in Nivaĉle: /i e a ɑ o u/. In Figure 3 the vowel plots for a male (FR) and a female speaker (TS) are presented. Each of the six Nivaĉle contrastive vowels /i e a ɑ o u/ were recorded in the context of a preceding alveolar stop in a stressed syllable.

Figure 3

Nivaĉle vowels charted in a two-dimensional F1 F2 space, male speaker (FR) in black, female speaker (TS) in grey.

Each speaker was recorded pronouncing at least five tokens of the words listed in (4) below. For some vowels, six tokens were recorded (e.g. for vowel [i], see Figure 3). Words were recorded in isolation, that is, no carrier phrase was used.

  1. (4)

Vowels were segmented using Praat (Boersma & Weenink Reference Boersma and Weenink2014) for Mac. The midpoint of each vowel was estimated in Praat using Linear Predicting Coding (LPC) analysis with a series of overlapping Gaussian 50 ms windows and a 25 ms step size. Formant values are given in Hertz.

Table 1 below presents the mean and standard deviation values for the first and second formant of each vowel. Because vowels were not normalized, the values are presented separately for each speaker.

Table 1

F1 and F2 mean and standard deviation (SD) values for each Nivaĉle vowel.

Glottalized vowels

Stell (Reference Stell1989: 97) postulates a phonemic distinction between plain vowels /i e a ɑ o u/ and ‘glottalized’ vowels /ỉ ẻ ả ɑ ỏ ủ/, yet vowel laryngealization or creakiness is not reported for other Mataguayan languages as being contrastive. In this sense, and if accurate, Nivaĉle exhibits an innovation in the language family. I discuss this possibility below.

In Gutiérrez (Reference Gutiérrez2010, Reference Gutiérrez, González and Gualdieri2012, Reference Gutiérrez2013), I argue that Nivaĉle glottalized vowels are underlying vowel–glottal stop /Vʔ/ sequences, where the glottal stop is specified for the feature [constricted glottis]. On the basis of my fieldwork, I confirm that this postulated /Vʔ/ sequence has two realizations, depending on prosodic context: (i) rearticulated vowels, represented variably as [Vʔ] ~ [] (Figures 4 and 5, respectively) and (ii) vowel–glottal coda, represented as [Vʔ] (Figure 6).

Figure 4

Waveform and spectrogram of [-ˈsaʔʃ] ‘hair’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 5

Waveform and spectrogram of [-ˈsʃ] ‘hair’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 6

Waveform and spectrogram of [jiˈtaʔ] ‘scrubland’ by male speaker FR.

It has been noted in the literature that the implementation of glottalized vowels is subject of variation within and between speakers across languages (Avelino Reference Avelino2004, Gerfen & Baker Reference Gerfen and Baker2005). The Nivaĉle rearticulated vowels follow this trend; they tend to consist of:

  1. (i) a modal vowel portion followed by a full or short glottal closure released into a short voiceless or creaky vowel [Vʔ] ~ [Vʔ] (see Figure 4), or

  2. (ii) a period of laryngealization/creak [] (see Figure 5).

In the case of rearticulated vowels, stress is consistently realized on the first, not the second (or rearticulated) portion of these sequences. Given this observation, I hypothesize that the rearticulated portion does not constitute a second, separate syllable. Rather, these rearticulated vowels constitute a single complex syllabic nucleus. The description of rearticulated vowels is similar to what are sometimes referred to as echo vowels, which have the same vowel quality as the vowel preceding the glottal stop, but their formants are weaker (Gerfen & Baker Reference Gerfen and Baker2005), that is, lower in amplitude.

The alternation between rearticulated and creaky vowels seems to be mostly due to speech style factors. Whereas the rearticulated variant [Vʔ] is typically used in careful speech, the creaky variant – [] – is heard in fast or casual speech. It is worthy of mention that the loss of a glottal closure in rearticulated /Vʔ/ sequences is a common cross-linguistic process.

In turn, Figure 6 illustrates the Nivaĉle vowel–glottal coda, represented by [Vʔ] when there is no (other) coda consonant in the syllable. It consists of a modal vowel portion followed by a glottal closure. The last part of the vowel can be creaky due to the adjacency with the glottal stop.

Non-modal phonation types have been commonly associated with longer duration relative to modal phonation types (Gordon & Ladefoged Reference Gordon and Ladefoged2001: 18; Blankenship Reference Blankenship2002: 185, 189). Interestingly, Gerfen (Reference Gerfen1999: 49) posits a correlation between vowel glottalization in Coatzospan Mixtec and stress, more specifically, that it is licensed by stress.

Given the above generalizations, there are several important observations about the distribution and characteristics of Nivaĉle glottalized vowels. First, duration is a statistically significant acoustic property that differentiates modal from rearticulated vowels in Nivaĉle; rearticulated vowels are (almost) twice as long as their modal counterparts. Five repetitions of each word listed in (5)–(10) were recorded in isolation; duration measurements were done in Praat.

  1. (5)

  1. (6)

  1. (7)

  1. (8)

  1. (9)

  1. (10)

Figure 7 presents the duration results for the rearticulated and modal vowel pairs.

Figure 7

Duration results for rearticulated vs. modal vowel pairs: male speaker FR.

It can be observed that the durational difference between the six modal [i e a ɑ o u] and rearticulated [] vowels in the context of near-minimal pairs and minimal pairs shows significant values for the male speaker FR. A one-sided t-test confirmed that the glottalized vowels (M = 186, SD = 34) were longer than the modal vowels (M = 80, SD = 21; t(56.33) = 15.4, p < .001). Further, and concomitantly, glottalized vowels are always stressed.Footnote 10 I thus propose that Nivaĉle glottalized vowels are underlyingly bimoraic and are licensed by the head of an iambic foot (Gutiérrez Reference Gutiérrez2015).

Stress

Stress in Nivaĉle can be associated with the following phonological and phonetic properties. First, all lexical words have lexical prominence or primary stress (‘obligatoriness parameter’) with one syllable bearing the highest degree of prominence – ‘culminativity parameter’ (Hyman Reference Hyman2006). Second, stressed vowels are longer than unstressed vowels. As previously mentioned, glottalized vowels always occur under stress and are double the duration of modal vowels, hence my analysis of them as bimoraic.

In terms of metrical structure, I propose that (i) the Nivaĉle foot type is iambic, and (ii) the Nivaĉle language has a quantity-sensitive stress system, where the moraic weight of the feature [constricted glottis] is consistently correlated with stress prominence.

Stress assignment in the nominal domain varies across the alienable vs. inalienable paradigm. In alienable nouns, primary stress is final. Iambs are formed from the right edge of the Morphological Root, as in (11a) or the Morphological Stem, as in (11b) unless there is a preceding heavy syllable, as in (12).

  1. (11)

    1. a. siˈse

    2. ‘cane’

    3. b. sisɪ-ˈʧat

    4. cane-col

    5. ‘cane field’

  1. (12) xiˈβeʔə

  2. ‘moon’

In inalienable nouns, the presence of an obligatory possessive prefix impacts the domain of stress assignment, as shown in (13). Prefixes define the leftmost edge of the Prosodic Word; foot formation proceeds from this edge.

  1. (13)

    1. a. ji-ˈsʃ

    2. 1.poss-hair

    3. ‘my hair’

    4. b. ji-ˈka-saʃ

    5. 1.poss-poss.class-hair

    6. ‘my wool’

Note that the vowel /e/ in (11a) above gets reduced in (11b) because it is unstressed; this is a tendency Nivaĉle unstressed vowels undergo. Note also that the underlying glottalized vowel of the root /sʃ/ (13b) above gets deglottalized (and thus gets shortened) because it is no longer in a prominent position.

Transcription of a recorded passage

Below I present a relatively narrow phonetic transcription of a spontaneous description of a traditional Nivaĉle game (juc'aj), spoken and translated by Félix Ramírez Flores. As previously mentioned, unstressed vowels tend to reduce (or get deleted); this is indicated in the transcription. The symbol || indicates a pause or the end of an utterance, and | indicates shorter pauses or the end of a phrase.

Semi-narrow phonetic transcription

Community orthography

juc’aj. vooi lhca juc’ax ti tem, chi yu’ yu’ papi yitsjôi chi papi ôcjeĉlôi papi nich’acshane lhĉles, lhutsja lhĉles yu’ shita, taj ti ve’lha pa lhavo’esh pa chitishshaam na cotsjaat taj niapatoja c’oya ni apatoja c’oya lhôn pa. meelh ti chivaclhitesh pa chivômjatshane jum, pa lhamôqu’esh pa cotsjaat pa chiyafavatjulh pa niyôc chamashi lhôse pa lhechesh pa chifiich tima chifiich, chincaatsham pa ti cotsjaat pa chi, pa chinei lhac’o’, meelh ti yivaclhitesh taj ti yiĉlamaminatesh apee, pa yivaclhitesh pitesh nôque avolheishane pa vooishane vooishane vooishane, caaj ti pitejesh caaj ti nipitojesh ɬôn. meelh ti chivan yivan ja ve’lha yichenesh ja lhnavanic yiĉlôi lhĉles navani lhĉles nipitesajô nôque palhavjôi.

Free translation

This game is called juc'aj. Women and men play the game, and female and male teenagers too. Someone prepares the soil; they dig the ground – but not very deep – and hide a ring (made of caraguata thread). This person then tamps down the soil, until a dusty area is formed. The players have a stick with a hook at the end and they need to hook the ring. The person that directs the game says, ‘Look for it, look for it’. Players try to find the ring with their sticks; they look for it all around until someone finds it and wins the game.

Acknowledgements

My special gratitude to my consultants Félix Ramírez Flores and Teresita Sánchez for teaching me their language with patience and generosity. Many thanks to Molly Babel and Patricia A. Shaw for valuable feedback and comments on drafts of this work. I also thank an anonymous reviewer and Adrian Simpson for their useful comments. Any remaining errors are my own. This research was supported by a Small Grant (2012) from the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. It was conducted and submitted for publication in JIPA while I was a Ph.D. student at the University of British Columbia.

Footnotes

1 This name has caused some confusion in the literature because Chunupí is an alternative name of Vilela (Lule-Vilela), a genetically unrelated Chaco language.

2 An anonymous reviewer states: ‘in the speech of the younger generations of the chishamnee lhavos variety (at least in some communities) the same is true’. It is worthy of mention that Stell (Reference Stell1989: 534) noted that [ɑ] was also absent from the speech of adult chishamnee lhavos speakers (in comparison with shichaam lhavos speakers).

3 The Bermejo variety of Wichí (Nercesian Reference Nercesian2014b) also has the affricate [ʧ] in the phonological inventory, but only in onset position.

4 Interestingly, the trigger (vowel) and the target (consonant) are not necessarily adjacent; there can be labials, coronals, dorsals, and a glottal stop before the affricate and fricative palato-alveolars.

5 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for reminding me about this marked characteristic of the Nivaĉle lateral system.

6 If we consider the different articulation of [l] and [], in the articulation of [] there is more contact between the passive articulator (the area behind the incisors, the molars and the velum) and the active articulator (blade and back of the tongue) than that found in [l], where only the tip of the tongue touches the area behind the incisors. Further, the duration of [] is significantly longer than the duration of [l] (Gutiérrez Reference Gutiérrez2015), a feature that is typical of hardened or strengthened units.

7 Note that this item is missing from the archive.

8 An anonymous reviewer points out that in another variety of Nivaĉle [] weakens to [tj] in word-final position. I have not found this phenomenon in the shichaam lhavos or yita’ lhavos varieties. In addition, this reviewer mentions that consonants lengthen before a stressed vowel. I have not noticed any significant durational difference in the varieties under study.

9 Abbreviations used in this paper include: 1 = first person, 3 = third person, class = classifier, col = collective, pl = plural, poss = possessive, res = resultative, s = subject.

10 Note, however, that the modal vowels measured for comparison were all stressed, in directly comparable closed syllables, as well.

References

Avelino, Heriberto. 2004. Topics in Yalálag Zapotec, with particular reference to its phonetic structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Blankenship, Barbara. 2002. The timing of nonmodal phonation in vowels. Journal of Phonetics 30, 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.3.77). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 18 May 2014).Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2012. Classification of the indigenous languages of South America. In Campbell, Lyle & Grondona, Verónica (eds.), The indigenous languages of South America, 59–166. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Verónica Grondona. 2007. Internal reconstruction in Chulupí. Diachronica 24 (1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase-Sardi, Miguel. 1981. Pequeño Decameron Nivaclé. Literatura oral de una etnia del Chaco paraguayo. Asunción: Ediciones Napa.Google Scholar
Chase-Sardi, Miguel. 1990. Resumen de la cultura Nivaclé. Suplemento Antropológico 25 (2), 7–18.Google Scholar
Colantoni, Laura & Steele, Jeffrey. 2005. Phonetically-driven epenthesis asymmetries in French and Spanish obstruent–liquid clusters. In Gess, Randall S. & Rubin, Edward J. (eds.), Theoretical and experimental approaches to Romance linguistics, 59–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DGEEC. 2012. III Censo Nacional Indígena de Población y Viviendas (2012). Pueblos indígenas del Paraguay. Resultados finales. Asunción: Dirección General de Estadística Encuestas y Censos. www.dgeec.gov.py (accessed 15 May 2014).Google Scholar
Fabre, Alain. 2005. Los pueblos del Gran Chaco y sus lenguas, segunda parte: Los Mataguayo. Suplemento Antropológico 40 (2), 313–435.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2007. Stop place contrasts before liquids. 12th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XII), 233–236.Google Scholar
Fritz, Miguel. 1994. Los Nivaclé. Rasgos de una cultura paraguaya. Quito: Abya-Yala.Google Scholar
Gerfen, Chip. 1999. Phonology and phonetics in Coatzospan Mixtec (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 48). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerfen, Chip & Baker, Kirk. 2005. Production and perception of laryngealized vowels in Coatzospan Mixtec. Journal of Phonetics 33 (3), 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golluscio, Lucía A. & Vidal, Alejandra. 2009–2010. Recorrido sobre las lenguas del Chaco y los aportes a la investigación lingüística. Les langues du Chaco. Structure de la phrase simple et de la phrase complexe. Amerindia 33/34, 3–40.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew & Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. Phonation types: A cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics 29 (4), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1956. Tentative linguistic classification of Central and South American languages. Presented at the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, 1–9 September 1956. [Published in Wallace, Anthony F. C. (ed.). 1960. Men and cultures: Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 791–794. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.]Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Analía. 2010. Metathesis in Nivacle. Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on the Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 29), 115–125. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Analía. 2012. La metátesis como un fenómeno fonológico: El caso nivacle. In González, Hebe A. & Gualdieri, Beatriz (eds.), Lenguas Indígenas de América del Sur I. Fonología y procesos de formación de palabras, 75–90. Mendoza: Sociedad Argentina de Lingüística/Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Analía. 2013. Las vocales glotalizadas del nivaĉle. Presented at the 6th Conference on the Indigenous Languages of Latin America (CILLA VI), The University of Texas at Austin, 24–26 October 2013.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Analía. 2014. La ambigüedad fonológica de los segmentos complejos: El caso de la consonante nivaĉle . LIAMES – Línguas Indígenas Americanas 14, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, Analía. 2015. Segmental and prosodic complexity in Nivaĉle: Laryngeals, laterals, and metathesis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Hallé, Pierre, Best, Catherine T. & Bachrach, Asaf (2003). Perception of /dl/ and /tl/ clusters: A cross-linguistic perceptual study with French and Israeli listeners. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XV), 2893–2896.Google Scholar
Henry, Jules. 1936. The linguistic position of the Ashlushlay Indians. The International Journal of American Linguistics 10, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Richard. 1915. Apéndice D. Chunupí or Suhin y vocabularios castellano–inglés–chunupí–suhin. Revista del Museo de La Plata 23, 257–305.Google Scholar
Hunt, Richard. 1924. Chunupi or Suhin: Grammar, lessons and vocabulary. Embarcación: Misión Chaqueña.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2006. Word prosodic typology. Phonology 23 (2), 225–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INDEC. 2004–2005. Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, Argentina. www.indec.mecon.ar/webcenso/ECPI/index_ecpi.asp (accessed 15 August 2012).Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. [Published 1988, New York: Garland]Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7, 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, Paulino, Wilkskamp, Juan & Seelwsiche, José. 1968. Manual de la gramática chulupí. Suplemento Antropológico 3 (1–2), 159–248.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1990. Language history in South America: What we know and how to know more. In Payne, Doris L. (ed.), Amazonian linguistics, 3–74. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, Haruko. 1982. An acoustical basis for universal constraints on sound sequences. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 2006. Phonetic coding of prosodic structure. In Harrington, Jonathan & Tabain, Marija (eds.), Speech production, 67–186. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Loukotka, Čestmír. 1968. Classification of South American Indian languages. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Latin American Center.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Consonant Inventories. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/1 (accessed 1 November 2014).Google Scholar
Najlis, Elena L. 1984. Fonología de la protolengua mataguaya (Cuadernos de Lingüística Indígena 9). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Nercesian, Verónica. 2014a. Mataguayan. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavel (eds.), Handbook of derivational morphology, 743–766. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nercesian, Verónica. 2014b. Wichi lhomtes: Estudio de la gramática y la interacción fonología–morfología–sintaxis–semántica. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Nordenskiöld, Erland. 1910. Indianlif i El Gran Chaco. Estocolmo: Bonniers Förlag.Google Scholar
Seelwische, José. 1975. Gramática Nivaclé. Na Lhasinônash napi Nivacle. Asunción: El Gráfico.Google Scholar
Seelwische, José. 1990. Diccionario nivaclé: nivaclé–castellano, castellano–nivaclé (Biblioteca Paraguaya de Antropología 10). Asunción: CEADUC.Google Scholar
Stell, Nélida N. 1972. Fonología de la lengua Axluxlaj (Cuadernos de Lingüística Indígena 8). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Stell, Nélida N. 1989. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua niwaklé (chulupí). Ph.D. dissertation, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/steriade/papers/phoneticsinphonology.pdf (accessed 25 November 2008).Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1959. Mapas de clasificación lingüística de México y las Américas (Cuadernos del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas de la UNAM, Serie Antropológica No. 6). Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Tovar, Antonio. 1951. Un capítulo de lingüística general. Boletín de la Academia Argentina de Letras 20 (77), 369–403.Google Scholar
Tovar, Antonio. 1961. Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Charles F. & Voegelin, Florence M.. 1977. Classification and index of the world's languages. New York: Elsvier.Google Scholar
Wicke, Charles R. & Chase-Sardi, Miguel. 1969. Componential analysis of Chulupí (Ashlushlay) kinship terminology. Ethnology 8 (4), 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1Waveform and spectrogram of [βosoˈis] ‘butterflies’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 1

Figure 2Waveform and spectrogram of [βoˈsokh] ‘butterfly’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 2

Figure 3Nivaĉle vowels charted in a two-dimensional F1 F2 space, male speaker (FR) in black, female speaker (TS) in grey.

Figure 3

Table 1F1 and F2 mean and standard deviation (SD) values for each Nivaĉle vowel.

Figure 4

Figure 4Waveform and spectrogram of [-ˈsaʔʃ] ‘hair’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 5

Figure 5Waveform and spectrogram of [-ˈsʃ] ‘hair’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 6

Figure 6Waveform and spectrogram of [jiˈtaʔ] ‘scrubland’ by male speaker FR.

Figure 7

Figure 7Duration results for rearticulated vs. modal vowel pairs: male speaker FR.

Supplementary material: File

Gutiérrez sound files

Sound files zip. These audio files are licensed to the IPA by their authors and accompany the phonetic descriptions published in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association. The audio files may be downloaded for personal use but may not be incorporated in another product without the permission of Cambridge University Press

Download Gutiérrez sound files(File)
File 7.6 MB