TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochiDialects

FaridehOkati PéturHelgason AssistantProfessor,University AssistantProfessor,UppsalaUniversity,Sweden [email protected] [email protected]

CarinaJahani AbbasAliAhangar Professor,UppsalaUniversity,Sweden AssociateProfessor,UniversityofSistanandBaluchestan [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract

Theaimofthepresentpaperistostudythestatusoftheshortvowels/i/and/u/in five selected Iranian Balochi dialects. These dialects are spoken in Sistan (SI), Saravan(SA),Khash(KH),Iranshahr(IR),and(CH)regionslocated inprovinceSistanvaBaluchestaninthesoutheastof.Thisstudyinvestigates whetherthesetwovowelshavethesamequalitiesastheshort/i/and/u/dointhe Common Balochi inventory (i, iדּ, u, uדּ, a, aדּ, eדּ, oדּ). The Common Balochi inventoryisthevowelsystemrepresentedgenerallyforBalochilanguage,whichis a North-WesternIranianlanguage,a sub-branchoftheIndo-Iranianfamily.The data for this survey are gathered from villages, rural areas, and cities in these regions in the forms of free speech and verbal elicitation from more than 20 literate and non-literate male and female language consultants, 2 males and 2 femalesforeachdialect.Theinvestigationrevealsthattheshort/i/and/u/show strongtendenciestowardsa lowerposition.Thisstudysuggestsphonemicsystems inwhichtheshort/i/ismodifiedtoshort/e/inalldialects,but/u/ismodifiedto/o/ onlyinSI,SA,andCH;theloweringoftheshort/u/toshort/o/inKHandIRmay stillbeinthetransitionstage.ItispossiblethatPersian,asthedominantlanguage has had its influence on these dialects causing a lowering tendency in the two vowelsunderstudy. Keywords: Balochi, Iranian Balochi Dialects, Common Balochi, Vowels, LanguageContact,Persian

Received:April2012; Accepted:December2012 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

1. Introduction

Balochihasbeenconsidereda North-WesternIranianlanguage(Jahani,2003, p. 114), which is most closely related to “Kurdish, Tati, Talyshi and other North-WesternIranianlanguages”,andstructurallymoresimilarto“Parthian, MiddlePersian,andclassicalNewPersianthantoModernNewPersian.”Paul (2003,p.61)arguesthatthereisnoclear-cutdivisionbetweenNorth-Western and South-Western Iranian languages, but “rather a scale of ‘Northwesternness’or‘Southwesternness’,onwhicheachlanguageis‘moreor less’NWorSW.”Korn(2003,pp.51,58)pointsoutthat,undertheinfluence of language contact in the past, Balochi has taken over “some innovations” from Persian and shows more similarities to that language than, e.g., Zazaki does;ZazakialsobelongstotheNorth-WesternIranianlanguagesandisnot very influenced by Persian due to less contact (Paul, 2009). Regarding the historical sound changes, Korn (2005, p. 329) points out that Balochi, and Kurdish“occupya positionbetweentheNWIr.andtheSWIr.languagesand might in this respect be called ‘Transitional Western Iranian languages’.” JahaniandKorn(2009,p.636)havebroadlydividedtheBalochidialectsinto the three groups of Eastern, Western, and Southern Balochi; they (ibid) mentionthattherearesomedialects,suchasSaravani,whichshowtransitional characteristics between the Western and Southern groups. Factors such as geographical distribution and contact with surrounding languages are responsibleforthemanydialectvariationsofthislanguage. The Balochi dialects in Iran (including those spoken in Sistan va Baluchestanprovince)aresurroundedbyStandardPersianandalsobysome Persian dialects, such as Sistani and Birjandi dialects, as well as some other

118 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... languagessuchasBrahui,Bashkardi1, Jadgali,MazandaraniandQashqai.The Baloch of the young generation, who receive education, are normally particularly influenced by the language of education. Jahani (2005, pp. 159– 160) states that education in Persian “considerably strengthens the Persian influence”onBalochi.She(ibid)usestheterm“superstrate”2 influencetorefer tothePersianstructuralandlexicalinfluenceontheBalochidialectsspokenin Iranian.Rzehak(2009,p.117),whodealswiththephenomenonof language contact and its effects on the Balochi language spoken in Sistani, pointsoutthatPersian,asthedominantlanguage,caninfluenceBalochi,the dominatedlanguage,tocopy(imitateandadapt)newelementsintoitslexicon andphonology,etc. From a historical point of view, Mahmoodzahi (2003, p. 148) points out that “Balochi and Persian must have been to at least a certain degree in constantcontactwitheachotherforcenturies”,andinthemoderntimes,he (ibid: 149–151) refers to different factors such as education in the official language, Persian, the completion of the electrification of the province after theIslamicRevolution,massmedia,andintermarriagesbetweenBalochand Persianspeakers,whichhaveincreasedthelinguisticcontactsbetweenthetwo languages.Jahani(2003,p.129)andSpooner(1967,p.56)alsoremarkonthe contact-linguistic influence of Persian on the Balochi spoken in Iran, specificallyasobservedintheareaofSaravan.Theypointoutthatamongthe BalochivariantsspokeninIran,theSaravandialectisdifferentfromtheothers and seems to be closer to Persian, and that this can be attributed to the

1 AlsoBashgardi 2 Jahani (2005) defines “superstrate” as a type of influence which a dominant language exercisesona dominatedlanguage. 119 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013 presenceofmanyPersianspeakers,mainlytheAfghanimmigrantsofcenturies ago,intheSaravanregion. Withtheaidofinstrumentalanalysis,thisstudyinvestigatesthequalityof theshortvowels/i/and/u/infiveIranianBalochidialects,SI,SA,KH,IR,and CH, spoken in the Sistan va Baluchestan3 province in the southeast of Iran. Thissurvey,whichattemptstocomparethestatusofthesevowelswiththeones intheCommonBalochiinventory(i,iדּ, u,uדּ, eדּ, oדּ a,aדּ, firstputforwardby Morgenstierne1948asa generalvowelinventoryforalldialectsofBalochi,see Rossi,1979,p.177),isthefirstworkapplyingempiricalacousticanalysisona largebodyofrecordeddataintheIranianBalochidialects.Thedataforthis surveyweregatheredfromvillages,ruralareas,andcitiesintheseregionsin theformsoffreespeechandverbalelicitationfrommorethan20literateand non-literatemaleandfemalelanguageconsultants.A totaloffourconsultants, 2 malesand2 females,wereusedforthespectral(i.e.,formant)measurements ofvowelsforeachdialect,altogether10malesand10females.Thediscussionis alsoinformedbyanimpressionisticanalysisofthedataelicitedfromallofthe consultants, even those whose data were not subjected to acoustic measurements. No data were elicited using read speech, and thus all speech material for the present study can be regarded as unscripted speech. The majorityoftheconsultantsweremiddleaged(40to70),althougha fewwere younger(25to38)andolder(70to82). The verbally elicited material included a series of specially constructed sentences in which a target vowel sound was intended to occur in a phonological and prosodic context amenable to phonetic analysis. The sentences were elicited from the consultants by asking them to translate the exactPersiansentencesorwordsintoBalochiandtorepeatthemfourtimes(in

3 ThisistheofficialEnglishspellingusedinIran,alsoSistanvaBaluchestan. 120 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Balochi).ThedatawerelabeledusingWavesurfer(Sjölander& Beskow,2000) and the labeling was used as the basis for automatic extraction of spectral information.Fortheformantanalysis,Praat,4 wasused.Numericalanalysisand graphingweredoneusingMSExcelaswellasthestatisticalprogramMinitab. Thedifferentnumberoftokensofvowelsusedintheanalysis(representedin the tables) is attributed to the different reasons such as technical recording problemsorutteringsynonymsorunwantedwordsbysomespeakers,whichled totheexclusionofsomeofthedata.

1.1.AnOverviewofPreviousResearchonBalochiVowelSystems

WithregardtothepreviousworksonBalochilanguage,almostthesameseries ofvowelsisrepresentedforallBalochidialectsingeneral.Regardlessofthe dialectalgrouping,thisseriesofvowels,i,iדּ, u,uדּ, eדּ, oדּ a,aדּ, isfoundnotonly intheoldestworksonBalochi,suchasDames(18915 and1907respectively) Geiger (1898–1901) Gilbertson (1923), but also in the recent ones, such as Barjasteh Delforooz (2010). This series was first referred to as the Common Balochi vowel system by Morgenstierne (1948, see Rossi, 1979, p. 177) as a generalvowelinventoryforalldialectsofBalochi.Justasmanylanguagesof the world have the basic vowels a, e, i, o, u in their vowel inventories (Ladefoged, 2005, p. 36), the Common Balochi vowel system also includes

4 http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ 5Dames(1891,p.3),studyingtheEasterndialects,distinguishesthelongvowelsaדּ, iדּ, uדּ, theshort vowelsa,i,u,andthevowelse,ai,o,au,whichhegroupsunderthenameofdiphthongs.Herefersto e and o as diphthongs, but he does not mention why he classifies them as such. He considers the vowelsoundsinBalochitobesimilartothoseofKhorasaniPersianingeneral,andasa noticeable differencefromPersian,hereferstothesubstitutionoftheseriesiדּ, i,e foruדּ, u,o inBalochiandalso insomeloanwords,e.g.,diדּr

6 BasedonthetextinJahaniandKorn(2009,p.642).Table11:3 inJahaniandKorn(ibid) gives u instead of o, which according to personal communication with Jahani is a lapsus calami.

122 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

(2007) describing the verbal system of Sarhaddi Balochi in Granchin, and Axenov (2006), who shows the allophonic form of the phoneme /i/ which becomes[e]inclosedsyllableandinunstressedword-finalposition,ase.g.,in /dil/>[del]‘heart’.Insomecasesofthesestudies,suchasAhangar(2007),both forms of /i/, /e/ and /u/, /o/ are represented in the vowel systems or in the transcriptions. Spooner(1967,p.58),whoalsostudyIranianBalochi,mainlytheSaravani dialect,indicatesthat,becauseofvariationsinpronunciation,itisdifficultto distinguishbetweenthelong/iדּ/ and/eדּ/,a long/uדּ/ and/oדּ/,andthelong/aדּ/ andshort/a/.Spooner’sphonemeinventory, withdistributionalrestrictionsand phoneticfeatures(presentedinRossi,1979,pp.192–193)isa,aדּ, eדּ, i (e),iדּ, o, uדּ. Spooner(ibid)adds“Ihaverepresentedalllongbackroundedvowelsasu, andshortonesaso, sincethereseemstobenophonemicdifferentiationwithin each.” Rzehak (2009) deals with the phenomenon of language contact and its effects on the Balochi language spoken in Sistan. Rzehak mentions that the threetraditionalshortvowels/a/,/i/and/u/inBalochiarepronouncedas/a/, /e/, and /o/ in modern Persian, and that these days, some Balochi speakers follow the Persian model code, in some cases, by pronouncing /e/ and /o/ insteadof/i/and/u/,“althoughtheoppositionbetween/e/and/i/orbetween/o/ and/u/hasnophonemicrelevanceinBalochi”(ibid:123). ThevowelsfoundinRzehak’swork(2009),area,aדּ, e,eדּ, i,iדּ, o,oדּ, u,uדּ,

1.2.TheoreticalConsideration

Vowels,asoneofthegeneralcategoriesforclassifyingspeechsounds,canbe definedphonologically,asthesoundswithsonority,whichcanfunctionasthe nucleus, the center of a syllable. In phonetic terms, Ladefoged (2005, p. 26)

123 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013 definesa vowelasa sound,whichisproducedwithout“anykindofobstruction oftheoutgoingbreath”.Toclassifyvowelsfroma phoneticpointofview,which isusuallydonebyusing“acousticorauditorycriteria”(Crystal, 2008,p.517),it is necessary to make reference to different variables such as oral or nasal escapeoftheair,thepositionofthelips,andthepartofthetongueaswellas its height. All these factors determine the quality of vowels, the factor that distinguishesonevowelfromanother.Thethreefeaturesofvowelheight(high, mid,orlowpositionofthetongue),degreeofbackness(front,back,orcentral positionofthetongue),anddegreeofliprounding(roundedorunrounded) contributetothedifferentvaluesofvowels(Ladefoged,1975,p.193). Toprovidereferencepointsofvowelqualitytocomparethevowelqualities of languages, the Cardinal Vowel7 system was invented by the late Professor DanielJones(Chapmanetal.,2000,p.59).Thissystemusesparticularvowel percepts as reference points that define the most closed, the most open, the most front, and the most back points, which mark the limits of vocalic articulations.Ladefoged(1975,p.195)definescardinalvowelsasevenlyspaced vowels“aroundtheoutsideofthepossiblevowelarea”whichshowtheextreme possiblequalities. Soundsystemsoflanguagestendtobefairlysymmetrical,whichmeansthat thevowelsareevenlyspacedandquiteperipheralinthevowelspace;e.g.,the

7 TheCardinalVowelsystem,a setofreferencevowelsinventedbyDanielJones, areused byphoneticians asa referencepointindescribingthesoundsof languages.Thecardinal vowels are divided into two sets of primary and secondary cardinal vowels and are representedbynumbersandphoneticsymbols.Theprimarycardinalvowels,numbers1–8, arethefrontunroundedi,e,U, a,andthebackroundedV, o,u andunroundedɑvowels, andthesecondarycardinalvowels,numbers9–16,arethefrontroundedy,ø,œ,Z, andthe backunrounded[, \, ] androunded^vowels(Chapmanetal.,2000,p.60). 124 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... most common vowel system, i, e, a, o, u, is a symmetrical system (Burquest, 2006,pp.4-5).Thevowelsarrangethemselvesmoreorlessina V-formationin a vowel chart. Regarding the typology of vowel systems, there are many languageswhichhavethesamebasicvowelinventory.Ladefoged(2005,p.36) pointsoutthatthefivevowelsa,e,i,o,u, arethemostcommonvowelsandare foundinmanylanguages.Schwartzetal.(1997,p.251),whichisa workonthe majortrendsinvowelsysteminventories,referstothepictureonecanderive from the Maddieson’s (1984) UPSID (UCLA8 Phonological Segment InventoryDatabase) inventory,inthesensethat“[s]ymmetryistherule”and “thereisa strongtrendforhavingthesamenumberoffrontandbackvowelsin a peripheralsystem”.

2.VowelQualityAnalysis

In this section, the findings about the qualities of the vowels in the Balochi dialects under study are presented and discussed in the form of scatterplots, spectrograms, and tables. A spectrogram is a visual representation of the spectral density of a signal over time. A spectrogram can be a useful in the determination of formants and acoustic characteristics of language sounds (Sepanta,1377;Stevens,2000).Ladefoged(2005,p.34,1975,p.169)defines formantsasthe“resonancesofthevocaltract”,andstatesthatformantsarethe “characteristic overtones” (pitches) two of which, the first and the second formants,servetodistinguishthevowels.Figure1 showsspectrogramsofthe four primary cardinal vowels [i, e, o, u] (produced by Pétur Helgason 2007, recorded in laboratory condition) as samples to show theformants and their qualitiesinthespeechofa malespeaker.

8 UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles(UCLA). 125 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

Figure1.SpectrogramsoftheCardinalVowels/i/,/e/,/o/,/u/

AccordingtothespectrogramsinFigure1,theplacementoftheformants (F)(darkbands)varieswiththedifferentvowels.Forexample,in[i],F1(the first dark band from the bottom) is low, approximately 200 Hz, and F2 (the seconddarkbandfromthebottom)ishigh,approximately2500Hz(generally, therangeofF1fora malespeakeristypicallybetween200–1000HzandF2is 600–2500).Withfrontvowels,theamountofenergy(intheformofdarkbands whichareformants)above1000Hzisgreaterthaninbackones.Inthevowel [e],thepositionsofF1andF2aresimilartothosein[i],butslightlycloserto eachother;i.e.,F1issomewhathigherandF2lowerthanin[i].Asfor[u],both F1andF2arelow,approximately250and600Hzrespectively,sotheytendto mergeintoone“fat”formantatthebottomofthespectrogram.F1andF2in [o]arebothslightlyhigherthanthosein[u];thus,ina spectrogram,F1andF2 may seem to merge into one “fat” formant just like in [u]. For long vowels, everything is the same except for the duration which is longer than in short vowels. 126 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Thescatterplotfiguresinthefollowingsections,presentedforeachdialect, plotthemeasuredF1vs.F2values(inHz)ofthevowels/i/,/iדּ/ and/u/,/uדּ/ for femaleandmalespeakersseparately(eachcircleorsquareinthescatterplots representsa tokenof a vowel).Thenumberoftokensmaynotbethesamefor malesandfemalesoracrossthedialects,andthatisbecausesometokensare excludedduetothedifferentreasons,suchastechnicalproblemsofrecording ora synonymwasutteredinsteadofthetargetword.Theinclusionofthelong forms/iדּ/ and/uדּ/ inthescatterplotsareforthesakeofcomparisontoshowthat loweringisjustseenintheshortformsofthesevowels.Inthescatterplots,the y-axis(vertical)showsthefrequenciesofthefirstformant(F1),andthex-axis (horizontal) shows the frequencies of the second formant (F2) of the target vowel.Also,themeanvaluesandstandarddeviations(StDev)foreachvowel aregivenina tablebeloweachscatterplot,averagedseparatelyforfemaleand malespeakers.Theshortandlongformsofeachvowelarerepresentedonone panelrelatedtoeachgender.Duetolimitationsinthedataanalysissoftware, the short and long forms of vowels are shown by lowercase and uppercase, respectively,inthelegendsofthefigures(e.g.,i,I)andbyIPAsymbols(e.g.,i, iדּ) elsewhere.Table1 presentsa sampleofwordsunderanalysis. Table1.A SampleoftheWordsunderAnalysis /i,iדּ/ /u,uדּ/ dil ‘heart’ gu_ ‘throat’ bil ‘put!’ duz ‘thief’ gipt ‘he/she took’ buz ‘goat’ diדּst ‘he/shesaw’ zuדּt ‘soon’ duzziדּ ‘theft’ buדּt ‘he/shebecame’ doדּšiדּ ‘lastnight’ kubc ‘whereis’ kučik ‘dog’ buzeדּ ‘itisa goat’ bigrit ‘he/shefled’ baדּduדּ ‘sorcery’ bikan ‘do!’ abdul ‘Abdul’ geדּštir ‘more’ kabuדּl ‘accepted’ diדּwaדּl ‘wall’ daדּnkuדּ ‘wheat’

127 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

2.1.TheVowels/i/and/u/inSI

Figure2 presentstheformantvaluesofthevowels/i/and/iדּ/ intheSIdialect. The figure clearly showsthat most of the long /iדּ/ tokens, both for male and femalespeakers,havelowerF1andhigherF2valuesthanthoseoftheshort/i/. Thismeansthatthelong/iדּ/ isclosertothevalueof[i]or[e] thantheshort/i/, e.g.,intheworddiדּwaדּl ‘wall’,althoughtherearesometokensthatapproachan [e]value.Theshortformof/i/,bothforthefemaleandmalespeakers,shows tendencies towards having higher F1 and lower F2, which indicates a lower positionapproximating[e] or[e]vowel.Forexample,thewordsdil‘heart’and bil‘put!’arearticulatedasd [e]l andb [e]l respectively.Thereareexamplesof the same words being produced with these two vowel qualities in different repetitions, e.g., gipt as g [e] pt and g [e] pt ‘he/she got’. The mean formant values for /i/ and /iדּ/ are given in Table 2. They indicate a pronunciation approximating[e] or[e]fortheshort/i/,butforthelong/iדּ/ theformantvalues areclosertoa cardinal[i]vowel,specificallyforthefemalespeakers.

F1 and F2 for /i/ and /i:/ in SI

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 i I 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure2.F1andF2for/i/,/iדּ/ inSI(/iדּ/ isindicatedasI inthelegend)

128 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Table2.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/i/,/iדּ/ inSI SI Variable F1 F2 Target i iדּ i iדּ Female N 22 20 22 20 Mean 474 309 2181 2487 StDev 30.0 27.7 156.5 133.9 Male N 24 16 24 16 Mean 440 330 1730 2096 StDev 28.7 39.8 124.2 165.0

The formant frequencies of the vowels /u/ and /uדּ/ in the SI dialect are presentedinFigure3.Forthemalespeaker,therangeoftheformantvalues for/u/and/uדּ/ overlappartly,whilethefemale/uדּ/ tendstohaveslightlylower frequencies for both F1 and F2 than does /u/, indicating that it is produced higherandfurtherback.Themeanfrequenciesof/u/and/uדּ/,giveninTable3 are consistent with theseobservations. In particular, the differences between themeanF1frequenciesfor/u/and/uדּ/ amongmalesarefairlysmall,426and 364Hzrespectively,whilethefemalesshowa greaterdifference,463and327 Hz respectively. As indicated by Figure 3, the long /uדּ/ tokens that have the lowestF1andF2valuesapproximatetheperceptofa cardinal[u],e.g.,kabuדּl ‘accepted’,andzuדּt ‘soon’.Thefigurealsoshowsthat,forallspeakers,theF2 frequenciesfortheshort/u/aregenerallyhigherthanonewouldexpectfora cardinal[u].Thismeansthattheshort/u/isarticulatedmoreasan[ʊ] or[o] sound than a cardinal [u]. Furthermore, in most of the data the higher F1, specifically with the female speakers, indicates a greater lowering of the /u/ towardsan[o]sound,e.g.,buz‘goat’asb [o]z (orb [oדּ]z).

129 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

F1 and F2 for /u/ and /u:/ in SI

1000 2000 3000 Female M ale Target_label 1100 u U 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure3.F1andF2for/u/,/uדּ/ inSI(/uדּ/ isindicatedasU inthelegend)

Table3.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/u/,/uדּ/ inSI SI Variable F1 F2 Target u uדּ u uדּ Female N 33 40 33 40 Mean 463 327 1444 1365 StDev 43.3 32.1 155.3 244.8 Male N 36 40 36 40 Mean 426 364 1075 1034 StDev 37.6 30.2 115.6 183.2

Discussion: According to the figures 2 above, the vowels /i/ and /iדּ/ have slightly different formant values. Although females generally produce more peripheral vowel qualities than males, i.e., utilize more of the vowel space (Simpson,2001,2002),thelong/iדּ/ tokensshowmoreofthecharacteristicsofa cardinal[i],bothwiththemaleandthefemalespeakers.Theshort/i/valuesare lower,closertothevowels[e] or[e](thereare,infact,examplesofthesame wordbeingproducedwiththesetwovowelqualitiesindifferentrepetitionsby thesamespeaker).Judgingbythepositionandspreadofthemeasurementsin thefigures,aswellasbyimpressionisticanalysis,theshort/i/approximatesthe qualityofan[e]vowel.Asthedurationaldistinctionbetweenthelong/iדּ/ and the short /i/ is fairly small in SI (see Okati, 2012, p. 49), it seems that the

130 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... speakers uphold the distinction between these two vowels partly through qualityratherthanjustbyquantity.ContactwithPersian,especiallytheSistani Persiandialect,maybea drivingforceforthesechangesbecause,thereexist cognatewords,suchasdel‘heart’(inPersian)andbel‘put!’(inSistaniPersian) whichmaydirectlyinfluencetheproductionofthesewordsintheSIdialectand induce the production of, e.g., del and bel. Based on both the formant measurementsandtheimpressionisticanalysis,thevowel/i/hasprimarilythe qualityofan[e]vowel,andsoitseemsjustifiabletorepresentthe/i/asan/e/in theSIdialect. The vowels /u/ and /uדּ/, in general, are articulated more towards an [ʊ] sound,andevenlowerinmanycases,towardsthevowel[o];e.g.,duz‘thief’and buz‘goat’areutteredasd [o]z (ord [oדּ]z) andb [o]z (orb [oדּ]z),respectively, inmanyrepetitions.Oneofthepossiblereasonsforthelowerqualityof/u/in thesewords,maybetheinstabilityofshortvowels,ina sensethattheunstable shortvowelsina systemshowtendenciestowardsacquiringdifferentdurations or qualities of the stablelong vowels (Lazard, 1992, pp. 17–22) (see more in Okati,2012,p.47).Inmanyinstancesthelong/uדּ/ showsthecharacteristicsofa cardinal[u].ThescatterplotintheFigure3 above,aswellastheimpressionistic analysisoftheproductionof/uדּ/ and/u/,indicatethatinSI,unlikeinCommon Balochi,the/u/and/uדּ/ arequalitativelyseparatefromeachotherbecausethey are not overlapping in the scatterplot. The scatterplots indicate a near completeseparationinF1-F2valuesinthefemaledataandtheshort/u/shows a lowerqualitythan/uדּ/,witha highdegreeofoverlapwith/oדּ/.Thereforeit seemsmorereasonabletousea short/o/ratherthanshort/u/torepresentthis vowel in the vowel system of the SI dialect. This distinction results in a symmetry in the vowel inventory of SI, as the short /i/ is also lowered and modifiedtothe/e/sound.

131 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

2.2.TheVowels/i/and/u/inSA

Figure 4 and Table 4 present the formant values and the mean formant frequenciesforthevowels/i/and/iדּ/ intheSAdialect.AsintheSIdialect,the formantvaluesinFigure4 showthatthe/iדּ/ ismoreperipheralthan/i/forboth maleandfemalespeakers.Theshort/i/,inbothplots,generallyhashigherF1 and lower F2 frequencies than /iדּ/, which indicates a lower quality, approximately[e].Theformantvaluesforthelong/iדּ/ areclosertothequalities of[i]and[e].ThisisreflectedinthemeanformantdurationsgiveninTable4, which show that /iדּ/ has lower F1 and higher F2 than /i/ for both males and females.Thefemaleformantvaluesfor/iדּ/ reflecta highfrontvowel[i],butthe maleF2valueislowerthanonewouldexpectfor[i],indicatingthatthefemales have a more peripheral articulation in producing /iדּ/ than do the males. Impressionisticanalysissupportstheaboveanalysis.Forexample,thelong/iדּ/s in the words duzziדּ ‘theft’, and diדּwaדּl ‘wall’ are produced with an [i] or [e] qualityinimpressionisticanalysis.Bycontrast,theshort/i/inwordssuchasdil ‘heart’, bil ‘put!’, and gipt ‘he/she got’ are generally produced with a slightly lowervowel,towardsan[e]quality.

F1 and F2 for /i/ and /i:/ in SA

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 i I 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure4.F1andF2for/i/,/iדּ/ inSA(/iדּ/ isindicatedasI inthelegend)

132 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Table4.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/i/,/iדּ/ inSA SA Variable F1 F2 Target i iדּ i iדּ Female N 23 11 23 11 Mean 561 381 2126 2532 StDev 62.1 28.7 95.1 333.0 Male N 23 15 23 15 Mean 472 327 1735 2012 StDev 30.4 40.7 131.3 101.9

Table5 givesthemeanformantvaluesof/u/and/uדּ/ inSA.Thefrequencies of/u/arelargelyconsistentwithan[o]-likevowel,whilethe/uדּ/ showsmore[ʊ]- likevalues.Forthefemalespeakers,themeanF2valuesof/u/and/uדּ/ are1551 and 1441 Hz, respectively, while the corresponding values for the males are 1195Hzand1063Hz.ThehigherfemaleF2valuesindicatea lessperipheralor even central articulation of these vowels, which is not consistent with the general observation that females tend to have more peripheral articulations thanmales(cf.Simpson,2002,2003).ThehigherF2frequenciesinthefemales canthusbeseenasa resultofcentralizationorfronting.AsseeninFigure5, the short /u/ tokens show a greater tendency for fronting than the long /uדּ/s. The words kabuדּl ‘accepted’, daדּnkuדּ ‘wheat’, and buדּt ‘he/she became’ are observedtohavebothlowF1andlowF2,whichimpressionisticallyresultedin a qualityresemblingcardinal[u].Inthefemaledata,a subsetofwords,suchas buz‘goat’,duz‘thief’,andabdul‘Abdul’isobservedtomostlyhavea markedly higher F1 than the remaining /u/ data. Contact with the dominant language, Persian,canbea reasonfortheappearanceoftheselowerarticulationsfor/u/ inSA,consideringthatthesamewords,dozd, boz, andAbdol,existinPersian wheretheyaregenerallyproducedwitha mid-highbackroundedvowel.

133 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

F1 and F2 for /u/ and /u:/ in SA

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 u U 1000

900

800

700 F

1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure5.F1andF2for/u/,/uדּ/ inSA(/uדּ/ isindicatedasU inthelegend)

Table5.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/u/,/uדּ/ inSA SA Variable F1 F2 Target u uדּ u uדּ Female N 49 32 49 32 Mean 522 383 1551 1441 StDev 74.5 38.4 176.5 262.9 Male N 55 32 55 32 Mean 430 376 1195 1063 StDev 36.6 26.3 120.5 178.2 Discussion:Thevowel/i/isobservedtobelowerthan/iדּ/,havingslightly lowerF2valuesandhigherF1valuesbothforthemaleandfemalespeakers. The short /i/ is thus, by and large, produced with an [e]-like quality. The observationofthedurationsof/i/and/iדּ/ intheSAdialect(seeOkati,2012,p. 57)revealeda smalldurationaldistinctionbetween/i/and/iדּ/.Byproducingthe short /i/ with an [e]-like quality, it seems that the SA speakers distinguish between/i/and/iדּ/ primarilythroughquality(i.e.,[e]vs.[iדּ])andnotthrough quantity.A similarobservationismadeintheSIdatadiscussedearlier.Contact withnumerousPersianspeakersintheSaravanregionmaybea contributing factor in the tendency for /i/ to be lowered towards an [e] sound. Spooner (1967,p.58),whoworkedontheBalochivarietiesspokeninSaravan,points

134 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... outthatbecauseofvariationsinpronunciation,thedistinctionbetweenthe/iדּ/ and/eדּ/ isdifficulttoperceive.He(ibid:59–69)alsousesbothshorte andi in hisword-list,butitisnotcleariftheyareusedastwodifferentphonemes.In the present discussion, however, the vowels /i/ and /iדּ/ might better be representedas/e/and/iדּ/. AsinSI,thevowels/u/and/uדּ/ inSAdonotshowexactlythesamerangeof qualities.AsseeninFigure5 above,theshort/u/sdonotoverlapmuchwiththe long/uדּ/s,whichindicatesa qualitydifference.Theshort/u/tokensarenotonly morecentralizedbutalsoseemmorelowered,towardsan[o]sound.Thelong /uדּ/ tokens show a range of frequencies that center around an [ʊ] vowel. In some cases /uדּ/ is produced with a quality approximating a cardinal [u], especially in bilabial and velar environments. The female data show a wider rangeoffrequenciesthanthemaledata,whichiscausedpartlybytheprocess offrontingincoronalcontexts,andpartlybytheprocessofloweringtowards [o],bothofwhichoccurmorefrequentlyamongthefemalespeakers.Contact withthedominantlanguagePersianmaybea reasonfortheloweringprocess. The lowering process in this dialect, as well as in the other dialects under investigation,mayoriginateincognatewordswhichexistinbothPersianand theSAdialect.A wordwith/u/inSAmaythusbeaffectedbya cognateword with/o/inPersian,e.g.,buz‘goat’andduz‘thief’inSAbutbozanddozdin Persian. However, allophonic alternations conditioned by syllable structure (againborrowedfromPersian)mayalsobea sourcefortheobservedlowering (see Okati, 2012, p.166). Finally, although a short [ʊ] is seen among the phoneticvariantsof/u/,itissuggestedhere,basedonthefindingsintheSA data,thatthevowels/u/and/uדּ/ aremostaptlyrepresentedphonemicallyas/o/ and/uדּ/ inSA.

135 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

2.3.TheVowels/i/and/u/inKH

Somevariationinheightisobservedinthepronunciationof/iדּ/ and/i/inKH. The/iדּ/ isproducedmainlyasa high,frontvowel[i]or[e],althoughan[e]-like qualityisoccasionallyobserved.Forexample,a quiteperipheralvowel,closeto a cardinal[i],isobservedintheproductiondiדּwaדּl ‘wall’andduzziדּ ‘theft’,but slightlylowervariantsarealsoobservedandspeakersarenotconsistentwith regardtotheheightofthe/iדּ/ vowel.Impressionistically,the/i/vowelhasthe characteristics of [e] or [e], for example in the words bil ‘put!’, produced variablyasb [e]l andb [e]l, andbikan‘do!’,producedasb [e]kanorb [e]kan. Thedifferencebetween/iדּ/ and/i/isreflectedinTable6 andintheF1-F2plot inFigure6,inthat/iדּ/ generallyhaslowerF1andhigherF2valuesthandoes/i/. The different phonetic variants are seemingly in free variation within and across speakers, as one speaker may variably use [e] and [e] for a particular word.

F1 and F2 for /i/ and /i:/ in KH

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 i 1000 I

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure6.F1andF2for/i/,/iדּ/ inKH(/iדּ/ isindicatedasI inthelegend)

136 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Table 6.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/i/,/iדּ/ inKH KH Variable F1 F2 Target i iדּ i iדּ Female N 16 16 16 16 Mean 479 384 2204 2524 StDev 52.1 55.7 148.3 91.6 Male N 16 16 16 16 Mean 544 372 2090 2488 StDev 47.2 26.4 161.1 133.1

Table7 givesthemeanF1andF2valuesfor/u/and/uדּ/ inKH.Theformant valuesforbothvowelsarequitesimilarandconsistentwithan[ʊ]-likequality. TheF1-F2scatterplotinFigure7 revealsconsiderablevariationinheightand frontness for both /u/ and /uדּ/, and both vowels show substantially the same rangeofqualities.TheclustersoftokenswithhigherF2valuesinbothplotsare frontedvariantsthatoccurincoronalcontexts,e.g.,inthewordszuדּt ‘soon’and kubc‘whereis’.Thetokens,thathavehigherF1frequencies,suggestthat/u/in thesewordsisloweredtowards[ʊ] ora mid-high[o]quality,e.g.,induz‘thief’ utteredasd [o]z, buz‘goat’asb [o]z, andzuדּt ‘soon’asz[ʊgדּ]t. Thisloweringmay beanallophonicvariationattributedtothesyllablestructure,ortheymayjust bethefreephoneticvariations.Tokenswitha qualityclosertoa cardinal[u] also occur and are found in words such as buדּt ‘became’, buzeדּ ‘it is a goat’, baדּduדּ ‘sorcery’,andkabuדּl ‘accepted’.

137 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

F1 and F2 for /u/ and /u:/ in KH

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 u U 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure7.F1andF2for/u/,/uדּ/ inKH(/uדּ/ isindicatedasU inthelegend)

Table7.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/u/,/uדּ/ inKH KH Variable F1 F2 Target u uדּ u uדּ Female N 31 48 31 48 Mean 434 423 1418 1304 StDev 4.5 62.6 277.8 222.5 Male N 34 48 34 48 Mean 428 423 1113 1037 StDev 37.3 45.3 180.2 130.2

Discussion:Usually,short/i/isproducedwiththequalityof[e]or[e] andit is generally produced lower than /iדּ/ as indicated by the mean formant frequenciesshowninTable6.ThescatterplotofF1-F2frequenciesinFigure6 revealsthatwhilethemajorityoflong/iדּ/ tokensareproducedwithan[i]-like quality,someofthedatashowtendenciestowards[e] and[e].Thedurational distinctionbetweenshort/i/andlong/iדּ/ isgreaterinKH(seeOkati,2012,p. 65)thanitisintheSIdialect,forexample,andthus,itseemsthatthespeakers usebothquantity(differentdurationsfor/i/and/iדּ/)andquality(i.e.,a lower position for the /i/ vowel) to maintain a distinction between /iדּ/ and /i/. Althoughmanyofthelong/iדּ/ tokenshavethequalityofa moreperipheral[i] 138 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... vowel,sucha peripheralvowelisnotobservedwithallspeakersoreveninthe samewordindifferentrepetitions.Theproductionof[e] and[e]-likequalities forthelong/iדּ/ insometokenscausedsomeoverlapbetween/iדּ/ and/i/(which is modified to /e/) in this dialect. Despite this partial overlap, the durational differenceobservedbetween/iדּ/ and/i/coupledwiththedifferencesinmeanF1 andF2frequencies,showsthatthetwoshouldberegardedasseparatevowel phonemes. In addition, the lower position of the short vowel justifies representingthesevowelsas/e/and/iדּ/ intheKHdialect,ratherthan/i/and/iדּ/. Therangeoffrequenciesseenforthevowels/u/and/uדּ/ intheKHdialect showthatthereisconsiderablevariationintheproductionofthesevowels.The vowel qualities observed are mostly [u]- and [ʊ]-like vowels, but tokens of fronted /u/ and /uדּ/ in coronal contexts are also observed in this dialect. A lowering towards [o] vowel is also seen for both /u/ and /uדּ/ in this dialect. ContactwiththedominantlanguagePersiancanbea reasonforthislowering, because there are cognate words in Persian and the KH dialect which differ onlyinthevowels;i.e.,theKHwordhasan/u/vowelwherePersianhasan/o/, e.g.,buzandboz‘goat’,respectively.However,thetendencyofthebackhigh vowels towards showing lower qualities (i.e., towards an [o] sound), is not consistentinKH,asitisfortheshort/u/intheSIandSAdialects.Therefore,it seemsmorereasonabletokeepthesevowelsphonemicallyas/u/and/uדּ/ inthe vowelinventoryofKH.

2.4.TheVowels/i/and/u/inIR

The mean formant values of /i/ and /iדּ/ in IR given in Table 8 indicate a difference in quality between the two vowels, although this difference is not verylarge.AsshowninFigure8,inIR/i/and/iדּ/ havea degreeofoverlapwith regardtoF1-F2,whichismoreconsiderableinthemaleplot.Botharequite

139 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013 variableinheight,rangingfroma highfront[i]positiontomid-high[e]or[e]. ThetokenswiththehigherF1valuesarearticulatedwithan[e]soundrather than[i]inmostoftherepetitions,e.g.,dil‘heart’producedasd [e]l, gipt‘he/she got’ as g [e] pt, and gir ‘take!’ as g[eדּ]r and g [eדּ]r (the word gir was mostly utteredlong,andinsomecases,itwasevendiphthongizedasgier).Thereare also examples of words produced variably with [e] or [e], e.g., kučik ‘dog’ produced as kuč [e]k and kuč [e]k. The tokens with low F1 and high F2 in Figure 8 have a quality closer to an[i] and [e] vowels and occurred inwords suchasdiדּwaדּl ‘wall’,duzziדּ ‘theft’,dil‘heart’,andbihiדּ ‘heflees’.

F1 and F2 for /i/ and /i:/ in IR

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 i I 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure8.F1andF2for/i/,/iדּ/ inIR(/iדּ/ isindicatedasI inthelegend)

Table8.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/i/,/iדּ/ inIR IR Variable F1 F2 Target i iדּ i iדּ Female N 14 20 14 20 Mean 506 406 2140 2344 StDev 16.3 83.7 173.6 203.3 Male N 30 14 30 14 Mean 457 370 1892 2156 StDev 85.4 48.7 120.4 90.0

140 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Figure9 presentstheformantfrequenciesforthevowels/u/and/uדּ/ inthe IRdialect.Thesetwovowelshavea similarqualityinimpressionisticanalysis andshowconsiderableoverlapinthescatterplots.Ascanbeseeninthefigure, theF1-F2frequenciesindicatea greatdealofvariationinbothvowelheight and frontness. This spread of the frequencies is caused in part by fronting towardsthecenterincoronalcontexts,butalsobya seeminglyunconditioned variabilityinheightyieldingbothhighback[u]variantsaswellaslower[ʊ] and even [o]-like articulations. The mean formant values for /u/ and /uדּ/ given in Table9 areaffectedbythisvariability,causingmeanF1andmeanF2tohave highervaluesthanonewouldassociatewith[u]-likearticulations.Variabilityin height could not be associated with phonetic context, and so the phonetic variants[u],[ʊ],and[o]areobservedtooccurinthesamewords.Forexample buדּt ‘he/shebecame’isproducedasb [uדּ]t andb [ʊדּ]t, zuדּt ‘soon’asz [uדּ]t andz [ʊדּ]t, kabuדּl ‘accepted’askab[uדּ]l andkab[ʊדּ]l ‘accepted’,daדּnkuדּ ‘wheat’as daדּnk[uדּ] anddaדּnk[ʊדּ].The[u]variantisnotobservedingu_ ‘throat’,whichis producedasg [ʊ]_ andg [o]_, buz‘goat’producedasb [ʊ]z andb [o]z andkubc ‘whereis’producedask[ʊ] bc. Unlikethedialectsdiscussedsofar,thelower articulations are not specifically associated with words that have cognates in Persian.

F1 and F2 for /u/ and /u:/ in IR

1000 2000 3000 Female Male T arget_label 1100 u U 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure9.F1andF2for/u/,/uדּ/ inIR(/uדּ/ isindicatedasU inthelegend) 141 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

Table9.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/u/,/uדּ/ inIR IR Variable F1 F2 Target u uדּ u uדּ Female N 42 44 42 44 Mean 420 369 1291 1137 StDev 50.3 36.0 210.4 234.6 Male N 57 32 57 32 Mean 390 397 1229 1119 StDev 52.2 64.2 222.7 124.9

Discussion:Thevowels/i/and/iדּ/ inIRhavea similarrangeofvariation and are not as sharply separated in quality, especially in the case of female speakers,astheyarein,e.g.,theSAandSIdialects.Impressionisticallyboth/i/ and /iדּ/ are produced variably as [i], [e], and [e]. It should be noted that productionofthedifferentphoneticforms,[i],[e],and[e],cannotbeassociated withspecificcontexts,butareinfreevariationbothwithinandacrossspeakers. As in the other dialects considered, contact with the dominant language Persian,maybea reasonfortheappearanceofthelower[e]-likearticulations inthisdialect,whichhasmanyPersianspeakerssurroundingit.Thereareword cognatesinPersianandBalochiwhichdifferonlywithregardtothevowel,with Persianhavingan[e]-likequalityandBalochian[i]-likequality,e.g.,del‘heart’ inPersiananddil‘heart’inBalochi.InthefourBalochidialectsconsideredso far,theproductionofan[e]qualityfor/i/hasbeenparticularlynoticeablein these cognates. Perhaps under the influence of Persian and/or for intrinsic reasons, a process of change through lexical diffusion is underway in these dialects.Becausethedurationaldistinctionbetween/i/and/iדּ/ isalmostonpar with the durational distinction between /a/ vs. /aדּ/ and /u/ vs. /uדּ/ (see Okati, 2012, p. 73), it can be argued that the speakers use both the quantity (i.e., length)andthequalitytomaintainthedistinctionbetweenthevowels/i/and

142 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

/iדּ/.Atthepresenttime,itcanbesuggestedthatthevowels/i/,/iדּ/ shouldbe categorizedphonemicallyas/e/,/iדּ/ intheIRdialectwiththedifferentphonetic formsasfreevariations. The formant frequencies observed for the vowels /u/ and /uדּ/ in the IR dialectareslightlyhigherthanthoseassociatedwitha cardinal[u]vowel.The dataforboth/u/and/uדּ/ revealtheoccurrenceoffrontingincoronalcontexts as well as a tendency to produce lower [ʊ]- and [o]-like variants. The occurrenceoftheseprocessesservestoincreasethemeanformantvaluesfor both/u/and/uדּ/ inthisdialect.Thephoneticvariantsobserved,[u],[ʊ],and[o], donotseemtobeconditionedbycontextorword,andspeakersalsovarytheir production.Thereexistsomecognatewordsthathavean[o]vowelinPersian, but an /u/ vowel in IR (as well as the other Balochi dialects), which may increasethelikelihoodofcontacteffects.Alternatively,theoccurrencelowered variantsmaybeconditionedbysyllablestructure,whichalsocanbetracedto Persianinfluence(seeOkati,2012,p.166).Despitethevariationobserved,/u/ and/uדּ/,however,showa greatdegreeofoverlap,indicatingthesamequalities, andarebestrepresentedphonemicallyas/u/and/uדּ/ inthevowelsystemofthe IRdialect.

2.5.TheVowels/i/and/u/inCH

Theformantvaluesofthevowels/i/and/iדּ/ inCHarepresentedinFigure10. The figure shows that almost all short /i/ tokens for both female and male speakers have higher F1 values and lower F2 values than those for /iדּ/. This impliesthat/i/isconsistentlylowerthan/iדּ/ andhasthequalityof[e],andin fewtokens,thequalityof[e],inimpressionisticanalysis.Infact,almostallthe male tokens of /i/ are produced as [e] impressionistically. Examples of these variantsincludebil‘put!’,producedasbothb [e]l andb [e]l,andbigrit‘he/she

143 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013 fled’,producedasb [e]gritandb [e]grit,bothofwhichareobservedinthespeech ofthesamefemalespeaker.Themeanformantvaluesfor/i/and/iדּ/ givenin Table 10 are consistent with a mid to mid-high quality for /i/ and a higher quality,closertocardinal[i],for/iדּ/.Examplesof/iדּ/ witha qualityclosetoa cardinal [i] include ziדּt ‘soon’, biדּt ‘he/she becomes’, and diדּwaדּl ‘wall’. However,instancesofthesewordswitha lower[e]-and[e]-likequalityarealso attested in the words biדּt ‘he/she becomes’ and ziדּt ‘soon’, observed in one speaker,yieldingb [eדּ]t andb [eדּ]t, andz [eדּ]t andz [eדּ]t.

F1 and F2 for /i/ and /i:/ in CH

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 i I 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t 2  Figure10.F1andF2for/i/,/iדּ/ inCH(/iדּ/ isindicatedasI inthelegend)

Table10.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/i/,/iדּ/ inCH CH Variable F1 F2 Target i iדּ i iדּ Female N 38 25 38 25 Mean 604 483 2036 2490 StDev 51.8 59.5 192.6 235.9 Male N 34 29 34 29 Mean 441 360 1798 2095 StDev 27.1 46.1 126.0 92.1

144 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Figure 11 shows the formant values measured for /u/ and /uדּ/ in the CH dialect. The F1-F2 values for the male /u/ and /uדּ/ have less spread than the females, and they generally, especially for the long /uדּ/, have a quality fairly closetoa cardinal[u]inimpressionisticanalysis.Thefemalevaluesaremore spread,especiallywithregardtoF1,whichprimarilyreflectsvariabilityinvowel height. Factoring in a 20% larger vocal tract size for males, the mean frequenciesfor/u/and/uדּ/ inTable11indicatethatthefemalevaluesreflecta lowerqualityof/u/and/uדּ/ thandothemalevalues.Similarly,thefemaleF2 valuesfor/u/arealsoslightlyhigherthanthemalevalues,butfor/uדּ/ themale and female F2 values are approximately equal. As the F1 frequencies get higher,whichisseenparticularlyinthefemales,theauditoryimpressionisthat vowelheightlowers.Thismeansthat,particularlyforthefemales,/u/and/uדּ/ aresometimesproducedas[ʊ] or[o],aswellaswitha concomitantfrontingto [i]. The usage of [ʊ] or [o] does not seem to be conditioned by phonetic contextsandappearstobeinfreevariation,asonespeakermayusebothforms foronewordindifferentrepetitionsofa word.Therearealsoexampleswhich are uttered with a more back [u]-like quality as well. Examples with these differentvariantsincludekabuדּl ‘accepted’producedaskab[uדּ]l, buz‘goat’as bothb [ʊ]z andb [o]z, daדּnkuדּ ‘wheat’asbothdaדּnk[uדּ] anddaדּnk[ʊדּ],andgu_ ‘throat’asg[o]_. ThetokenswiththehighestF2,observedmorefrequentlyfor /u/than/uדּ/,areduetofrontingwithconcomitantlowering,inwordssuchas duz ‘thief’ and kučik ‘dog’, which occurs much more frequently among the femalesthanthemales.

145 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

F1 and F2 for /u/ and /u:/ in CH

1000 2000 3000 Female Male Target_label 1100 u U 1000

900

800

700 F 1 600 t 2 500

400

300

200 1000 2000 3000 F2t2  Figure11.F1andF2for/u/,/uדּ/ inCH(/uדּ/ isindicatedasU inthelegend)

Table11.MeanF-frequenciesandStandardDeviations(Hz)of/u/,/uדּ/inCH CH Variable F1 F2 Target u uדּ u uדּ Female N 58 16 58 16 Mean 536 499 1287 1104 StDev 64.4 45.7 194.7 114.2 Male N 64 16 64 16 Mean 427 399 1060 896 StDev 31.0 26.2 105.4 87.6

Discussion: The vowels /i/ and /iדּ/ are almost entirely separated in F1-F2 space,whichinimpressionisticanalysisleadstodifferentvowelqualities.The durationaldifferencebetween/i/and/iדּ/ isverysmall(as/iדּ/ is,onaverage,only 1.14timeslongerthan/i/,seeOkati,2012,p.81).Itcanthereforebestatedthat the primary phonetic correlate of the /i/ vs. /iדּ/ distinction in CH is quality ratherthanquantity.Thus,inaccordancewiththepresentdata,thevowels/i/ and/iדּ/ canberepresentedphonemicallyas/e/and/iדּ/ intheinventoryofthe CH dialect. The /iדּ/ tokens are chiefly produced with a quality close to a cardinal [i] both by male and female speakers while the /i/ tokens generally

146 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... have an [e]- or [e]-like quality. The vowel in the word ziדּt ‘soon’ sometimes showsa tendencyfora lowerquality,andatthesametime,ittendstohavea shortduration,similartoother/iדּ/ vowelsinCH.Thisloweringandshortening of/iדּ/ mayindicatea categoricalchangeunderwayfrom/iדּ/ to/e/inthisword. Similarloweringof/i/isseentooccurmoreactivelyintheotherfourdialects, where specific words, for example dil ‘heart’ (in KH) andbist ‘fled’, have apparentlychangedtodeדּl (onlyinKH)andbeדּst, respectively,inthespeechof allspeakersofthosedialects. Both /u/ and /uדּ/ in CH are generally produced as an [ʊ]-like vowel, althoughmanycasesoflower[o]-likevowelsarealsoattested,aswellasa few casesof[u]-likevowels.Frontingwithconcomitantloweringisalsoobserved, more often for /u/ than /uדּ/. Figure 11 above shows that the range of F1-F2 valuesforthevowels/u/and/uדּ/ inCHoverlaptoa greatextentthevaluesof an [o] vowel (see Section 2 for the cardinal [o] qualities). As the durational distinctionbetweenthelong/uדּ/ andshort/u/isquitesmall(thelong/uדּ/ is,on average, 1.15 times longer than the short /u/, see Okati, 2012, p. 81), which meansthattheonlyphoneticcorrelatethatdistinguisheslong/uדּ/ andshort/u/ isa quiteweakdurationaldistinction.Inanycase,itisatpresentunclearhow listeners can differentiate between /u/, /uדּ/, and /oדּ/ in perception. Possibly, thereareaspectsintheproductionofthesevowelsthatarenotrevealedbythe dataanalysisathand.Forexample,/oדּ/ mighthaveinherentlydifferentvowel dynamics than /uדּ/, which a formant measurement that samples the central vowelformantfrequenciescannotcapture.However,ananalysisoftheformant transitions in CH vowels is outside the scope of this study. An alternative suggestion might bemade for /u/, vs. /uדּ/ in CH,namely that /u/ and /uדּ/ are merging into /o/, leadingto a contrast between short /o/ and long /oדּ/ with a smalldurationaldistinction.Yetanotheralternativeisthatthemergerof/u/

147 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013 and/uדּ/ hasnotyetbeencompleted,andthatCHspeakersstilldistinguishshort /u/andlong/uדּ/ phonemically.Thesmallphoneticseparationbetweenthetwo would then indicate a case of near-merger (Labov et al., 1972). However, althougha short/o/mightbebettertoberepresentedinsteadofa short/u/for CH,thecaseof/u/,/uדּ/,and/oדּ/ inthisdialectisa complicatedoneandrequires furtherinvestigation.

3.Conclusion

Inthispaper,thestatusoftheshortvowels/i/and/u/infiveselectedBalochi dialects of Sistan (SI), Saravan (SA), Khash (KH), Iranshahr (IR), and Chabahar(CH)havebeenstudied.Thesedialectsarespokenintheprovinceof SistanandBaluchestanlocatedinthesoutheastofIran.Theinvestigationhas examinedthequalitiesofthesevowelstoseehowsimilartheyaretothe/i/and /u/intheCommonBalochiinventory,i,iדּ, a,aדּ, u,uדּ, eדּ, oדּ (firstproposedby Morgenstierne 1948 as a general vowel system for the Balochi language, see Rossi, 1979, p. 176). The phonetic analysis presented in this study makes it clearthatallthedialectsconsideredmakea qualitativedistinctionbetweenthe traditional long and short i vowel; consequently, with the Common Balochi vowelinventoryasthepointofdeparture,thetraditionalshortvowel/i/ishere modifiedintoa short/e/inthephonemicanalysisofalldialectsinvestigated. Thus,intheIranianBalochidialectsconsideredhere,thevowelcorresponding to a Common Balochi long /iדּ/ can best be phonemically represented as /iדּ/, whileshort/i/canbestberepresentedas/e/. The study has also revealed the possibility for the short /u/ to be characterizedphonemicallyasa short/o/inthesedialects,especiallyinSI,SA, andCH,giventheoverlapinformantvaluesoftheshort/u/and/oדּ/ inthese dialects.Itshouldbenotedthatinthesedialects,inadditiontothetendencies

148 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi... for/u/tobeproducedasmid-lowbackvowel,itis,insomecases,articulated moretowards[ʊ],whichhasformantqualitiesverycloseto[o].Shortvowelsin general show more centralized formant values than their long counterparts (Walker,2011,p.16).Thiscanbeseenintheshort/u/tokensinSI,SA,and CH, and especially clearly with the female speakers of SI. Due to strong tendencies towards the lowering of /u/ to /o/ in SI, SA, and CH, a short /o/ insteadoftheshort/u/issuggestedforthesedialects,butnotforKHandIR. Thiscreatesa symmetricalvowelinventoryforSI,SA,andCH.Thesuggestions made in this survey have been proposed in earlier studies on the Iranian BalochidialectsdonebyscholarssuchasSpooner(1967),whousestheshort forms/e/and/o/inhistranscriptions,orJahaniandKorn(2009,p.642),who mentiontheseshortvowelsinthevowelsystemsoftheIranianBalochidialects ingeneralandnotforspecificdialect(s). Theoccurrenceoftheobservedchangesinthesedialectsmightgenerally be attributed to language inherent factors. Apart from inherent reasons, the effects of language contact can also account for changes and variability in languagesingeneral.Theloweringof/i/to/e/,andtendenciesfor/u/toshift toward /o/ may be ascribed to the influence of the Persian, the dominant language surrounding these dialects, which seems to have been gradually affectingthevowelsystemsoftheBalochidialectsspokeninIran.

149 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

References

Ahangar, A. A. (2007). A description of verbal system in Sarhaddi Balochi of Granchin,OrientaliaSuecana,LVI,7–24. Axenov, S. (2006), The Balochi language of Turkmenistan: A corpus-based grammatical description, Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 10. Uppsala: Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis. Barjasteh Delfrooz, B. (2010). Discourse features in Balochi of Sistan (Oral Narratives), Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 15. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Barker, M. A., & Mengal, A. (1969). A course in Baluchi. Montreal: McGill University. Buddruss, G. (1988). Aus dem Leben eines jungen Balutschen, von ihm selbst erzählt. Stuttgart:Steiner. Burquest,D.A.(2006).Phonologicalanalysis,a functionalapproach.Dallas:SIL International. Chapman, W. H., Olsen, E., Lowe, I., & Andersson, G. (2000). Introduction to practical phonetics. Horsleys Green: European Trainging Programme UK Campus. Crystal,D.(2008).A dictionaryoflinguisticsandphonetics. Malden,MA,Oxford, Carlton,Victoria:Blackwell. Dames, M. L. (1891). A text book of the Balochi language: Consisting of Miscellaneous stories, legends, poems, and a Balochi-English vocabulary, Lahore:PunjabGovernmentPress. Dames,M.L.(1907).PopularpoetryoftheBaloches. London:DavidNutt,2 vols. Elfenbein,J.(1989).Balochi.InRüdigerSchmitt(ed.),CompendiumLinguarum Iranicarum(pp.350–362). Wiesbaden:ReichertVerlag. Farrell,T.(1990).BasicBalochi,Anintroductorycourse(BaluchistanMonograph SeriesI), Naples:IstitutoUniversitarioOrientale.

150 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Geiger, W.(1898–1901).Die Sprache der Balūtschen. In W. Geiger& E. Kuhn (eds.), Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, I, 2 (pp. 231–248). Strassburg 1898–1901. Gilbertson,MajorGeorgeWaters(1923),TheBalochilanguage,a grammarand manual. Hertford:StephenAustinandsons,LTD. Grierson,G.A.(1921).SpecimensoflanguagesoftheEranianfamily. Calcutta: SuperintendentGovernmentPrinting. Helgason, P. (2007). Phonetic workshop handout. Dept. of Linguistics and Philology,UppsalaUniversity,13–16August,2007. Jahani, C. (1989). Standardization and orthography in the Balochi language. StudiaIranicaUppsaliensia1.Uppsala:ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis. Jahani, C. (2003). The case system in Iranian Balochi in a contact linguistic perspective.InC.Jahani& A.Korn(Eds.),TheBalochandTheirNeighbours: EthnicandLinguisticContactinBalochistaninHistoricalandModernTimes (pp.113–132).Wiesbaden:ReichertVerlag. Jahani,C.(2005).StatecontrolanditsimpactonlanguageinBalochistan.InA. Rabo & B. Utas (Eds.), The Role of the State in West Asia (pp. 151–163). Stockholm:SwedishResearchInstituteinIstanbul. Jahani, C., & A. Korn (2009). ‘Balochi’. In G. Windfuhr (Ed.), The Iranian Languages(pp.634–692). London,NewYork:Routledge. Korn,A.(2003).BalochiandtheconceptofNorth-WesternIranian.InC.Jahani & A.Korn(Eds.),TheBalochandTheirNeighbours:EthnicandLinguistic Contact in Balochistan in Historical and Modern Times (pp. 49–60). Wiesbaden:ReichertVerlag. Korn,A.(2005).Towardsa historicalgrammarofBalochi. Wiesbaden:Reichert Verlag. Labov,W.,Yeager,M.,& Steiner,R.(1972).A quantitativestudyofsoundchange inprogress,1,chapters1–7.Philadelphia:U.S.RegionalSurvey. Ladefoged, P. (1975). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

151 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

Ladefoged,P.(2005).Vowelsandconsonants,Anintroductiontothesoundsof languages,(2nded.),Malden,Ma,Oxford,Carlton,Victoria:Blackwell. Lazard,G.(1992).A grammarofcontemporaryPersian, translatedintoEnglishby ShirleyA.Lyon,CostaMesa.NewYork:MazdaPublishersinassociationwith BibliothecaPersica. Maddieson,I.(1984).Patternsofsounds.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Mahmoodzahi, M. (2003). Linguistic contact in Iranian Balochistan in historical and modern times. In C. Jahani & A. Korn (Eds.), The Baloch and Their Neighbours: Ethnic and Linguistic Contact in Balochistan in Historical and ModernTimes(pp.147–156).Wiesbaden:ReichertVerlag. Okati, F. (2012). The vowel systems of five Iranian Balochi dialects, Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 13 and Studia Iranica Upsaliensia 20. Uppsala: Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis. Paul, L. (2003). The position of Balochi among Western Iranian languages: the verbal system. In C. Jahani & A. Korn (Eds.), The Baloch and their neighbours: Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and moderntimes(pp.61–71).Wiesbaden:ReichertVerlag. Paul, L. (2009). Zazaki. In G. Windfuhr (Ed.) The Iranian languages (pp. 545– 586).London,NewYork:Routledge. Rossi,A.V.(1979).PhonemicsinBalochiandmoderndialectology.InG.,Gnoli& A. Rossi (Eds.), Iranica (pp. 161–232). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Rzehak,L.(2003).SomethoughtsandmaterialonBalochiinAfghanistan.InC. Jahani & A. Korn (Eds.), The Baloch and their neighbours: Ethnic and linguisticcontactinBalochistaninhistoricalandmoderntimes(pp.127-144). Wiesbaden:ReichertVerlag. Rzehak, L. (2009). Code-Copying in the Balochi language of Sistani. Iranian JournalofAppliedLanguageStudies(IJALS), 1, 115–141. Schwartz,J.-L.,Boe,L.-J.,Vallée,N.,& Abry,Ch.(1997).Majortrendsinvowel systeminventories.JournalofPhonetics,25, 233–253.

152 TheShortVowels/i/and/u/inIranianBalochi...

Sepanta, S. (1377 [1998–99]). Âvâshenâsi-ye fiziki-ye zabân-e Fârsi. Esfahan: Golhâ. Simpson,A.P.(2001).Dynamicconsequencesofdifferencesinmaleandfemale vocal tract dimensions. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 109(5), 2153–2164. Simpson, A. P. (2002). Gender-specific articulatory–acoustic relations in vowel sequences.JournalofPhonetics,30, 417–435. Simpson,A.P.(2003).Possiblearticulatoryreasonsforsex-specificdifferencesin vowel duration. Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Speech Production,7-10December,2003,Sydney:MacquarieUniversity,pp.261–266, http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~x1siad/papers/issp03proc.pdf, retrieved December 2011. Sjolander,K.,& Beskow,J.(2000).WaveSurfer- anopensourcespeechtool,inB. Yuan,T.Huang& X.Tang,(Eds.),ProceedingsofICSLP2000,6thIntlConf onSpokenLanguageProcessing, Beijing,464-467, http://www.speech.kth. se/ prod/publications/files/685.pdf,retrievedOctober2010. Spooner, B. (1967). Note on the Baluchi spoken in Persian Baluchistan, Iran, JournaloftheBritishInstituteofPersianStudies, 5,51–71. Walker,R.(2011).Vowelpatternsinlanguage,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Yousefian, P. (1383 [2004–05]). Towqif-e radeshenâkhti-ye zabân-e Baluchi, UnpublishedPh.Ddissertation,UniversityofEsfahan,Iran.

153 IranianJournalofAppliedLanguageStudies,Vol5,No1,2013

MapofIran,9 WiththeSelectedRegionsintheSistanandBaluchestan ProvinceHighlighted

9 Adapted from http://bjo.bmj.com/content/91/5/579/F1.large.jpg, retrieved May 2012.

154