• Aucun résultat trouvé

The status of vowels in Jordanian and Moroccan Arabic:

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "The status of vowels in Jordanian and Moroccan Arabic: "

Copied!
1
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Results

What about vowels in Arabic?

Arabic grammarians described vowels as: a) sounds included in consonants and/or b) a facilitator of consonant production, so…

Vowels never occur in isolation, they must be associated to consonantal environment to be produced, this can be explained by the morphological structure of Arabic, (A nonconcatenative language with a triconsonantal root, that exhibits direct consonant~consonant relation),

Some verb categories are marked by a systematic alteration of vowel qualities, without any modification in the consonantal root. Ex. ‘K T B’[katib] ’writer’, [kitab]‘book’, [maktaba] ‘library’, (Sibawayh VIIIth century, Ibn Jinni Xth century, Cantineau 1960, Mehiri 1973, BenKiran 1982, McCarthy 1982, Ibrahim 1997, among others).

The status of vowels in Jordanian and Moroccan Arabic:

Insights from production and perception.

Jalaleddin Al-Tamimi¹, René Carré² & Egidio Marsico¹

¹ : Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage (DDL) – UMR 5596 CNRS & Université Lyon 2 – France. ² : ENST, TSI, UMR 5141 CNRS

Jalal-Eddin.Al-Tamimi@etu.univ-lyon2.fr, rene.carre@enst.fr, Egidio.Marsico@ish-lyon.cnrs.fr

Introduction

Vowels in isolation are often considered as the canonical form of a vowel. (Joos 1948, Ladefoged 1967 & Daniloff & Hammerberg 1973),

But some researchers considered them as ‘laboratory artefacts’ (Liberman & al. 1967 & Liberman 1970): a) generally, they exist when coarticulated with consonants in a specific syllabic structure, b) acoustical vowel information merge with those of consonants, c) formants of vowels are not invariant, due to 2 different sources of variation: inter- and intra-individual variability, and consonant environment,

So, in different perceptual experiments, isolated vowels were discarded, and dynamic information was considered useful to have more natural stimuli and to help auditors in identification ~ discrimination tests.

Different authors described isolated vowels as completely different from those produced in context, so they concluded that indices used by auditors to identify vowels (in isolation and in context) are different. (Fairbanks & Grubb 1961, Fujimura & Ochiai 1963, Lehiste & Meltzer 1973, Strange & al. 1976, 1983, 1989, etc.).

Goals of this research

1. The characterization of the variation, in both production and perception of speech in (and within) 2 Arabic dialects:

Jordanian Arabic (JA) and Moroccan Arabic (MA), 2. The characterization of static

and dynamic cues in production and perception of Arabic vowels, 3. To study the status of vowels in

Arabic dialects.

Recording & Acoustical Analysis

Speakers were recorded in an attenuated room, and vowels were digitized at 22 KHz, 16 Bits, Mono.

Recording of 8 JA and 10 MA (2 JA speakers were discarded because of saturation in the signal), were analyzed using Praat and Akustyk.

LPC acoustical analysis were conducted on vowels produced in word, syllable and in isolation, with a 25 ms Hamming window, 10 coefficients. Formant values were taken at the mid of the static portion of vowel. Onset and offset were taken at respectively the first and final pulses,

Methodology

In paradigm A:

10 speakers in both JA and MA were recorded in 2 experimental protocols, in production and perception of speech,

In production, speakers recorded vowels (/i i e a aou u/ in JA and /i a u u/in MA), as produced in word, syllable and in isolation, in alveolar context (non pharyngealised), In perception, the same speakers categorized

vowels in a F1/F2 synthetic plane, based on a MOA Model (Method of Adjustment, Johnson

& al. 1993) In paradigm B:

5 auditors from JA and 1 from MA, categorized vowels in a static (static formant values + F0) and dynamic (static values + F0 + Duration + Dynamic information = onset of alveolar consonant) F1/F2 synthetic plane.

Discussion & conclusion

In this work, we studied the variability in both production and perception of speech in JA and MA dialects. Results show that:

Both in JA and MA, there is no significant difference between the production of vowels in Word and in Syllable, but a very significant one when compared with Isolated vowels, Both in JA and MA, there is more variability in the production

of vowels in Isolation, than when produced in Word or Syllable, In production, JA long vowels are more peripheral than those of

MA (figures from 1 to 4), but no difference in perception (figures 5 & 6)

In both production and perception, MA /u/merge (figures 2, 4

& 6),

JA and MA auditors found the perceptual experiment (figures 5

& 6) very difficult and caused a high degree of variability in the acoustic plan (that can be explained by the fact that isolated vowels may not exist in Arabic).

To characterize the importance of dynamic cues (in comparison with static ones), a new perceptual task was elaborated. The results displayed in figures 7 to 10 show less variability in the dynamic task than in static one, and auditors found the new task easier.

In production, a Delta Average calculation served to characterize the formant trajectories. Graphics (from 11 to 14) show that even in isolated vowels, formant trajectories do change over time.

Theses results indicates that dynamic cues (in both production and perception) may be taken into consideration to describe Arabic vowels, but experimentations with more consonantal context and more speakers are needed to characterize the vowel status in Arabic.

JA Vowel Production in Word~Syllable~Isolated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:_Wi:_S i:_I i_W i_S i_I e:_We:_Se:_I a:_Wa:_Sa:_I a_Wa_S a_I o:_Wo:_So:_I u:_Wu:_Su:_I u_Wu_S u_I

MA Vowel Production in Word~Syllable~Isolated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:_W i:_S i:_I a:_W a:_S a:_I

Schwa_WSchwa_S Schwa_I u_W u_S u_I

u:_W u:_S u:_I

Distance of vowels from the Neutral JA

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

i i: e: a a: o: u u:

Vowel

Distance in Bark

Word Syllable Isolated

Distance of vowels from the Neutral MA

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

i: a: schwa u u:

Vowel

Distance in Bark

Word Syllable Isolated

2.Perception 1.Production

JA Vowel perception with F0 = 120 Hz 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

ii:e:aa:o:uu:

MA Vowel Perception with F0 = 120 Hz 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:a:Schwauu:

MA Vowel Perception in isolated Context (Static): 1 auditor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:a:schwauu:

MA Vowel Perception in Alveolar Context (Dynamic): 1 auditor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:a:schwauu:

JA Vowel Perception in Isolated context (Static): 5 auditors

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:e:a:o:u:

JA Vowel Perception in alveolar context (Dynamic): 5 auditors 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 F2 Bark

F1 Bark

i:e:a:o:u:

Pa ra d ig m e A Pa ra d ig m e B

1.Static 2.Dynamic

Long-Term Average Variation in Production (Delta Average)

JA First Formant Delta Average

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

i i: e: a a: o: u u:

Vowel

F1 Variation (Bark/ms)

Word Syllable Isolated

JA Second Formant Delta Average

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

i i: e: a a: o: u u:

Vowel

F2 Variation (Bark/ms)

Word Syllable Isolated

MA First Formant Delta Average

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

i: a: schwa u u:

Vowel

F1 Variation (Bark/ms)

Word Syllable Isolated

MA Second Formant Delta Average

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

i: a: schwa u u:

Vowel

F2 Variation (Bark/ms)

Word Syllable Isolated

Paradigms experience Variable JA MA

Word vs. Syllable n.s n.s Syllable vs Isolated 0,0001 0,001

Word vs. Isolated 0,0002 0,0067 JA vs. MA 6E-06 -

Isolation - -

JA vs. MA 0,002 -

Paradigm B Perception

Static vs. Dynamic - -

Perception

Paradigm A Production

We have applied different statistical analysis on the data. The table indicates when differences were significant. (-) indicates that statistical analysis were not conducted due to number of repetitions or speakers, or non comparable data.

n.s n.s

n.s n.s

Bibliography

1. Akustyk: http://bartus.org/akustyk/

2. Benkirane, T.(1982). Etude Phonétique et Fonctions de la Syllabe en Arabe Marocain.Thèse de 3ème Cycle de Phonétique Expérimentale, Fonctionnelle et Appliquée, Université de Provence : Aix-Marseille I: 242.

3. Cantineau, J.(1960). Études de linguistique arabe : Cours de phonétique arabe...: suivi de Notions générales de phonétique et de phonologie.Ed. Librairie C. KLINCKSIECK, Paris : 294

4. Daniloff, R. G. and Hammarberg, R. E.(1973). On defining coarticulation. Journal of Phonetics, 1 : 239-248.

5. Fairbanks, G. and Grubb, P.(1961). A psychophysical investigation of vowel formants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Researches, 4: 203-219.

6. Fujimura, O. and Ochiai, K.(1963). Vowel identification and phonetic contexts.JASA, 35: 1889 (A).

7. Ibn Jinni (Xth century), Sir Sina’at Al-’I’raab,Vol. 1, p. 501.

8. Ibrahim, A-F.(1997). Al tanzim al-zamani fi al-arabiyyat samaiyya : dirasat fi al-bunyat al-kamiyyat li-l-aswat al-arabiyyatt (inda ruwwat tunusiyyin). Thèse de doctorat : Lettres : Tunis 1 : 399.

9. Johnson, K., Flemming, E. and Wright, R.(1993). "The hyperspace effect: Phonetic targets are hyperarticulated" Language 69 : 505-528.

10.Joos, M.A.,(1948). Acoustic phonetics.Language 24 (Suppl.), 1-136.

11.Ladefoged, P.(1967). Three areas of experimental phonetics.Oxford University Press, New York.

12.Lehiste, I. and Meltzer, D.(1973). Vowel and speaker identification in natural and synthetic speech.Language Speech, 16:

356-364.

13.Liberman, A. M.(1970). The grammars of speech and language.Cognitive Psychology, 1: 301-323.

14.Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P. and Studdert-Kennedy, M.(1967). Perception of the speech code.

Psychology Revue, 74: 431-461.

15.McCarthy, J. J.(1982). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology.Austin, University of Texas: 246.

16.Mehiri, A.,(1973). Les théories grammaticales d’Ibn Jinni (Sir Sinâ`at al’e`râb, Xème siècle).Tunis : Publications de l'Université de Tunis : 289.

17.Praat: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/

18.Sibawayh (VIIIème siècle). Al-Kitâb. 5 Tomes (tahqîq wa sharh Abd Al-Salâm Muhammad Hârûn, éd. Al-hay'a al-masriyya al-

`âma lilkitâb , 1975 : 491).

19.Strange, W., Verbrugge, R. R., Shankweller, D. P. and Edman, T. R. (1976). Consonant environment specifies vowel identity.JASA, 60(1): 213-224.

20.Strange, W. J., James J; Johnson, Thomas L(1983). Dynamic Specification of Coarticulated Vowels.JASA, 74(3): 695- 705.

21.Strange, W. B., Ocke Schwen(1989). Dynamic Specification of Coarticulated German Vowels: Perceptual and Acoustical Studies.JASA, 104(1): 488-504.

Figure 1: JA vowel production.

Figure 2: MA vowel production.

Figure 3: Distance of JA vowels in production to characterize the variation.

Figure 4: Distance of MA vowels in production to characterize the variation.

Figure 5: JA vowel perception.

Figure 6: MA vowel perception.

Figure 7: JA vowel perception (static task). Figure 8: JA vowel perception (dynamic task).

Figure 9: MA vowel perception (static task). Figure 10: MA vowel perception (dynamic task).

Figure 11: JA Delta Average for F1. Figure 13: MA Delta Average for F1.

Figure 12: JA Delta Average for F2. Figure 14: MA Delta Average for F2.

n.s 0,0006 0,0001 0,001

0,0067 0,0002

Références

Documents relatifs

Thanks to an imitation between the robot and one caregiver, we can learn to associate visual stimuli to a sound and reciprocally a sound to an image, and so report on Kuhl’s

Interestingly, the difficulties of Japanese subjects with consonant clusters is mostly apparent in the Error data (32% of errors, and a ’trend’ of 105ms in the latencies) whereas

In his Outline of English Phonetics [19], Jones claims that “a good ear can distinguish well over fifty vowels, exclusive of nasalized vowels, vowels pronounced with

STATIC AND DYNAMIC CUES IN VOWEL PRODUCTION: A CROSS DIALECTAL STUDY IN JORDANIAN AND MOROCCAN ARABIC. formant slopes obtained from a linear regression analysis) in comparison

- Observe the differences between vocalic realizations of male and female, - Study the distinction between long and short vowels within Arabic dialects, - Observe the effect

We also evaluated the total FL associated with the vocalic system as a whole, the consonantal system as a whole, and the tonal system (when applicable). Our results

In Moroccan Arabic it is widely accepted that short vowels are mostly elided, resulting in consonant clusters and consonant geminates. In this paper we

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des