音声研究 第 23 巻 76–82 頁 Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 2019 年 Vol. 23, pp. 76–82, 2019 特集論文 /ɧ/ in Amdo Tibetan: Descriptive and Historical Approaches , , Hiroyuki SUZUKI* **, Tsering Samdrup***, Niangwujia (Nyingbo-Gyal)* ****, Jixiancairang (Chaksham Tsering)* and Sonam Wangmo* アムドチベット語における/ɧ/ ―記述言語学的・歴史言語学的アプローチ― SUMMARY: ɧ is defined as ‘simultaneous ʃ and x’ in IPA, and its existence in Swedish is widely attested. This article provides a detailed description of a [ɧ]-like sound attested in Amdo Tibetan (Tibetic, Tibeto-Burman) and defines the symbol ɧ in Amdo Tibetan as ‘simultaneous ɕ and x’. It then uses the synchronic and diachronic perspectives to present the necessity of using the symbol /ɧ/ in the phonology. The article further explores a sound correspondence between /ɧh/ and a Literary Tibetan sh simple initial and its typological aspect through a comparison with several Khams Tibetan dialects. Key words: Tibeto-Burman, Amdo Tibetan, simultaneous articulation, fricative, prepalatal, velar 1. Introduction Malmberg (1969, p. 117) mentions that [ɧ] represents a ‘dorso-postpalatal fricative sound with strong lip- ɧ, defined as ‘simultaneous ʃ and x’, is an official rounding’, whereas Garlén (1988, pp. 71–72) describes phonetic symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet three groups of phonetic realisations of the sound [ɧ], (henceforth IPA). It is widely known that [ɧ] exists in and Elert (1970, p. 75) describes the existence of pho- Swedish phonology, as Lindblad (1980) and Ladefoged netic variants for [ɧ]. Hence, the IPA’s definition of [ɧ] and Maddieson (1996, pp. 171–172) have claimed, and is ambiguous, and it just covers a common phonetic has been used in Swedish phonetic alphabet prior to its realisation, namely, a voiceless fricative that is double- registration in the IPA (Malmberg 1969). Among the articulated around the postalveolar and velar positions. world’s languages, it has a typologically rare sound; This article will discuss the articulatory phonetic however, there have been several reports, such as those features of the sound that can be described with the of Suzuki (2004, 2008) and Janhunen (2016), that some symbol [ɧ] in two Amdo Tibetan dialects spoken in Tibetic languages (Tibeto-Burman; see Tournadre 2014 China’s Qinghai Province, namely Mabzhi (mGomang for the definition of ‘Tibetic’) have a similar sound to Town of Guinan County) and Rebgong (sMadpa Vil- the Swedish [ɧ], which occupies the independent posi- lage, Thorgya Town of Tongren County) and then use tion /ɧ/ within their consonant inventory. the synchronic and diachronic perspectives to present [ɧ] is described as a symbol that includes multiple ar- the necessity of using the symbol ɧ (principally used as ticulation approaches as mentioned in Lindblad (1980) a phoneme /ɧh/) in their phonology. The article shows and Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996, pp. 171–172). that a [ɧ] sound is pronounced as a single double- They mention that [ɧ] in Swedish varies phonetically articulated sound of the prepalatal and velar in principle and that it is sometimes described as a ‘highly rounded, and that it is distinct from the velar, uvular, and glottal labiodental, velar or velarized fricative’ and a ‘dorsove- fricative series. lar voiceless fricative’. As Lindblad (1980) and Lade- Using the viewpoint of the pandialectal phonetic foged and Maddieson (1996, p. 172) claim, the sound description suggested by Tournadre and Suzuki (forth- [ɧ] should be distinguished from a velar fricative [x]. coming)1), which is to be applied to all varieties of * IKOS, University of Oslo（オスロ大学東方言語文化研究所） ** National Museum of Ethnology（国立民族学博物館） *** SOAS, University of London（ロンドン大学東洋アフリカ研究学院） ****Qinghai Nationalities University（青海民族大学） — 76 — /ɧ/ in Amdo Tibetan Tibetic languages, we also contrast the [ɧ] sound in ticulatory phonetic description of [ɧ] that is attested Amdo Tibetan with examples of [x], [ç], and the al- in Amdo Tibetan. Since the experimental approaches lophonic [x]-[ç] interchange attested in several dialects of articulatory phonetics, such as X-ray tracing and of Khams Tibetan, which have a close language contact palatography, are difficult to carry out in the techni- with Amdo Tibetan; thus, the use of the symbol [ɧ] in cal sense, we provide a description obtained from the a phonetic description is significant when we consider visual observations and reflections of native speakers. dialectological studies focusing on Tibetic languages. The other is a phonological description, with which we For instance, the differences across sound symbols claim that an aspirated [ɧh] is considered as a phoneme directly influence a dialectometrical analysis such as /ɧh/ that forms a contrast with a velar fricative /xh/ and the string edit distance calculation used in Gabmap glottal fricative /h/ and should indicate that /ɧh/ appears (Nerbonne et al. 2011; see also Powell and Suzuki 2017 before all the vowels. for an application to Tibetic languages). In this regard, dialectological, historical-comparative perspectives are 2.1 Articulatory Phonetic Description also crucial, as these enable us to principally consider From an articulatory phonetic point of view, [ɧ] the sound correspondence between an oral form and should be defined as a sound that is simultaneously Literary Tibetan (henceforth LT2)), as pointed out by multi-articulated. According to empirical observa- many descriptive works, such as those of Häsler (1999) tions of the multiple instances of pronunciation in and Haller (2004). It is noteworthy that almost all the several Amdo Tibetan dialects, a principal articulatory sounds regarding [ɧ] correspond to a LT simplex sh in feature that is represented as [ɧ] in Amdo Tibetan is a Amdo Tibetan. simultaneous articulation in the prepalatal and velar When we consider a LT form as a pivot, we can positions. We have also noticed that the main source of access information about how previous descriptive the friction tends to be located between the dorsal area linguistic works on Amdo Tibetan have dealt with the of the tongue and the velum (or pre-velum) and that [ɧ] sound. However, we find that there is no consensus it is accompanied by the turbulence of air flow at the regarding the proper way to describe the dorsal sound prepalatal position with the tongue tip kept downwards, corresponding to a LT simplex sh attested in Amdo i.e., producing a sound transcribed as [ɕ͡x]. This sound Tibetan when we refer to Haller (2004), Suzuki (2004), is always regarded as a single sound in the varieties that Geng et al. (2007), Ebihara (2010), Wang (2012), and we have examined. Janhunen (2016). They describe the various varieties of It should be noted that the exact articulatory posi- the Kokonor group (Tournadre and Suzuki forthcom- tions vary in different varieties of Amdo Tibetan; in ing) or the circum-Kokonor group (Geng et al. 2007). other words, there are dialectal differences. Additional- Only Suzuki (2004) and Janhunen (2016) use the sym- ly, we also observe that a speaker has conditional allo- bol [ɧ]; however, even the works employing it do not phones. We aim to examine these differences carefully, provide a detailed articulatory phonetic description that and we will provide the relevant details in 2.2. The one can use to determine any similarity to the sound symbol [ɧ] principally represents such sounds as [ɕ͡x], in Swedish. Therefore, we need to verify the phonetic [ɕç͡x]3), and [ɕ͡χ]. This fact means that [ɧ] includes vari- characteristics of this sound. ous articulatory manners like those attested in Swedish. This feature is also one of the reasons why we propose 2. Descriptive Approach the use of the symbol [ɧ] for the specific sound attested in Amdo Tibetan. However, unlike Swedish, Amdo Ti- In this section, we will describe two Amdo Tibetan betan lacks the feature of labialisation in any conditions dialects: Mabzhi and Rebgong (sMadpa Village). They of the vowels that follow the [ɧ] sound (see 2.2). represent the different dialect groups of Amdo: Mabzhi As far as our data are concerned, there are no excep- is a dialect that is classified as a pastoralist innovative tions to the rule that the [ɧ] sound in Amdo Tibetan is dialect (Cham-tshang Padma lHun-grub 2009) or as a articulated from a single position such as the uvular [χ], Kokonor group dialect (Tournadre and Suzuki forth- velar [x], palatal [ç], and prepalatal [ɕ]. Unlike Swed- coming); Rebgong is classified as an agro-pastoralist ish, [ɧ] in Amdo Tibetan does not include the postalve- dialect (Cham-tshang Padma lHun-grub 2009) or as a olar [ʃ], and it rarely appears in Amdo Tibetan or even Labrang-Rebgong group dialect (Tournadre and Suzuki in Tibetic languages. The difference between [ʃ] and [ɕ] forthcoming). can be produced by changing the position of the tongue We present two descriptions below. One is an ar- (tongue tip upwards or downwards) rather than the — 77 — 特集「チベット・ビルマ系諸言語の音声と音韻」●●●●●論文種別（Type）●●●●● position of the passive articulator (postalveolar or pre- Table 1 Combinations of /ɧh/ and vowels in Mabzhi palatal). See Zhu (2010), Suzuki (2016, pp. 103–104) open syllables. and Zhang et al. (2018) for related discussions. Word forms LT Meaning To sum up, we interpret [ɧ] in Amdo Tibetan to be h a sound generated by a simultaneous pre-dorsal and /ɧ i/ shes ‘know’ h w 4 post-dorsal articulation; its exact articulatory position /ɧ e ʑa/ shes bya ‘ritualist’ /ɧha/ sha ‘meat’ and manner vary, as in Swedish. The sound [ɧ] in Amdo /ɧho/ sho ‘dice’, ‘(interjection to make a Tibetan can therefore be described as ‘simultaneous ɕ dog attack)’ and x’. /kha ɧhɷ/ kha sho ‘cheiloschisis’ Another crucial notice is that, in many Amdo Tibetan /ɧhʋ/ shul ‘trace’ dialects, [ɧ] is aspirated in many cases as [ɧh]. Unaspi- /ɧhə/ shi ‘die, be dead’ rated counterparts are rarely found in Amdo Tibetan but existent in Sharkhog Tibetan (see Suzuki 2008), and no voiced counterparts have been recorded so far.