ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

Zabanpazhuhi

Author Index

Keyword Index

News

Journal Metrics

Publication Ethics

Editorial Board

Aims and Scope

Indexing and Abstracting

FAQ

Related Links

About Journal

Peer Review Process

Executive staff

Subject Areas

Guide for Authors

Editing English articles

Conflict of interest of the author

Commitment

Publons Registration Guide

Reviewers Journal in 1999

Reviewers 2020

List of 2021 Reviewers2021

List of 2021 Reviewers 2022

Reviewers Journal 2023

Acoustic Analysis of Temporal parameters of Affricates constriction in Turkish Language spoken in Tabriz

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Linguistics department. faculty of literature. Alzahra University. Tehran. Iran

2 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University,Tehran . Iran

Abstract

 

INTRODUCTION

Many languages have phonemes in their inventory that result from the combination of two different consonants and have a different manner of articulation. Affricates are created by the sequence of a stop and fricative consonant at the same place of articulation (Ledefoged, 2014; Crystal, 2008; Hayward, 2000; Johnson, 1997). Mahmoodzade (2009: 65) quoting Deihl and Castleman (1996: 192-200) states that the closure is one of the most important acoustic parameters in the affricate/fricative contrast. Also, the frication duration is another important cue to distinguish fricative from affricate consonants. In addition to frication and closure, the amplitude rise time is also one of the acoustic features that contrast fricatives and affricates. Amplitude rise time increases more rapidly than fricatives (Hayward, 2000; Johnson, 1997). Hayward also states that the closure duration and frication length are shorter than stop and fricatives respectively. The constriction of affricates consists of closure region of stop and frication region of fricative (2000, 368). Affricate consonants have received less attention, but in recent years, some studies have looked at affricates' properties in different languages ​​such as Hindi (Dixit and Hoffman, 2004), Korean (Kim, 2001; 2004), Italian (Falowski and Bendeto, 2011) and two dialects in Catalan (Recasens and Spinosa, 2007). Mitani et al., (2006) examined the perceptual distinction of voiceless fricative and affricate in Japanese. They found that many acoustic cues, including frication length and amplitude rise time play a role in distinguishing / ʃ / and / ʧ / in Japanese. Studies have been conducted in English to contrast the manner and place of articulation and also to investigate the differentiation between affricate and fricative consonants. Repp et al., (1978) compared the manner of articulation in / ʃ / and / ʧ / and showed that by reducing the frication length in the middle part of the frication, similar changes occur in the manner of two consonants. They conducted another experiment which also stated that the short interval is one of the important cues between affricates and fricatives in the term of manner of articulation.
Azerbaijani or Azeri language belongs to the branch of a Turkic language family that has many speakers in the northwest of Iran and is one of the oldest languages ​​that have been used during various historical periods. Turkish is an agglutinative language ​​and has an Altaic origin (Hayat, 2001; Rashidian, 2013). The languages of ethnic groups such as Turks, Mongols, Tunghuz and Manchu are also Altaic, which have similarities with Uralic languages. It has 24 consonants and 9 vowels, of which 4 consonants including / ʦ /, / dz /, / ʧ / and / ʤ / are affricate consonants (Ghaffarvand Makari and Warner, 2017). Due to the lack of phonological studies in this language especially affricates, we decided to study the acoustic features of affricates / ʦ / and / dz /.
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study conducted to investigate affricate consonants of the Turkish language. For this purpose, ten speakers of Turkish language, 5 men and 5 women participated in the experiment. The mean age of participants was 30.5. The recorded eighteen Turkish words were VC, CV and VCV syllables consisting of the affricates / ʦ / and / dz / in three Turkish vowel environment / ɑ /, / i / and / u /. The effect of different three high and low vowels was examined on silence duration, frication duration, and amplitude rise time. Stimuli were repeated 3 times by the participants in the experiment (18 samples × 10 speakers × 3 replicates). Acoustic analysis was performed in PRAAT software and SPSS software version 23 was used for statistical analysis. Closure and frication duration and amplitude rise time calculated manually on the spectrogram. The duration of closure was measured in the middle and final position, but due to the uncertainty of the closure initial phase at the beginning of the word (Castleman, 1997; Mahmoodzade, 1388: 85), this parameter was not measured in CV syllable. The amplitude rise time was also measured in a time span of frication onset to the point where the frication reaches the maximum amplitude (Mahmoodzade, 2009: 91).
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Acoustic analysis of Turkish affricates showed that voicing had no effect on the duration of silence and cannot be used as a cue to distinguish the voicing parameter in these consonants. The difference between the mean duration of frication and amplitude rise time indicates that these two parameters are considered as acoustic cues in voicing. In addition to voicing, other factors such as consonant position and vowel environment were also examined. The consonant position also showed a significant effect on silence duration, frication duration and amplitude rise time, so that the average of all three parameters is higher in the final position. The results related to the vowel environment / ɑ /, / i / and / u / on the duration of silence, the duration of frication and amplitude rise time indicate that the length of silence in the vowel environment / ɑ / and / i / and the frication duration and amplitude rise time are also longer in the / i / and / u / vowel environment.
 

CONCLUSION

The results showed that voicing has no effect on closure duration in Turkish affricates. However, the frication duration and amplitude rise time are affected by voicing. In addition to the voicing feature, the consonant position in the syllable and vowel environment were also examined. tests results showed that the consonant position in syllable and vowel environments has a significant effect on closure duration, frication duration, and amplitude rise time and all three parameters are longer in the final position. Also, the closure and frication duration are longer in the presence of /ɑ, i/ and /i, u/ respectively. High amplitude rise time obtained in the presence of high vowels.
 

Keywords

References
  1. Bijankhan, M. & Nourbakhsh, M. (2009). Voice onset time in Persian initial and intervocalic stop production. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 39 (3), 335- 364.
  2. Castleman, W. A. (1997). Integrated Perceptual properties of the [+/- continuant] distinction in fricatives and affricates. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
  3. Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). New Jersey: Blackwell publication.
  4. Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Diehl, R. L. & Castleman, W. A. (1996). “Integrated perceptual properties: the affricate/ fricative distinction”. In Arbeitsberichte des Instituts fuKr Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung (AIPUK) 31, 191-200.
  6. Dixit, R. P. & Hoffman, P. R. (2004). Articulatory characteristics of fricatives and affricates in Hindi: an electropalatographic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34. 141–160.
  7. Dorman, F. M. & Raphael, J. L. & Isenberg, D. (1980). Acoustic cues for a fricative – affricate contrast in word- final position. Journal of Phonetics, 8, 397- 405.
  8. Faluschi, S. & Di Benedetto, M. G. (2001). “Acoustic analysis of singleton and geminate affricates in Italian”. WEB-SLS: The European Student Journal of Language and Speech, http://www.essex.ac.uk/web-sls/papers/01-01/submission.htm.
  9. Gerstman, L. G. (1957). “Perceptual dimensions for the fricative portion of certain speech sounds”. PhD dissertation. New York University, New York, USA.
  10. Ghaffarvand Mokari, P. & Warner, S. (2017). “Azerbaijani”. Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 1-6.
  11. Haghshenas, A. M. (2005). Phonetic. Tehran: Agah [In Persian].
  12. Hardcastle, W. J. & Gibbon, F. & Scobbie, J. M. (1995). “Phonetic and phonological aspects of English affricate production in children with speech disorders”. Phonetica 52, 242-250.
  13. Hayward, K. (2000). Experimental Phonetics. England: Longman Linguistics Library.
  14. Heyat, J. (2001). The History of Turkish Language and Dialects (2nd ed). Tehran: Peykan [In Persian].
  15. Johnson, K. (1997). Acoustic and auditory phonetics. New Jersey: Blackwell.
  16. Jong Kong, E. & Kang, S. & Seo, M. (2014). “Gender difference in the affricate productions of young Seoul Korean speakers”. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136 (4), 329-335.
  17. Karimabadi Zadeh, M. (2017). Acoustic Analysis of Fricatives and Affricates in the Speech Production and Normal Hearing. Master thesis, Shahid Beheshti University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.
  18. Kim, H. (2001). The place of articulation of the Korean plain affricate in intervocalic position: an articulatory and acoustic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31, 229–237.
  19. Kim, H. (2004). Stroboscopic-cine MRI data on Korean coronal plosives and affricates: implications for their place of articulation as alveolar. Phonetica, 61, 234–251.
  20. Ladefoged, P. & Johnson, K. (2014). A Course in Phonetics (7nd ed). USA: Cengage Learning.
  21. Mahmoodzade. Z. (2009). Acoustic Analysis for Spirantization of the Persian Affricates (PhD’s thesis). University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
  22. Mahmoodzade, Z. & Bijankhan, M. (2007). Acoustic Analysis of the Persian Fricative-Affricate Contrast. Saarbrücken 6, 921-924.
  23.  
  24. Mitani, S. & Kitama, T. & Sato, Y. (2006). Voiceless affricate/fricative distinction by frication duration and amplitude rise slope. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Vol.120 (3), 1600-1607.
  25. Nikrahi. S. (2012). Considering the Role of Duration Length and Voicing Length in Standard Persian Intervocalic Obstruents (Master’s thesis). Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
  26. Rahimi, M. (2013). An Acoustic Study of Voicing in Persian Fricatives (Master’s thesis). Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran [In Persian].
  27. Rashidian. D. (2013). Phonological and Morphological Nativisation of Loanwords in Azerbaijani Turkish Language (Master’s thesis). Payame Noor University. Tehran Jounoob center. Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
  28. Recasens, D. & Espinosa, A. (2007). An electropalatographic and Acoustic study of Affricates and Fricatives in two Catalan dialects. Journal of International Phonetic Association. 37 (2), 143- 172.
  29. Repp, B.H. & Liberman, A.M. & Eccardt, T. & Pesetsky, D. (1978). Perceptual integration of acoustic cues for stop, fricative, and affricate manner. J. ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 621-637.
  30. Rezaei, M. (2019). The Relationship between Turkic and Mongolian Languages and Errors in Detection of Turkic and Mongolian Loan Words in Persian. Scientific Journal of Language Research. 11 (30), 7-20 [In Persian].
  31. Yeni-Komshian, G. H. & Soli, S. D. (1981). Recognition of vowel from information in fricatives: perceptual evidence of fricative-vowel coarticulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 70(4), 996- 975
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 13, Issue 41 - Serial Number 41
December 2021
Pages 33-53
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics