Emphatic of Modern Standard and Effects on Vowel Height, Backness, and Dispersion Ghadi Al Ghoul University of Toronto, Scarborough

I. Introduction

It is known that vowel quality is affected by its environment, that is, a vowel’s quality varies depending on the place or manner of articulation of a preceding or following . The Arabic language, an Afro-Asiatic Semitic language spoken in various regions of the Middle East1, possesses the emphatic consonants /tˤ, dˤ, ðˤ, sˤ/, and the pharyngeal consonants /ḥ, ʕ/ which, are consonants unique to with the exception of general and Maltese. Such consonants allow for the experience of a constricted pharynx to different degrees. Emphatic consonants have as a secondary articulation whilst, pharyngeal consonants have pharyngealization as a primary articulation.2 In addition to that, it has been quite well observed that the Modern Standard variation of Arabic has a triangular 3 vowel system that retains the vowels /a, i, u/ and their lengthier variations /a:, i:, u:/3. Based on the research carried out in the literature, it hasn’t been observed that there were many studies specific to MSA’s emphatic consonants and their effect on the vowels. This paper observes and discusses how vowel quality, specifically, the frontness backness and the vowel dispersion of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is affected when the vowel is preceded by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/. There have been studies in the literature that have observed the linguistic issues of Arabic pharyngeal and emphatic consonant production4; as there have been studies of the effects of pharyngealization on vowel quality in Maltese Arabic, however, it was more of a phonological study rather than a phonetic study, and it didn’t really account to how vowel quality was affected by emphatic sounds.5 There are only a handful of academic papers in the literature that observe the effect of emphatic consonants on Arabic vowels. More importantly, there aren’t any studies that observe how one emphatic consonant preceding a vowel affects the frontness

1 It’s known that there exist other variations of Arabic, such as, Levantine, Maltese, and Moroccan, just to name a few, and they all to an extent, differ phonetically when compared to MSA’s consonant and vowel inventories.

2 (Laufer)

3 (Newman)

4 That is, debating whether or not emphatic consonants are really pharyngealized.

5 (Walter) and backness qualities of that very vowel and its lengthier counterpart in MSA nor are there any that observe the dispersion of those vowels. In a thesis paper by M. Anani, it has been observed that vowel quality appeared to be rather centralized and more back when occurring in an environment with an emphatic consonant. The prediction of this study is that vowel height and backness will be affected by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/ such that the values of vowel height will be lowered and the vowel backness will be raised to match the qualities of the emphatic consonant hence eliciting the hypothesis that emphatic consonants preceding the vowel will raise the F1 value and lower the F2 value of the vowel of interest. It’s also predicted that vowels will disperse more in the emphatic environment more than they will in the non-emphatic environment.

II. Methods

1. Speaker Information

Data was collected only from one speaker, the researcher herself, a 20 year old female speaker. The speaker is a native Arabic speaker whom grew up speaking a Palestinian dialect of Arabic, and was taught and exposed to Modern Standard Arabic for 20 years. In addition to that, the speaker was brought up in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) and acquired many dialectal variations of Arabic and was taught English at about the same age she was taught Arabic. The speaker is fluent in both the Palestinian and MS dialects of Arabic.

2. Data and Data Collection Methods

Data was recorded using a built in MacBook Pro recorder, through which data from the word list were recorded in a quite closed room using Praat’s Mono recording feature, that was used to maintain reception of only one sound, i.e. the speaker’s. The speaker was distanced about 10 cm away from the recorder. Three trials were recorded per word and all were collected at around the same time. For efficiency purposes, Praat’s text grid feature was used to illustrate word and segment boundaries and was saved per “.wav” file to ensure that there was always backup in case anything went wrong or in case the OS X system was overwhelmed with the data and the overload of simultaneously open windows. The word list, below, contained minimal and near minimal pairs of words containing /sˤ/ and /s/ preceding all the 3 MSA vowels and their lengthier variations. The carrier sentence, which is provided below along with the word list, used mainly demonstrative determiners to elicit a sentence similar to “This is a _____” or “They/ He/ She is ______” in MS Arabic.

Word-List 1. /haða: sˤari:r/ 7. /haða: nasˤi:b/ This is a screech. This is fate. 2. /haða: sari:r/ 8. /haða: nasi:b/ This is a bed. He is a relative. 3. /huwa sˤa:ra/ 9. /haða: sumun/ He became. This is poison. 4. /huwa sa:ra/ 10. /hum sˤumun/ He walked. They are deaf. 5. /haða: sˤira:tˤ/ 11. /haðihi: sˤu:war/ This is a pathway. These are pictures. 6. /haða: sira:tˤ/ 12. /haða: su:r / This is a clear path. This is a fence.

3. Acoustic Analysis Methods

3.1. Vowel Height and Backness

The acoustic analysis methods used for this paper varied from an F1 average range measurement to an F2 average range measurement per trial. The data was organized in a Microsoft Excel sheet that specified the word, whether the preceding consonant was emphatic or not, the length of the vowel, the F1 per trial, the Average F1, the F2 per trial, and the Average F2. The Average F1 and F2 were calculated using the average formula in Excel. Four clustered column charts were carried out, 2 charts illustrated the Vowel Height (F1) in the Emphatic /sˤ/ and Non-Emphatic /s/, respectively, and 2 charts that illustrated the Vowel Backness (F2) in the Emphatic /sˤ/ and Non-Emphatic /s/, correspondingly. Duration was not considered as a numerical value but rather it was taken into account qualitatively as long or short since, MS Arabic has only two variants per vowel.

3.2. Vowel Dispersion

The F1 values of the Formant plots have been carried out on Excel through the use of the charts option and through using the X Y Chart Labeler for Mac which, allowed for the labeling of the respective vowels on the chart. A formant plot was carried out to observe the general dispersion of vowel qualities in the environment of the emphatic consonant /sˤ/ and another formant plot was drawn to observe the dispersion of vowel qualities in the environment of the non-emphatic /s/. To observe the change of vowel dispersion in the environment of the emphatic consonant /sˤ/ and in the environment of its non-emphatic equivalent /s/ a formant plot containing both data was plotted. III. Results

1. Acoustic Analysis Methods

1.1 Vowel Height

The height of the vowels as observed in chart 1.1. on the next page which, shows that the vowel height represented by the first formant F1 in Hz, varied slightly for some vowels and greatly for other vowels across the two environments.

I. /i/ vs. /i:/

Beginning with the short high front vowel /i/, it had the least change of F1 from the non-emphatic environment /s/ to the emphatic environment /sˤ/. Interestingly, it’s variation, /i:/ or, the long /i/, had a similar change. Nevertheless, the F1 of /i/ decreased slightly in the emphatic environment while that of /i:/ slightly increased in the emphatic environment. This indicates that the height of /i/ is raised when preceded by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/, while, the height of the vowel /i:/ is slightly lowered.

II. /a/ vs. /a:/

The F1 of the short low front vowel /a/ increased significantly in the emphatic environment (an F1 value of about 200 Hz from that of the non-emphatic value). The F1 of its lengthier counterpart /a:/ decreased slightly in the emphatic environment. Hence, it can be deduced that the height of the vowel /a/ is lowered significantly when preceded by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/, while, the height of the longer vowel /a:/ is slightly raised.

III. /u/ vs. /u:/

On the other hand, the F1 values of the remaining high back vowels /u/ and its lengthier variations /u:/ were consistent in the sense that the vowel and it’s long variation both increased (an F1 difference value of 100 Hz for /u/ and /u:/) in the emphatic environment. Thus, it can be inferred that the height of both variations (short and long) of the vowel /u/ were lowered in the emphatic environment /sˤ/.

MS Arabic Vowel Height (F1)

800 u a: 700 a 600 u: i 500 i: Emphatic 400 Non-Emphatic 300 200 100 0

Chart 1.1.: Vowel height in emphatic /sˤ/ versus non-emphatic /s/ environment.

1.2 Vowel Backness

The backness of the vowels as observed in chart 1.2. on the next page which, shows that the vowel backness represented by the second formant F2 in Hz, varied slightly for some vowels and greatly for other vowels across the two environments, an observation similar to that of the findings in F1, or vowel height.

I. /i/ vs. /i:/

Observing the backness of the short high front vowel /i/ and its lengthier variant /i:/ one can see that the emphatic consonant preceding the vowels has an effect that appears to be the inverse of its effect in the height. In this case, the F2 value for /i/ is higher in the emphatic environment /sˤ/ yet, lower in the case of the vowel /i:/. It is worth noting that there was a significant change in the backness of the /i:/ vowel in which the difference between the F2 in an emphatic environment and the F2 in a non-emphatic environment was about 300 Hz. It can be deduced that the vowel /i/ possesses a more front quality in the emphatic environment whilst the vowel /i:/ possesses a more back quality when preceded by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/ as opposed to that of the non-emphatic consonant /s/.

II. /a/ vs. /a:/

The F2 of the low front vowels /a, a:/ decreased for both in the emphatic environments. The shorter variation /a/ had a highly significant drop in F2, a value of about 1,000 Hz, in the emphatic environment. The longer variation /a:/ also had a significant drop in F2, however, less dramatic. The drop in F2 of the vowel /a:/ was of about 250 Hz. It can be inferred that the vowels /a, a:/ became more back when preceded by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/.

III. /u/ vs. /u:/

Likewise, the F2 value of the high back vowels /u, u:/ dropped in the emphatic environment. The short variation of the vowel showed only a slight drop in F2 value, whilst, the long variation /u:/ showed a relatively significant drop of about 200 Hz when preceded by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/. Therefore, it can be observed that both the vowels /u/ and /u:/ become more back when preceded by the emphatic, /sˤ/.

MS Arabic Vowel Backness (F2)

3000

2500 i: i 2000 a Emphatic 1500 a: u u: Non-Emphatic 1000

500

0

Chart 1.2.: Vowel backness in Emphatic /sˤ/ versus Non-Emphatic /s/ environment.

1.3 Vowel Dispersion

I. /i/ vs. /i:/

The vowel dispersion of the high front vowels /i, i:/ in the non-emphatic environment did not vary greatly in the emphatic environment. The short vowel /i/, as observed on chart 1.3.a and 1.3.b was lower in height than /i:/. The long vowel /i:/ was by far more front in the emphatic and non emphatic environments. As observed in chart 1.3.c the dispersion of vowel /i/ seems to be slightly offset in the emphatic environment when compared to that of the non-emphatic environment. In contrast, /i:/ appeared to disperse more due to the F2 change of about 200 Hz. Nevertheless, /i, i:/ dispersed nicely, and did not transcend from one location to another haphazardly.

II. /a/ vs. /a:/

As for the vowel dispersion in the low front vowels /a, a:/ there seemed to be quite a noticeable variation. The long vowel /a:/ as observed in charts 1.3.a and 1.3.b maintained a relatively similar position and did not disperse radically as can be observed in chart 1.3.c. However, the short vowel /a/ dropped significantly from a position near the long high front vowel /i:/ to a position roughly above the short high back vowel /u/ in empathic environments. It’s evident that /a/ was dispersed most amongst the other vowels, however, this can be inferred to the place of articulation and the secondary pharyngealization nature of the emphatic /sˤ/ .

III. /u/ vs. /u:/

The short vowel /u/ and the long vowel /u:/ shifted slightly in the formant plot, refer to chart 1.3.a and 1.3.b to observe the shift. Both maintain a relative distance that is similar in the emphatic and non-emphatic environment as shown in chart 1.3.c. Like /i, i:/ the shift is not of radical nature and seems to be quite predictable. The vowel /u/ had a higher F1 in the emphatic environment that has caused the noticeable dispersion, while, the vowel /u:/ had a drop in F2 in the emphatic environment to which the shift may be inferred to.

Arabic Vowel Dispersion in Non Emphatic Environment /s/

F2 (Hz) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 200

300 i: a u: 400 F1 (Hz) i

500

u 600 a: 700

800

Chart 1.3. a: Vowel dispersion in Non-Emphatic environment, /s/. The presumed triangular vowel system of Classical Arabic was slightly rendered in the production of Modern Standard Arabic vowels produced by the speaker.

Arabic Vowel Dispersion in Emphatic Environment /sˤ/

F2 (Hz) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 200

300 i: F1 (Hz) i 400 u: 500 a 600 a: u 700

800

Chart 1.3. b: Vowel dispersion in Emphatic environment, /sˤ/. The triangular shape of the vowel system is almost preserved here as well. Arabic Vowel Dispersion in Emphatic and Non Emphatic Environments /sˤ/ and /s/

F2 (Hz) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 200

300 i: i: F1 (Hz) a u: i 400 i u: 500 a 600 u a: a: u 700

800

Chart 1.3. c: Vowel dispersion across Emphatic and Non-Emphatic environments. Blue shows the vowel dispersion due to emphatic /sˤ/ environment, while, purple shows the vowel dispersion in the non-emphatic /s/ environment. As can be seen, it’s clear that /i/ and its long variation along with /u/ and its long variation and /a:/ tend to be more stable predictable and consistent in change. However, the short vowel /a/ appears to dramatically change.

IV. Discussion

I. Expectations Versus Actual Findings

In this study on the Modern Standard variation of Arabic it was observed how the emphatic consonant /sˤ/ affected the F1 and F2 values of the 3 MSA vowels and their longer variations. It has also been observed how this emphatic consonant affects the dispersion of the vowels. The predictions were met overall; such that the vowel height and backness were indeed affected by the emphatic consonant /sˤ/, and dispersion was observed. In general, the the vowel height which was predicted to be lowered was indeed lowered for the following vowels /a, i:, u, u:/ since the F1 value was high for all four. However, in some cases it was actually raised, albeit not significantly, such as, in the case of /a:/ and /i/ in which, the F1 value was lowered for these two vowels in the emphatic environment. It was also predicted that the vowel backness will be increased to assimilate the qualities of the emphatic consonant hence eliciting that emphatic consonants preceding the vowel will have a lowered F2. The finding reassured the prediction in almost all the vowels, in which F2 had a lower value in the emphatic environment. Nevertheless, the prediction did not apply in the case of /i/, in which it appeared to have a higher, although not very significant, F2, hence indicating more frontness in the emphatic environment. Lastly, it was predicted that vowels will disperse more in the emphatic environment /sˤ/ than they will in the non-emphatic environment /s/. That was observed in the study and applied to all the vowels.

II. Literature Prediction and Suggested Further Studies

In M. Anani’s thesis paper it was mentioned that the MSA vowels, when occurring next to an emphatic consonant, appeared to have a more centralized degree of production. When the data in this paper is observed one wonders how the centralization could have come about in most vowels produces here as studied by Anani. It is agreed that the vowels tended to lean more towards the center than the edges in the emphatic environment. However, it’s slightly unclear why this phenomena occurs. That said, if there were to be any studies in this particular subject, centralization would be quite a noteworthy study. Another interesting follow up study could tackle how the F1, F2, and dispersion of the vowel /a/ and its long variant /a:/ are affected by the other emphatic consonants found in Modern Standard Arabic.

III. References

1. Laufer, A., & Baer, T. (1988). The emphatic and pharyngeal sounds in hebrew and in arabic. Language and Speech, 31(2), 181. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1299121624?accountid=14771

2. Newman, D. L., & Verhoeven, J. (n.d.). Frequency Analysis of Arabic Vowels in Connected Speech. Retrieved April 2015, from https://community.dur.ac.uk/daniel.newman/Apil1.pdf

3. Walter, M. A. (2006). Pharyngealization effects in maltese arabic. PERSPECTIVES ON ARABIC LINGUISTICS XVI: PAPERS FROM THE SIXTEENTH ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON ARABIC LINGUISTICS, CAMBRIDGE, MARCH 2002, boudelaa, sami ed], amsterdam: John benjamins, 2006, pp 161-178 () Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/85635531?accountid=14771

4. Al-Masri, M. (2009). The acoustic and perceptual correlates of emphasis in urban (Order No. 3396411). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304916300). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304916300?accountid=14771