A REINTERPRETATION OF LOWER-VOCAL-TRACT ARTICULATIONS IN CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES1

Alexandre Arkhipova,b*, Michael Danielc**, Oleg Belyaevb,d,e, George Morozc** and John H. Eslingf

aHamburg University, Germany; bLomonosov Moscow State University, Russia; cLinguistic Convergence La- boratory, HSE University, Moscow, Russia; dInstitute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia; ePushkin State Russian Language Institute, Moscow, Russia; fUniversity of Victoria, Canada [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT the tongue root closed against the rear pharyngeal wall. Catford’s term, ‘epiglottopharyngeal’ [3] im- The articulatory interpretation and transcription of plies stricture deeper than the lingual pharynx. Later lower-vocal-tract sounds in Caucasian languages has laryngoscopic research identified the sphincteric ac- long been a source of confusion. The Russian litera- tion of the aryepiglottic folds in airway closure [28]. ture, notably by Kibrik and Kodzasov, provides in- Roach observed that some glottalized are sight into the auditory distinctions in Archi, Agul, and ‘made with closure not only of the true vocal folds but Dargwa, among others. However, the model of vocal also of the false vocal folds and the aryepiglottic tract articulatory function and the experimental tech- folds’ [25]. Gauffin specified that protective airway niques available in their time lacked precision in iden- closure by sphincteric laryngeal tightening constricts tifying the laryngeal and pharyngeal strictures and ‘larynx tube opening’ [14]. These lines of evidence movements responsible for laryngeal/pharyngeal point to full aryepiglottic closure as the maximum sounds. We reinterpret the pharyngeal, epiglottal, and stricture in swallowing or gagging, and as a speech pharyngealized contrasts in Caucasian languages us- sound. Catford termed this full closure a ‘pharyngeal- ing a model of laryngeal articulation that specifies de- ized ’ or ‘strong glottal stop’ in languages grees of laryngeal constriction, vibratory effects, and of the Caucasus, a ‘pharyngeal stop’ in Chechen [5], larynx height parameters. We focus on Archi, Agul, and a ‘ventricular (plus glottal) stop’ [4]. and Dargwa languages Mehweb and Shiri. Phonetic categories in the earlier inventories are assigned re- 1.2. A revised lower-vocal-tract model mapped articulatory definitions. The Russian re- searchers’ observations of degrees of epiglottis low- Phonetically we term this full engagement of the lar- ering are seen as an indication of the laryngeal artic- yngeal sphincter an epiglottal stop. Experimental in- ulatory mechanism constricting, with larynx raising, vestigations of the lower vocal tract over the past 20 to form constriction. years have resulted in a model that defines the articu- latory functioning of the laryngeal constrictor mech- Keywords: Caucasian, laryngeal, pharyngeal, epi- anism, with degrees of closure of its various parts glottal, pharyngealization. from open to fully closed [8, 9]. The model defines a range of manners of articulation: , approxi- 1. LOWER-VOCAL-TRACT mant, tap, trill; glottal stop, ventricular stop, epiglot- tal stop; concomitant phonatory vibrations; and mod- 1.1. General lower-vocal-tract research background erating larynx height adjustments to alter resonance quality. Rather than specifying different places in the Early work at UCL [17] drew a relationship between pharynx where articulations are made, this scheme increasing constriction and ventricular activity, and identifies a single lower-vocal-tract stricture point, Sapir & Swadesh described Ahousaht Nuuchahnulth compressing and eventually shutting for stricture and pharyngeals as ‘laryngealized glottals’ [26]. Jacobsen unfolding for opening. We use this mechanism in re- [16], citing Sapir, called Nuuchahnulth /ʕ/ a ‘pharyn- interpreting the sound-symbol associations in the gealized glottal stop’. Gaprindashvili [13] described Caucasian phonetic inventories. a ‘pharyngealized glottal stop’, and Kodzasov [21] described a ‘strong glottal stop’ in Nakh-Daghesta- 2. CAUCASIAN PHONETIC DESCRIPTIONS nian languages. All of these descriptions imply a component added to glottal stop somewhere above 2.1. Early Russian research on Caucasian phonetics the glottis. Hockett [15] recognized that ‘a complete closure can be made in the lower pharyngeal region’, Russian research has identified lower-vocal-tract and characterized /ʕ/ as a ‘pharyngeal catch’ in Ara- consonantal articulations, syllabic properties, and bic, in parallel to ‘glottal catch’ [ʔ], but he assumed secondary vocalic qualities that characterize the lan- was viewed as ambiguous, since different authors ap- guages of the Caucasus [18, 19, 20]. Kibrik and Ko- plied it variably to zone A, Ƃ or B. This is a telling dzasov’s schema (Table 1) compares glottal state with observation, suggesting that the pharyngealization observed epiglottal lowering (and lingual retraction). mechanism was not yet well understood but that its They list 20 languages having a 4-way laryn- auditory presence pervaded all lower-vocal-tract geal/pharyngeal opposition: /ʔ h ʕ ʜ/. Budukh adds zones that existed at the time. /ʡ/; Burshag and Burkikhan Agul add /ʡ Ř x̌/; Richa Voiced [ɦ] in row 1 and [ɦ̶] in row 2 were identi- Agul adds /Ř x̌/. Each phonemic category is given an fied as possible voiced variants of ‘aspiration’ (of [h] c 2 expanded, qualified phonetic description for each lan- and [h̶], respectively). The voiced [ ] in row 2 was guage. described as a glide, while all three elements in row 3 Experimental methods to image the lower vocal were classified as ‘’. [ʕ ʜ] were identified tract were not available to assist in the identification as ‘spirants’ (i.e. ). It is safe to say, based on of categories established in early Russian research. Kodzasov’s and Catford’s writings, that rows 2 and 3 The schema in Table 1 presumed the epiglottis to be were viewed as fundamentally glottal-laryngeal, with an indicator, if not an articulator. Its increasing low- observed increases in ‘strength’ of lingual and epi- ering below ‘upper’ (uvular) indicated tightening in glottal retraction/lowering corresponding to audito- the pharynx, together with tongue backing for ‘mid- rily ‘deeper’ sounds. Row 3 values were held to differ dle’ (pharyngeal sounds). The assumption was for in degree from row 2 values, potentially varying allo- ‘lower’ (epiglottal) sounds to be accompanied by gen- phonically but not contrasting phonemically in any eral tension in the pharyngeal walls, perhaps with one language. In Burshag and Richa Agul (also generalized laryngeal lowering. Inkhokvari and Chirag Dargwa), a laryngeal quality accompanying and in certain lexical Table 1: Kibrik and Kodzasov’s diagram and items was called ‘compressed ’, described audi- table (translated) for describing Caucasian ‘lar- torily as ‘hoarse-gravelly’ («сиплый») and ‘tense’ yngeal sounds’: row 1: ‘glottal laryngeals’, [18, 20]. rows 2-3: ‘emphatic laryngeals’ [18, p. 312]. In Burkikhan Agul [18, p. 340], ‘emphatic laryn-

geals’ [ʕ ʜ] are realized in all positions within a word Articulation zones of the pharynx as ‘ spirants’; [Ř x̌] originate from pharyn- A = upper [zone] (uvular sounds) Ƃ = middle [zone] (pharyngeal sounds) gealized uvulars, ‘middle’ [Ř] effectively alternating B = lower [zone] (epiglottal sounds) ➝ with ‘lower’ [ʕ]; and [x̌] is produced with more noise ➝ rows 2 and 3 in table below than [Ř] [20]. Voiceless [x̌] therefore fills the slot of / /, equivalent to IPA [ħ], and in contrast to /ʜ/. Vocal folds Closed Adducted Abducted h̶ Burkikhan Agul in the UCLA archive [27] includes Epiglottis sounds transcribed as /ʕ ħ ʜ ʡ/: [ʕ] as a voiced phar- Neutral position ʔ h yngeal fricative (or , since [ħ] is called a c Moderately lowered ʡ h̶ voiceless pharyngeal fricative); [ʜ] as an epiglottal fricative; and [ʡ] as an epiglottal stop; although not all Strongly lowered ʔ˭ ʕ ʜ distinctions have been attested as phonemic in recent For all languages, [ʔ h] were defined as ‘plain Russian fieldwork. Generally, in Northeast Caucasian (glottal) laryngeals’. [ʔ] could be ‘strongly occluded’ languages, distinctions are not so much a phonemic or ‘weakly occluded’. ‘Pharyngeal’ and ‘epiglottal’ issue as whether there is pharyngealization on the root places of articulation were identified for many lan- and whether the word is native or borrowed. In a phar- guages, and uvulars were viewed as having more or yngealized root, the more extreme phonetic variants less deep localization in the upper pharynx, some- from Table 1 are realized. These may include [ʡ] for the stop and [ʜ] for the fricative; although no [ʢ] sym- times replaced by or varying with pharyngeals. [Ř x̌], specific to the three Agul dialects, were defined as bol was included in Table 1 in parallel to [ʜ] and in pharyngeal spirants (fricatives), produced by narrow- contradistinction to [ʕ ħ]. ing the pharyngeal passage at the level of the tongue 2.2. Recent Russian research on Caucasian phonetics root, presciently described in 1986 as ‘a sphincteric compression of the pharynx’ as well as ‘a strong re- Archi [1] has glottals /ʔ h/ in plain roots (/baʔbos/ ‘to traction of the tongue body’ [20]. ‘Epiglottals’ (tradi- kiss’, /barhas/ ‘to babysit’) and in pharyngealized tionally ‘emphatic laryngeals’) were seen as produced roots (/ʔiˤʔuˤbos/ ‘to crow’, /haˤht’i/ ‘breath’), where by displacing the epiglottis backwards and down- the glottals take on pharyngeal characteristics: more wards, resulting in narrowing the lower pharynx and strongly constricted [ʕ ħ]. Archi ‘epiglottals’ are a covering the laryngeal inlet. The term ‘pharyngeal’ fully constricted stop (/raʡ/ ‘dishes’) or glide [ʕ̝ ] (/baʡaj/ ‘ram’), and a pharyngeal fricative (/ħubus/ ‘to both moving downwards. The epiglottis-lowering growl’) or slightly trilled [ʜ] (/ħiħibos/ ‘to neigh’) concept in Table 1 is thus reinterpreted to represent [audio embedded]. laryngeal articulator constriction, with increasing Shiri Dargwa [2] demonstrates the enhancing ef- tongue retraction, and (normally) larynx raising. fect that pharyngealized roots (symbolized as /ˤ/ on The model offers multiple parameters that can the ) bring to glottals, rendering /ʔ/ in /ʔatːa/ combine to account for the distinctions that occur in ‘father’ as [ʡ] in /ʔaˤt’a/ ‘frog’, and /h/ in /habaxiʒ/ ‘to the lower vocal tract [12, 23]. Our first premise is that go up’ as a pharyngeal fricative ([ħ] with variable (a) aryepiglottic stricture is the primary agent of lar- quality, possibly with trilling) in /haˤrhaˤ/ ‘arrow’. yngeal constriction, that pharyngeal and epiglottal are Other examples of the strengthened stop [ʡ] are: /duˤʔ/ not separate places of articulation, and that distinc- ‘wilderness’, /ʔaˤrʔaˤ/ ‘hen’, /ʔuˤrʔni/ ‘hens’; and of tions are a matter of degree of stricture. Since tongue derived pharyngeal [ħ]: /huˤlkːa/ ‘flat cake’. retraction and larynx raising inherently accompany Mehweb Dargwa [7, 24] also illustrates how root laryngeal constriction, (b) the tongue retracting into pharyngealization, word position and lexical origin the pharynx can be a parameter affecting sound qual- influence the strength of stops and laryngeally con- ity, and (c) voluntarily altering larynx height will also stricted . In native roots, [ʔ] may or may substantially affect the resonance properties of the not surface before an initial vowel and intervocali- sound. Finally, (d) increasing laryngeal constriction cally. If so, it is weak (/(ʔ)a/ ‘colostrum’). A final /ʔ/ normally increases the potential for aryepiglottic can be stronger (/muʔ/ ‘back’). In the context of phar- trilling to occur, unless competing contrasts prolifer- yngealized vowels, /ʔ/ yields a weak epiglottal stop or ate in the laryngeal region (which they do in Cauca- approximant (/ʔaˤt’a/ ‘frog’, /ʔoˤri/ ‘hare’). A stronger sian languages, therefore requiring elaboration of po- epiglottal stop [ʡ] appears in several non-pharyngeal- tential combining parameters); and (e) pitch is a pa- ized roots such as /ʡala/ ‘behind’ or an Avar borrow- rameter that influences how constriction and larynx ing /ʡat’/ ‘flour’. Mehweb contrasts glottal /h/ height are perceived auditorily, although it plays less (/warhi/ ‘cloak’) and pharyngeal /ħ/ (/q’aħa/ ‘turnip’). of a role in languages with pharyngeal consonants The latter can increase in laryngeal constriction, pos- than in those with tonal register [12]. sibly with larynx raising as [ʜ], especially in pharyn- gealized roots (/daˤħ/ ‘face’, /doˤrħo/ ‘cub’), resulting 3.2. Reinterpreted articulatory categories typically in a flat spectrum between 1–3 kHz and peak at 3–3.5 kHz (vs. a deep valley above 1 kHz and peak Since the tongue is not the primary articulator in the at 2.5 kHz for [ħ]). Another option for strengthening lower vocal tract, and the epiglottis is not the agent of a pharyngeal is aryepiglottic trilling, which may ap- airway closure, we must reinterpret Table 1. The pear, depending on the speaker, in non-pharyngeal- ‘zones of the pharynx’ are therefore not increments of ized roots only (/meħ/ ‘two handfuls’), or sporadi- lingual retraction or epiglottis lowering per se, but re- cally in both contexts (cf. /doˤħi/ ‘snow’), or not at all. flexes of the folding action of the laryngeal articula- Huppuq Agul glottals in /ʃeʔ/ ‘thing’ and /buhu/ tor. Pharyngealization in any of the 3 zones results ‘owl’ contrast with pharyngeal stop (or trill) in /ʡub/ from laryngeal articulator action. Zone A may yield ‘rope’, approximant in /myʕ/ ‘bridge’, and fricative in pharyngealized uvulars. Zone Ƃ is not an accurate /ħur/ ‘flour’. Aryepiglottic trilling occurs variably (by representation of pharyngeal articulation (Ƃ and B be- speaker) in voiced or voiceless contexts. ing a function of the laryngeal articulator) and is therefore redundant. Zone B represents the aryepi- 3. REVISED CAUCASIAN PHONETIC glottic folds tightening forwards and upwards beneath DESCRIPTIONS the epiglottis, with tongue retraction and larynx height displacement. Kibrik and Kodzasov [18] were 3.1. The nature of laryngeal constriction correct in their auditory interpretation of progressive degrees of pharyngealization, ultimate closure being We replace earlier assumptions of lingual/epiglottal in the lowest region of the vocal tract. The observa- stricture in the pharynx with a model of aryepiglottic tional methods available at the time gave an accurate laryngeal constriction with concomitant lingual and impression of one element of laryngeal constriction, larynx-raising effects. As the laryngeal articulator i.e. concomitant tongue retraction. But the essential mechanism tightens, lingual retraction and larynx element of pharyngealization is aryepiglottic sphinc- raising increase, producing pharyngealization or tering, with the tightest phase being full closure, nor- pharyngeal/epiglottal consonants. This is the articula- mally with the larynx fully raised [8, 11, 12]. We thus tory ‘paradox of the larynx,’ since the two primary find an earlier formulation by Kodzasov in [19] more articulators (tongue and larynx) approach each other accurate, referring to the ‘supraglottal passage’ being during increasing laryngeal constriction instead of open vs. narrowed. 3.2.1. Stop categories trilled, can vary by language, environment, or indi- vidual speaking style. These elements of laryngeal Table 1, Column 1 accurately portrays the sequential constriction are not entailments; they are available adduction of the laryngeal constrictor as a whole to options that can be exploited in a sound system by generate glottal stop [ʔ], reinforced (ventricular) stop virtue of ‘articulatory proximity’. [ʔ̝ ], and epiglottal stop [ʡ] (in IPA notation [10]). Ta- Thus, the notion that ‘epiglottal sounds’ are incre- ble 1 depicts the progression correctly, and also the mentally ‘deeper’ is accurate if reinterpreted to de- fact that only two phonemic contrasts will occur, scribe progressive aryepiglottic tightening of the con- whatever gradations along the continuum may occur strictor mechanism, which incrementally engages phonetically. The notion, however, that the epiglottis tongue retraction (lowering at the back) and larynx actively descends to accomplish closure is not accu- raising. The portrayal of ‘epiglottis lowering’ (Table rate. In fact, the arrow at B in the diagram should be 1, В) also presages the action of the laryngeal con- pointing the other way, to represent aryepiglottic strictor, but the direction should be turned upwards to compression of the epilaryngeal tube and progressive be opposite to tongue retraction. The introduction of closure of the airway. And Ƃ can be combined as a laryngeal constrictor behaviour also allows the possi- function of aryepiglottic epilaryngeal tube compres- bility of aryepiglottic trilling to be added to key sion. Burkikhan Agul, described in [22, p. 38, 167– sounds. The occurrence of ‘compressed voice’ or 170] and archived in [27], illustrates clear examples ‘hoarse-gravelly’ ‘tense’ voice on a pharyngeal or of epiglottal stop [ʡ]. neighbouring vowel can also be accounted for by the propensity for epilaryngeal vibration to occur under 3.2.2. categories certain conditions of laryngeal constriction. The fact that [x̌] may have ‘more noise’ could also be a func- Two other elements of laryngeal constriction give the tion of the incidence of aryepiglottic trilling. continuant sounds identified in Table 1 the freedom The voiceless pharyngeal continuants in Agul to exhibit varied resonance/noise or vibratory charac- symbolized as pharyngeal /ħ/ (earlier [x̌] or [h̶]) can teristics: by variation in larynx height or by trilling of be described, using our revised terminology, as a epilaryngeal (supraglottic) tissues within the laryn- voiceless pharyngeal (aryepiglottic) fricative with geal articulator. One way pharyngeal fricatives can be lowered larynx (expanded lower cavity resonance), differentiated is to contrast resonances by adjusting with the potential for aryepiglottic trilling. The more larynx height. It is entirely possible that the ‘middle constricted fricative symbolized as epiglottal /ʜ/ is a zone’ pharyngeals and the ‘lower zone, moderately voiceless pharyngeal (aryepiglottic) fricative with lowered’ epiglottals have a lower (more open) larynx raised larynx. In some data sets [27], or for some position than sounds in the tightest (‘strongly low- speakers, both can be trilled. Otherwise, only /ħ/ is ered’) set, which may have the highest larynx posi- trilled. The voiced pharyngeal approximant /ʕ/ in tion. A low larynx position yields lower spectral res- Agul is slightly trilled in some examples [27]. In onances, while a high larynx position increases them. some formulations [3], /ʜ ʢ/ have been represented as Without instrumental corroboration, the [x̌~h̶] set is trills for symbolic purposes. This derives from Cat- likely to have sounded/appeared higher in the phar- ford’s auditory evaluation that /ʜ/ and /ʢ/ are more ynx because lowering the larynx does not engage the ‘genuinely fricative’ than /ħ/ and /ʕ/ [6]. But it is not laryngeal constrictor as much as when the larynx is obligatory for either larynx-height posture of a phar- elevated. The ‘lowered’ [ʜ] likely sounded/looked yngeal to attract trilling more than the other. Since ‘deeper’ because raising the larynx (and the high fre- aryepiglottic trilling mimics glottal as a vi- quencies associated with reduced resonating spaces) bratory source, contrasting elements can differ be- is the default position for the tightest, most extreme tween voiceless and voiced sounds. constriction. The Archi, Agul, Mehweb and Shiri observations A second way to differentiate pharyngeal quality demonstrate that the phonetic options for lower-vo- is by adding a supplementary vibration source: ary- cal-tract contrast exploit the range of constrictive epiglottic trilling at the top of the epilaryngeal tube. movement of the laryngeal articulator, adding the pa- In Caucasian languages, it is the less-tight [ħ] cate- rameter of enhanced vibration at the aryepiglottic gory that seems most often to attract enhanced ary- folds, and supplemented by quality changes induced epiglottic trilling, while the [ʜ] remains more tightly by producing pharyngeals with a lowered larynx pos- constricted (with raised-larynx compression), inhibit- ture vs. an elevated larynx posture. The critical factor ing trilling. The voiced equivalents can have aryepi- is to view acoustic shifts in pharyngeal quality as a glottic trilling, but the contrasts seem more difficult function of the degree of laryngeal articulator stric- to realize when glottal voicing is present. The inci- ture (folding) and to interpret vibratory effects as a dence of trilling on /ʕ/, and whether [ħ] or [ʜ] is function of the propensity of the aryepiglottic folds at the top of the epilaryngeal tube to vibrate. 4. REFERENCES [22] Ladefoged, P., Maddieson, I. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. [1] Arkhipov, A. 2015. The acoustic correlates of vowel [23] Moisik, S.R. 2013. The Epilarynx in Speech. Doctoral pharyngealization in Archi (East Caucasian). Proc. dissertation, University of Victoria. 18th ICPhS Glasgow, paper 1014. [24] Moroz, G. 2019. Phonology of Mehweb. In: Daniel, [2] Belyaev, O. 2018. Aorist, resultative, and perfect in M., Dorbushina, N., Ganenkov, D. (eds), The Mehweb Shiri Dargwa and beyond. In: Forker, D., Maisak, T.A. Language: Essays on Phonology, Morphology and Syn- (eds), The Semantics of Verbal Categories in Nakh-Da- tax. Berlin: Language Science Press. ghestanian Languages. Leiden: Brill, 80–119. [25] Roach, P.J. 1979. Laryngeal-oral coarticulation in [3] Catford, J.C. 1968. The articulatory possibilities of glottalized English . JIPA 9, 2–6. man. In: Malmberg, B. (ed), Manual of Phonetics. Am- [26] Sapir, E., Swadesh, M. 1939. Nootka Texts: Tales and sterdam: North-Holland, 309–333. Ethnological Narratives with Grammatical Notes and [4] Catford, J.C. 1977. Fundamental Problems in Phonet- Lexical Materials. Philadelphia: LSA; U. Penn. ics. Edinburgh: EUP. [27] UCLA. 2009. UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive. ar- [5] Catford, J.C. 1983. Pharyngeal and laryngeal sounds in chive.phonetics.ucla.edu/Language/AGX/agx.html Caucasian languages. In: Bless, D., Abbs, J. (eds), Vo- [28] Williams, G.T., Farquharson, I.M., Anthony, J.K.F. cal Fold Physiology: Contemporary Research and 1975. Fibreoptic laryngoscopy in the assessment of lar- Clinical Issues. San Diego: College Hill, 344–350. yngeal disorders. J. Laryngol. Otol. 89, 299–316. [6] Catford, J.C. 1990. Glottal consonants ... another view. ______JIPA 20, 25–26. 1 We are indebted to Anna Dybo (Institute of Linguistics [7] Daniel, M., Lander, Y. 2011. The Caucasian languages. RAS, Moscow) and her colleagues at Tomsk State Univer- In: Kortmann, B., van der Auwera, J. (eds), The Lan- sity, whose support made this collaboration possible. We guages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive are also grateful to Solmaz Merdanova and Dmitry Ganen- Guide. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 125–158. kov for Agul data and discussion, and to three anonymous [8] Esling, J.H. 1996. Pharyngeal consonants and the ary- reviewers for valuable comments. epiglottic sphincter. JIPA 26, 65–88. 2 The [c] symbol was most likely intended typographically [9] Esling, J.H. 2005. There are no back vowels: The lar- as the upper half of the ‘reversed glottal stop’ symbol [ʕ]. yngeal articulator model. Cdn. J. Ling. 50, 13–44. [10] Esling, J.H. 2010. Phonetic notation. In: Hardcastle, * Contribution by this author was made in the context of the joint research funding of the German Federal Govern- W.J., Laver, J., Gibbon, F.E. (eds), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ment and Federal States in the Academies’ Programme, 678–702. with funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The [11] Esling, J.H., Moisik, S.R. Voice quality. In: Knight, R-A., Setter, J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Academies’ Programme is coordinated by the Union of the Phonetics. Cambridge: CUP. German Academies of Sciences and Humanities. [12] Esling, J.H., Moisik, S.R., Benner, A., Crevier-Buch- ** For these authors, the work on the paper was carried out man, L. 2019. Voice Quality: The Laryngeal Articula- within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the tor Model. Cambridge: CUP. National Research University Higher School of Economics [13] Gaprindashvili, Sh. G. 1966. Fonetika Darginskogo (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by jazyka. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5–100’. [14] Gauffin, J. 1977. Mechanisms of larynx tube con- striction. Phonetica 34, 307–309. [15] Hockett, C.F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. [16] Jacobsen, W.H. Jr. 1969. Origin of the Nootka phar- yngeals. Int. J. Amer. Ling. 35, 125–153. [17] Jones, S. 1934. Somali [ħ] and [ʕ]. Le maître phonétique 49, 8–9. [18] Кибрик, А.Е., Кодзасов, С.В. 1990. Сопостави- тельное изучение дагестанских языков. Имя. Фонетика. М.: Изд-во МГУ. [19] Кодзасов, С.В. 1977. Фонетика. In: Опыт структур- ного описания арчинского языка. Т. 1. М.: Изд-во МГУ. [20] Кодзасов, С.В. 1986. Фаринго-ларингальное суже- ние в дагестанских языках. In: Актуальные пробле- мы дагестанско-нахского языкознания. Махачкала. [21] Kodzasov, S.V. 1987. Pharyngeal features in the Da- ghestan languages. Proc. XIth ICPhS Tallinn, vol. 2, 142–144.