production of arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized ... · on the other hand, the classification of...

Amir Bedir

Stefan Werner

Production of Arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants for Finns

learning Arabic as a second language

PRODUCTION OF ARABIC PHARYNGEAL AND PHARYNGEALIZEDCONSONANTS FOR FINNS LEARNING ARABIC AS A SECOND LANGUAGE !1

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLANDTiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty

Osasto – SchoolForeign Languages and Translation Studies

Tekijät – Author: Amir BedirTyön nimi – Title: Production of Arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants for Finns learning Arabic as a second languagePääaine – Main subject: Linguistics and Language Technology)

Työn laji – Level: MA Thesis Päivämäärä – Date:

29.12.2018

Sivumäärä – Number of pages:

58

Pro gradu -tutkielma XSivuainetutkielmaKandidaatin tutkielmaAineopintojen tutkielma

Tiivistelmä – Abstract: The main focus of our study is the pharyngeals, and the pharyngealized consonants of the Arabic language. We approach the study from a phonetic point of view. As a teacher of Arabic as a foreign language in Finland, I was privileged with the chance to record with 10 Finns learning Arabic as a second language. The recording consisted of words including the target consonants in the medial position (in between two vowels). The target consonants are the Arabic pharyngeals /ʕ/, /ħ/ and their counterparts /ʔ/, /h/, and the Arabic pharyngealized consonants /t̥/, /d̥/, /s̥/, /ð̥/, and their counterparts /t/, /d/, /d/, /ð/. Each target consonant is repeated 5 times for a reliable statistical results. The recorded files are then compared to a native speaker’s recording of the same words. Additionally, the study used the “rapid-shadowing paradigm” as a method of recording. Later on, an acoustic analysis was done answering our four research questions. In a nutshell, the analysis results show that Finnish speakers learning Arabic as a second language are better in pronouncing pharyngealized consonants than pharyngeal ones. Moreover, a deeper analysis shows that the voiced pharyngealized consonants’ results are better than the voiceless ones. Interestingly, the results show the opposite in regards to pharyngeals, as the voiceless pharyngeal (/ħ/) records a noticeably better results than its voiced counterpart (/ʕ/.) Finally, three different second language learning hypothesis were considered to be applied to our acoustic analysis results. Majorly, the application seconds the theories in the following points: (1) It is easier to learn a new sound in TL if it is similar to a sound in NL. (2) If a sound is an alien to the NL, then it will be hard to learn (Alwabari, 2013). (3) As a learner, it would not be possible to perceive and produce native-like new phonemes. Perceiving and producing of new sounds will be always related to already found sounds in the NL. Then can come the creation of a new phonetic category that can be different from the native one.Avainsanat – Keywords: pharyngeal, pharyngealized, Arabic, Finnish, phonetics, acoustic analysis, second language learning.


ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLANDTiedekunta – Faculty Filosofinen tiedekunta

Osasto – SchoolVieraat kielet ja käännöstiede

Tekijät – Author: Amir BedirTyön nimi – Title: Production of Arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants for Finns learning Arabic as a second languagePääaine – Main subject: kielitiede ja kieliteknologia

Työn laji – Level: MA Thesis Päivämäärä – Date:

29.12.2018

Sivumäärä – Number of pages:

58

Pro gradu -tutkielma XSivuainetutkielmaKandidaatin tutkielmaAineopintojen tutkielma

Tiivistelmä – Abstract: Tutkimukseni keskittyy faryngaaleihin ja arabian kielen faryngalisoituneisiin konsonantteihin. Tutkimusta tarkastellaan fonetiikan näkökulmasta. Arabian kielen opettajana Suomessa minulle avautui mahdollisuus äänittää kymmenen arabiaa opiskelevan suomalaisen ääntämistä. Äänitys koostuu sanoista, joissa tutkittavat konsonantit esiintyvät sanan keskellä kahden vokaalin välissä. Nämä konsonantit ovat arabian kielen faryngaalit /ʕ/, /ħ/ ja näiden vastineet /ʔ/, /h/, sekä arabian faryngalisoituneet konsonantit /t̥/, /d̥/, /s̥/, /ð̥/, ja näiden vastineet /t/, /d/, /d/, /ð/. Kukin näistä konsonanteista toistuu äänityksessä viisi kertaa, jotta tulokset olisivat tilastollisesti luotettavat. Näitä sanoja verrataan samoihin sanoihin äidinkielenään arabiaa puhuvien ääntäminä. Äänityksessä käytetään ”rapid-shadowing paradigm” -menetelmää. Tuloksia tarkastellaan akustisella analyysillä. Analyysin tulokset osoittavat, että arabiaa toisena kielenä opiskelevat suomenkieliset puhujat ääntävät faryngalisoituneita konsonantteja paremmin kuin faryngaaleja. Tarkempi tarkastelu osoittaa vielä, että soinnillisia faryngalisoituneita konsonantteja on helpompi ääntää kuin soinnittomia faryngalisoituneita konsonantteja. Toisaalta soinnittoman faryngaalin (/ħ/) ääntäminen osoittautuu helpommaksi kuin soinnittoman vastineen (/ʕ/). Akustisen analyysin tuloksiin harkitaan sovellettavan toisen kielen oppimisen kolmea hypoteesia. Pääasiassa soveltaminen puoltaa teorioita seuraavasti: (1) Uusi äänne on helpompaa oppia kohdekielellä, jos äänne on samankaltainen kuin lähdekielessä. (2) Jos äänne on vieras lähdekielessä, se on vaikea oppia. (Alwabari, 2013). (3) Oppijalle uusien äidinkielen kaltaisten foneemien havaitseminen ja tuottaminen ei ole mahdollista. Uusien äänteiden havaitseminen ja ääntäminen on aina sidoksissa jo lähdekielestä löytyviin äänteisiin. Vasta tämän jälkeen voidaan luoda uusi foneettinen kategoria, joka voi olla erilainen kuin lähdekielen kategoria.

Avainsanat – Keywords: faryngaaleihin, faryngalisoituneisiin, arabia, suomea, fonetiikka, akustisen analyysi, toisen kielen oppimisen.


Table of contents: 1. Introduction …………………………………………..…………………………. 06

2. Theoretical background …………………………….…………………………… 08

2.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 08

2.2. Arabic and Finnish phonological backgrounds …………………………….. 09

2.3. A closer look into pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants …………….. 10

2.4. Observation and recording of pronunciation organs’ movements …………. 12

2.5. Acoustic analysis ……………………………………………………………. 15

2.6. Second language learning theoretical background ………………………… 18

2.6.1. Lado’s (1957) contrastive analysis hypothesis (CA) …………………… 18

2.6.2. Best’s (1995) perceptual assimilation model (PAM) …………………… 19

2.6.3. Flege’s (1995) speech learning model (SLM) ………………………….. 20

3. Data and methodology ………………………………………….……………….. 23

3.1. Pilot study …………………………………………………………………… 23

3.2. Data collection methodologies background ………………………………… 27

3.2.1. Methodologies definitions …………………………………………….. 27

3.2.1.1. Nasoendoscopy ………………………………………………….. 27

3.2.1.2. Videofluouroscopy ………………………………………………. 27

3.2.1.3. Electromagnetic articulography (EMA) …………………………. 28

3.3. Data collection and methodology …………………………………………… 30

4. Results ……………………………………………………………………………. 32

4.1.How good are Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 in pharyngealization

(turning an allophonic feature into a phonemic one)? ……….…………………….. 34

4.1.1. Data presentation and acoustic analysis ……………………………….. 34

4.1.2. Data against L2 learning theories ……………..………………………. 39

4.2. Pharyngeals, a novel two consonants for the Finnish language. Is it possible for

Finnish speakers to learn them? ……………………………………………………. 40

4.2.1. Data presentation and acoustic analysis ……………………………….. 40

4.2.2. Data against L2 learning theories ………………………..……………. 43

4.3. Which is easier to learn, for Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2:

Pharyngealized consonants or pharyngeals? ……………………………………….. 45

4.3.1.Data presentation and acoustic analysis ………………..…………….… 45

4.3.2. Data against L2 learning theories …………………………….……….. 47


4.4. Is it true that because voiceless consonants outweigh voiced ones in Finnish that

Voiceless pharyngealized consonant will be easier for them to learn than voiceless

pharyngealized ones? ……………………………………………………………… 49

4.4.1. Data presentation and acoustic analysis ………………………………. 49

5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….…….. 52


1. Introduction

This study tests the pronunciation of pharyngeal and pharyngealized Arabic

consonants. It is mainly a phonetic study, but also a pedagogical one.

Arabic is our target language here. We will get to learn some basic notions about the

sound system of it, along with a deeper analysis of its most common feature (i.e.,

pharyngealization). On the other hand, Finnish is the native language of the current study.

Learning about its phonological system is also a crucial step that we will go through in this

study.

The subjects of the study are 10 Finnish speakers learning Arabic as a second language

in Joensuu, Finland. All the subjects volunteered to do the sound recording in the language

lab of the University of Eastern Finland. The tools were as simple as a computer, a speaker,

and a microphone. All placed in a room that minimizes noise for the clarity of the recording,

and the accuracy of the analysis.

The method followed for the recording is called “rapid-shadowing paradigm.” This

method, we found is optimal as it does not involve reading (very difficult because of the

difficulty of the Arabic language alphabets for the Finnish speakers). Instead, it is a rapid

listening-and-repeating of Arabic words.

Another method of cards reading was followed in a pilot study. The card reading

method showed so inaccurate results due to the interference of the reading difficulty.

Switching to rapid-shadowing paradigm solved this problem. Moreover, got us more accurate

results.

A total of 600 sound files were analyzed against 60 sound files. The 60 sound files

belonged to the native speaker of the Arabic language. Those 60 files included words having

the target consonants in between two vowels. Each target consonant repeated five times for a

reliable statistical results. The target files included: On the one hand, the four pharyngealized

Arabic consonants, and their plain counterparts. On the other hand, the two Arabic language

pharyngeals, and their glottal counterparts.

Acoustic analysis is our tool for results’ digging. We used Praat along the way in all of its

procedures (i.e., voice recording, annotation, and formant extraction).

Previous studies are our references, that supports our findings. We made use of many

previous studies’ findings to link with ours. This linking helped a lot in understanding our

results, and making the most of it.


Finally, we tested our results to three second language learning hypothesis. Those three

hypothesis have gone popular in the recent research period. Exclusively, they are the

contrastive analysis by Lado (1957,) Best’s Perceptual assimilation model (PAM), and Flege’s

(1995) speech learning model (SLM).


2. Theoretical background

2.1. Introduction

Arabic pharyngeals /ʕ/, /ħ/ and their counterparts /ʔ/, /h/, and pharyngealized consonant

/t̥/, /d̥/, /s̥/, /ð̥/, and their counterparts /t/, /d/, /d/, /ð/ are the subjects of this study. We will start

by a little introduction about the Arabic (target language,) and Finnish (native-language).

Then we will move towards reviewing some of the previous studies that were concerned

about these phonemes (Arabic gutturals and pharyngealized coronal) understanding. Later on

we will review some second language learning hypothesis on which we are going to base our

hypothesis. So that, the results would have a backbone to support it.


2.2. Arabic and Finnish phonological backgrounds

Semitic languages are marked by a limited vocalic system and a rich consonantal

system. There are typically three basic vowels a, i, u, which are attested in both their short

and long forms. Semitic languages are also marked by a rich inventory of guttural

consonants, which include both the laryngeals /ʔ/, /h/, the pharyngeals /ʕ/, /ħ/, and the uvular

fricatives /χ/ and /ʁ/. The consonantal phonemes of Semitic languages usually constitute

triads of voiceless, voiced and ‘emphatic’ in certain sub-sets of the coronal set.

The major lexical contrasts in Arabic are indicated through the consonants. This is

reflected in the Arabic script which is based on (mainly triconsonantal) roots of consonants

and glides, and which inserts short vowels when necessary as diacritics above or below the

consonant. Thus, Arabic has a very rich consonantal system and a relatively impoverished

vocalic system.

On the other hand, The classification of [Finnish] consonants according to manner of

articulation includes three major classes (i.e., obstruents, glottals, and resonants.) The class of

glottals is very small. Using the nearest IPA cardinal vowel symbols, the eight vowel

phonemes could be given as /i/, /e/, /y/, /ø/, /æ/, /a/, /o/ and /u/. They occur e.g. in the series of

word forms mikin – mekin – mykin – mökin – mäkin – makin – mokin – mukin.

Six of the Arabic consonants are produced at the pharynx area. Being not so familiar

to other languages- the example we have here is Finnish- makes them difficult to learn. The

pharyngeal consonants are primarily articulated in the pharynx and they have quite a tight

constriction in the pharynx. In Arabic there are two pharyngeals; /ʔ/, and /ħ/. On the other

hand, the pharyngealized consonants (commonly known as emphatics) have a lower degree

of constriction at the pharynx.


2.3. A closer look into pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants

Laufer & Baer made a study on emphatic and pharyngealized sounds in Hebrew and

Arabic. Their results clearly show that all the emphatic sounds, when pronounced as such,

share pharyngealization as a secondary articulation. A constriction is formed between the

pharyngeal walls and the tip of the epiglottis, which tilts backwards. To a lesser degree, the

lower part of the root of the tongue is also retracted. The data show that all the emphatic and

pharyngeal sounds we studied are made with qualitatively the same pharyngeal constriction.

However, the pharyngeal constriction is more extreme and less variable for the pharyngeal

sounds, where it is the primary articulation, than for the emphatic sounds, where it is a

secondary articulation. (Laufer, A., & Baer, T., 1988).

Furtherly explained in one of Laufer's earlier studies: A survey of the literature

dealing with emphatics indicates that most investigators, although some did not state so

explicitly, believe that emphaticness in Hebrew and Arabic involves a secondary articulation.

Secondary articulation is defined as an articulation performed separately from and in addition

to the primary articulation associated with a sound. "The secondary articulation, according to

definition, is less constricted than the primary articulation; if the primary articulation is

constricted to the degree of 'stop', for instance, the secondary articulation can be constricted

to the degree of 'fricative' or 'frictionless continuant' If the primary articulation is to the

degree of 'fricative', the secondary articulation must be wider." (Laufer, 1985, p. 83,

translated from Hebrew).

A more detailed analysis of how the pharyngeal and pharyngealized sounds are

produced is given by Panconcelli-Calzia (1924, pp. 4 8 - 4 9 ). [Where he suggests] six

processes for the emphatic consonants: (1) Contraction of the muscles of the hyoid bone; (2)

lowering of the epiglottis towards the glottis; (3) raising of the larynx; (4) constriction of the

pharynx due to the actions of the constrictor muscles; (5) shorter bursts for the emphatics; (6)

earlier voice onset after emphatics than after non-emphatics.

Giannini and Pettorino (1982) examined one Arabic speaker of a Baghdadi dialect,

and presented acoustic and radiographic data. They concluded that the emphatic/non-

emphatic distinction is one of pharyngealization. Their acoustic results are that for the

emphatics F1 and F2 approach each other: F1 rises and F2 lowers. F3 is almost unchanged.


They interpreted their radiographic results as showing a constriction in the pharynx for the

emphatic sounds.

The rising of F1 can be due to the more space we get horizontally in the mouth due to

the curving of the tongue. Hence, it can be also an evidence for pharyngealization. Observed

constriction of the pharynx was always accompanied by lowering of F2 and raising of Fl

(Laufer, A., & Baer, T., 1988)


2.4. Observation and recording of pronunciation organs’ movements

Different mechanisms (i.e. cineradiography, cinefluourography, fibreoptic

nasoendoscopic, X-ray, and electromyography) were used to record the movement of the

tongue (especially the back and root parts), the movement of the epiglottis (and whether it

moves independently or along with the tongue root), the pharynx (how far it is constricted,)

and the larynx.

Ghazeli (1977: 37) reports the main constriction for /ħ/ and /ʕ/ as being formed by the

approximation of the epiglottis and the rear wall of the pharynx, about the level of the fourth

cervical vertebra (CV4). His cinefluourographic data revealed a narrower constriction in the

case of /ħ/ (Al-Tamimi, 2011)

Laufer & Condax (1979, 1981) present fibreoptic nasoendoscopic evidence which leads

them to conclude that the epiglottis is an active articulator responsible for significant acoustic

effects, that it is able to move independently of the tongue root and that it does so in the

production of Hebrew and Arabic pharyngeal consonants and the open /a/ vowel. However, in

a later paper, Laufer & Baer (1988) modified this position to one that recognises the

importance of the epiglottis as an articulator without attributing to it the ability to move

independently of the root of the tongue. In this they agree with Ghazeli (1977: 36–37),

Giannini & Pettorino (1982: 25) and El-Halees (1983: 466, 1985: 288). (depicted from: Al-

Tamimi, 2011).

“in all cases, the constriction for the pharyngeals is made between the epiglottis and the

posterior pharyngeal wall”. X-ray photographs in Ghali (1983) show the epiglottis “almost in

contact with the back wall of the throat” (Ghali 1983: 442) for both pharyngeals.

Examination of xeroradiographic images by Bukshaisha (1985: 283–312) led her to the same

conclusion for Qatari Arabic. Both her informants formed a narrow constriction between the

epiglottis and the rear pharyngeal wall at around the level of the third cervical vertebra. For

both pharyngeals, Elgendy (2001: 59) noted that the epiglottis descended onto the apices of

the arytenoid cartilages “closing off most of the distance between the root of the tongue and

the posterior wall of the lower pharynx”. Contrary to Giannini & Pettorino (1982) and El-


Halees (1983), he is of the opinion that the epiglottis does move independently of the tongue

(depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

It has been commonly observed that contraction of the pharynx accompanies the

rearward movement of the epiglottis in a kind of sphincteric action (Bukshaisha 1985: 304–

306; Elgendy 2001: 66) consistent with the engagement of what Esling (1996, 1999, 2005)

calls the laryngeal articulator (see also Hassan & Esling, 2011).

That the larynx typically rises in the production of Arabic pharyngeals is something that

has been noted by several researchers (e.g. Ghazeli 1977: 36; El-Halees 1983: 466; Laradi

1983: 105; Bukshaisha 1985: 299; Butcher & Ahmad 1987: 167; Elgendy 2001: 83;

Heselwood 2007: 20).

Whether the epiglottis moves under its own steam or through being pushed by the

tongue, or by the tilt of the thyroid cartilage (El-Halees 1983: 466), the picture from all

previous studies is that it plays a significant role in the production of the pharyngeal

consonants through its influence on the shape of the resonating cavity (Esling 1999: 364) but

less of a role in the production of the laryngeals because it does not move so far from its

position of rest (Laufer & Baer 1988: 191) (depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

During the production of the pharyngeals /ħ, ʕ/ the articulation is characterised by

retraction of the root of the tongue and slight forward displacement of the posterior wall of

the lower pharynx, resulting in a place of articulation at the level of the epiglottis. For both

consonants the larynx is raised by at least 0.7cm with respect to its position during non-

guttural sounds. The articulatory constriction is, however, narrower for the voiceless /ħ/ than

for the voiced /ʕ/ (Ghazeli 1977). The nature of the active articulator of pharyngeals is subject

to disagreement among authors. A strong claim is maintained by Laufer & Condax (1979)

who think that the epiglottis retracts independently from the tongue root. Such a claim has

been challenged by Boff-Dkhissi (1983) and toned down by Laufer & Baer (1988), where it

is shown that both the tongue root and the epiglottis covary with each other. The reason

behind this disagreement is probably due to the different observation techniques used.

Fiberscopy was the main technique used by Laufer and his colleagues and by Esling, while

Ghazeli and Boff-Dkhissi used X-ray films. Fiberscopy, compared to cineradiography, has its

limits in covering the whole tongue dorsum and the coordination between articulators, mainly


the tongue and the laryngeal /pharyngeal articulators. Esling (1999) argues that there is not

much ground for distinguishing two distinct places of articulation for sounds produced in the

lower pharynx, i.e. epiglottal and pharyngeal. Rather these sounds should be distinguished as

a function of manner of articulation or larynx height. Esling suggests that the active

articulator is not the epiglottis but rather the aryepiglottic folds (cf. Zeroual el al. 2004;

Edmondson et al. 2007) and hence the sounds are considered to be epiglottal rather than

pharyngeal. Heselwood & Al-Tamimi (this volume), using fibreoptic nasoendoscopy, have

also shown the importance of the retraction and the lowering of the epiglottis in

distinguishing pharyngeal consonants from laryngeal ones. (depicted from: Yeou, 2011).

A further point of uncertainty is whether the primary articulation is different in plain

and emphatic coronal consonants, with some researchers claiming that the point of contact is

more retracted in the emphatics (Cantineau 1960: 15; Trubetzkoy 1969: 131; Al-Ani 1970:

45; Odisho 1973: 41; Laradi 1983: 325–326; Bukshaisha 1985: 132). If the back of the

tongue is raised up and backwards, or the root of the tongue is retracted, then one might

expect the tip of the tongue to be more constrained in the forward direction when making a

dental or alveolar gesture, even moreso if there is sulcalisation of the tongue body (Ali &

Daniloff 1972: 89; see also Zeroual et al. 2011). (depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

Using electromyography, Kuriyagawa et al. (1988) found the posterior part of the

genioglossus muscle was more active for plain / t, s / than for emphatic / t̥, s̥ /, and increased

more for the vowel following an emphatic consonant in JA. Activation of the genioglossus is

thought to contribute to pulling the tongue forward out of the pharynx, an action needing a

greater effort after an emphatic consonant. They also observed greater activity of the

geniohyoid muscle in the vowel after an emphatic, speculating that this muscle contributes to

forward movement of the tongue by displacing the hyoid bone in a forward direction. These

results provide some insight into the physiology responsible for the lowering of F2 and

raising of F1 evident in their acoustic data. (depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).


2.5. Acoustic analysis

It is well known that the frequency of the second formant resonance (F2) of vowels

adjacent to emphatic consonants is typically lower than when adjacent to corresponding plain

consonants (Obrecht 1968; Al-Ani 1970; Ghazeli 1977; Giannini & Pettorino 1982; Card

1983; Bukshaisha 1985; Norlin 1987; Heselwood 1992; Zawaydeh 1998; Khattab et al. 2006;

Embarki et al. this volume; Hassan & Esling this volume; Zawaydeh & De Jong this volume;

Zeroual et al. this volume). (depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

All acoustic studies of these sounds have noted a lowering of the second formant

resonance (F2) of vowels adjoining pharyngeal consonants (Al-Ani 1970; Ghazeli 1977;

Adamson 1981; Bukshaisha 1985; Laufer & Baer 1988; Butcher & Ahmad 1987; Heselwood

1992) and F2 lowering in vowels next to the laryngeals has also been reported (Heselwood

1992). Researchers agree however that F2 lowering is greater in vowels next to the

pharyngeals. Al-Ani (1970: 59), for example, identifies this as their “distinguishing factor”.


F1 tends to rise in vowels adjoining pharyngeals, a feature that has been observed to a

lesser extent in the vicinity of laryngeals as well (Heselwood 1992). The perturbation theory

of vowel formant resonance predicts that F2 will be lowered if there is a narrowing of the

vocal tract close to a point of velocity maximum for F2, and F1 will be raised if there is a

narrowing close to a velocity minimum for F1. In a typical male vocal tract F1 will rise and

F2 fall if there is a narrowing in the pharynx at least 2.83 cm above the glottis which is about

the level of the laryngeal additus and the aryepiglottic folds (Heselwood 2007: 12). (depicted

from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

Larynx and hyoid raising were also observed by Elgendy (2001: 83) for Egyptian

Arabic. Upward displacement of the larynx is predicted to raise the frequencies of all

formants due to reduction in the length of the vocal tract. Part of the increase in F1 may be

attributed to this, but clearly the lowering of F2 is contrary and shows that the effects of the

articulatory constriction on the resonance pattern far outweigh those of the larynx-raising.



Two studies have conducted perceptual experiments with synthetic speech to

investigate these perceptual cues (El-Halees 1985; Alwan 1989). Both agree that only F1

(onset value) is critical in discriminating between these categories as listeners categorically

move from uvulars to pharyngeals with raised F1. As for coarticulation, it seems that

pharyngeals and particularly uvulars have a much lower coarticulatory resistance from

vocalic influence, compared to pharyngealised consonants (Ghazeli 1977; Boff-Dkhissi 1983;

Yeou 1997).

Acoustically, there is much acoustic variability in the realisation of uvular and

pharyngeal sounds, depending on the language variety and the context. The voiceless

pharyngeal /ħ/ is either a fricative or an approximant and is found to have aperiodic noise

together with marked formant structure (Ghazeli 1977). For the voiced pharyngeal /ʕ/,

allophonic variation of manner (stop and approximant) has been attested. Al-Ani (1970)

reports that Iraqi speakers realise /ʕ/ as a stop (cf. El-Halees 1985). The same stopped

realisation is found in Sudanese Arabic (Adamson 1981). Ghazeli (1977) finds that /ʕ/ is not

realised as a stop by any of his informants, including one Iraqi. Butcher & Ahmad (1987:

170) report that with three Iraqi speakers /ʕ/ is “realised as a voiced approximant, which in

final position is often followed by a stop articulation, and which is almost invariably

accompanied by creaky voice”. Alwan (1986) finds stopped as well as approximant /ʕ/ with

her Iraqi informants, but the most common realisation is the approximant. With Lebanese

(Klatt & Stevens 1969), Egyptian (Norlin 1983) and Moroccan subjects (Yeou & Maeda

1995), /ʕ/ is mostly realised as an approximant. Heselwood (2007) identifies a variant of /ʕ/

which he calls a ‘tight approximant’; it is acoustically characterised by amplitude reduction

of the first harmonics, including the fundamental. The study of Heselwood (2007), which is

based on 21 speakers from different Arab countries, shows that the prevalence of /ʕ/ variants

is as follows:

1. the normal approximant (49%),

2. the tight approximant (47%),

3. and the stop (2%).


The term ‘tight’ “refers to the impression that a high degree of constriction is present in

the articulatory mechanism, higher than is normally associated with strictures of open

approximation” (Heselwood 2007: 9). (depicted from: Yeou, 2011).

Khattab et al. (2006: 138–139) discuss the possibility that using the acoustic evidence

of F1 and F3 values to determine the location of the secondary constriction may be

confounded by the lowering effects on all formants of lip-protrusion and / or sulcalisation of

the tongue. (depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

In her 1998 study, Zawaydeh measured tokens of her own speech and found that F1 is

higher in emphatic coronals than in plain coronals, and F2 is lower. Although she does not

give overall average values, these results are in general agreement with previous studies of

other Arabic varieties. (depicted from: Al-Tamimi, 2011).

Al-Masri & Jongman (2004) found no durational effects of emphasis in JA but did find

the expected lowering of F2 in vowels adjacent to emphatic coronals. They report that, on

average across gender and different vowel contexts, F2 was 521 Hz lower when adjacent to

emphatics compared to plain coronals. They present no data for F1 or F3. (depicted from: Al-

Tamimi, 2011).

In addition to confirming the importance of a lowered F2 in distinguishing emphatic

from plain coronals, Khattab et al. (2006) provide evidence in support of Zawaydeh (1998)

for a raised F1. They found that across gender and vowel context, F2 was on average 520 Hz

lower while F1 was on average 96 Hz higher, a difference that is statistically significant.

(depicted from: Embarki, 2011).

Hassan (2005) showed that pharyngealisation introduced spectral modifications,

especially visible in a slight upward shift of F1 and a clear downward shift of F2. (depicted

from: Embarki, 2011).


2.6. Second language learning theoretical background

2.6.1. Lado’s (1957) contrastive analysis hypothesis (CA)

Contrastive Analysis hypothesis (CA) simply says that if the target language (TL) and

(NL) are similar then it would be easier to learn than if they were different. Phonemically

speaking, if the target phoneme the learning from the TL is found in his / her NL, then it

would be easy to learn, and vice versa. It is based on a structural comparison between the

sound systems of both NL and TL.

There are three elements, according to Lado, instrumental in this comparison;

phonemic inventory, allophonic membership within these phonemes, and positional

distribution of phonemes within the language. (Alwabari 2013). “Phonemic split” (Eckman &

Iverson, 1997, pp. 192- 193), can be another hurdle for learning. This, applied in a Finnish-

Arabic setting would be like a Finn trying to learn the two Arabic sounds /S/, and /Sˤ/. For the

Finn they are allophones of the phoneme /S/ as in "Säädä" and "Saada". However, an Arabic

speaker perfectly recognizes them as two phonemes. This phenomena "researchers argue that

it induces the maximal learning difficulty.” (Alwabari 2013)

Not only the availability of phonemes in TL and NL, or the matching of phonemes and

allophones of both languages makes the learning process easier / more difficult, but also the

phonological rules that govern the phonological system of the language has a clear impact

according to Lado (1957). Alwabari gives a clarifying example about that: "both English and

French have the fricative /ʒ/ and all its allophones; nonetheless, these consonants can occur in

initial position in French (for example, jamais) but not in English. This distributional

constraint causes English learners of French to transfer this phonological rule and, thus,

encounter a difficulty learning /ʒ/ in initial position." (Alwabari, 2013)

In the area of research, there are two main streams that made use of Lado's theory. The

first one supports the idea that the similar sounds in TL and NL are easy to learn, including

(Brière, 1966; Eckman et. al., 1997; Flege & Port, 1981; Gass & Selinker, 2001). On the

other hand, other researchers (such as Major 1994) proved that it is easier to learn a new

sound in TL that is not available in NL. (Alwabari, 2013)


However, this hypothesis began to show its inadequacy, leading to opening the door for

many other hypothesis like; the perceptual assimilation model (Best, 1995); and the speech

learning model (Flege, 1995) whom we are going to talk about in the following sections.

2.6.2. Best’s (1995) perceptual assimilation model (PAM)

The perceptual assimilation model, developed by Best (1995) suggests that learning a

second language depends majorly on how similar or different the segments are in the NL and

TL. Moreover, there are two principles for that: 1) the universal phonetic domain, and 2)

native phonological space. Moreover, the model uses the phonetic gesture, the basic unit of

the universal phonetic domain, [it] is the coordinated formation and release of a varying-

degree constriction that is harnessed for sound production and formed along the vocal tract

(Browman et. al., 1990a).

Additionally, the multidimensional, universal phonetic domain defines the “biodynamic

constraints” of the vocal tract (Best, 1995). To illustrate, this domain is the summation of all

spatial and temporal properties of all possible phonetic gestures that are harnessed in the

world’s languages. (Alwabari, 2013). Hence, this domain can range from the lips—as most of

the world’s languages have bilabial consonants (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1990)—to the

glottis. Although only a few languages make use of a posterior, glottal constriction (such as in

Arabic /ʔ/ and in ejective consonants /p’, t’, k’, s’/, Ashby, 2011)

On the other hand, a native phonological space is part of the universal phonetic domain

and it encompasses all the sound articulations that this language uses. more details are

mentioned above in the Arabic and Finnish phonological environments section.

There are four aspects of the native phonological space that would determine the

similarities or differences between the TL and NL. The spatial dimension along the tube

geometry (i.e. vocal tract) that encompasses all locations of a given language’s gestures

(Alwabari, 2013). The spatiotemporal invariants of language gestures (i.e. the space and time

parameters of a language’s gestures). The production of Arabic /s̥/ necessitates special timing


of the formation and release of the pharyngeal constriction relative to the coronal constriction

(Laufer et. al., 1988)

The degrees of constriction of the articulatory gestures represent the third aspect of

native phonological space, and refer to the degree of proximity between the active and

passive articulators involved in gesture formation.

There are varying degrees of constriction in segmental production—for example,

closed (as in plosives); critical (as in voiced fricatives); narrow (as in approximants); mid (as

in most vowels); and wide such as the opening of the glottis in the production of voiceless

stops (Ashby, 2011; and Best, 1995). For example, Arabic has quite a different degree of

constriction in pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants that are not found in Finnish. As

we can see the Arabic /ħ, ʕ/ are narrower than the Finnish /h/, and /a/. This narrow

constriction harnessed in Arabic consonants cannot be incorporated within English

phonological space; therefore, it could be a source of sound learning difficulty. (Alwabari,

2013)

The fourth aspect is “gestural constellation” (Browman et. al., 1990a) or the assembly

of multiple simple gestures in the production of a single utterance. (Alwabari, 2013)

To illustrate, multiple gestures coordinate together in articulating Arabic /s̥/. These

gestures include forming a median depression (groove) along the upper surface of the tongue;

raising the tongue blade to touch the alveolar ridge (anterior, close constriction); retracting

the root of the tongue to approach the back wall of the pharynx; elevating the hyoid bone and

raising the larynx. (Alwabari, 2013). This combination cannot be found in the Finnish /s/,

that's why it does not fall in the same phonological space and so can be difficult to harness.

2.6.3. Flege’s (1995) speech learning model (SLM):

perceptual assimilation model accounts for the speech production as being mediated by

its perception. On the other hand, speech assimilation model pays attention to the speech

perception only. However, the term native phonological space, is fundamental to both.

Central premise of SLM is the proposal that individuals’ NL phonetic systems “remain

adaptive” over time and that they are susceptible to reconfigurations and additions as a result

of learning TL sounds. (Alwabari, 2013)


There are Seven different sub-hypothesis. Relative to our study are First hypothesis

(H1,) and Second hypothesis (H2.) Below is a brief introduction of them, along with their

relation to the present study.

The first hypothesis (H1) suggests that NL and TL sounds are perceptually related at an

allophonic level rather than at a phonemic level, and ability to perceive and discriminate TL

sound correlates with its position within the word. (Alwabari, 2013).

An attention was paid to place the targeted pharyngealized sounds and their plain

counterparts in the middle of the word. Pharyngealization effect extends extends to the

adjacent vowels (before and after the pharyngealized phoneme.) In Finnish, the

pharyngealization effect is seen regarded as phonemic one in vowels. For example, there is /

a/, and /æ/. They are both considered different phonemes for Finnish speakers, while they are

considered as different allophones for Arabic speakers. On the other hand, in Arabic it is the

other way around. /s/ and /s̥/ are regarded as different phonemes, but for a Finnish speaker

they have only an allophonic difference.

Pharyngealized consonants have the effect of changing the allophonic feature of the

adjacent vowel. In the same time, back and front vowel change the allophonic feature of

adjacent consonant.

The perception of our subjects to the Arabic pharyngealized consonants can be an

allophonic, as they relate it to their NL phonological environment. However, what would be

the result of that?

The second hypothesis (H2) argues that a new phonetic category can be configured to

represent TL sounds that differ from the NL sound perceptually. (Alwabari, 2013)

Arabic pharyngeals is a tailored example for this hypothesis. On the one hand, /ʕ/ finds

it difficult to fit in the Finnish utterances. It is a new phoneme, perceptually it is new trying to

find its way through the Finnish tongue. The subjects try to place it somewhere resulting in

some mispronunciation like and open vowel (e.g., /a/,) or glottal stop /ʔ/. Nevertheless, they

sometimes manage to realize and repeat it. They create a new phonetic category for it, but

would this new category sound like a native’s?


/ħ/ sound learning for Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 finds its place in this

hypothesis as well. /ħ/ perception can be quite problematic. For a native speaker, it could be

related to /h/, however is it perceived in the same manner for a learner?

Flege predicts that although TL learners do create new phonetic categories for

TL sounds does not necessarily permit them to produce the TL sounds as authentically as the

native speakers do. (Flege, 1995, pp. 243)


3. Data and methodology

When we look at the Arabic language, we find that it is very rich in consonants. Another

fundamental characteristic in it is the pharyngealized consonants. There are four of them in

Arabic, namely, /t̥/, /d̥/, /s̥/, and /ð̥/. At the same time, there is the same non-pharyngealized

versions of them: /t/, /d/, /s/, and /ð/.

Looking at the Finnish language, we find that it uses voiceless consonants (e.g., /t/ and /

s/) way more than their voiced counterparts (i.e., /d/, and /z/). This was also the reason behind

picking two voiceless plain consonants and their pharyngealized / voiced versions of them /s/,

/s̥/, /t/, /t̥/, /d/, /d̥/, /ð/, and /ð̥/. The study aims to answer the primary question related to

pharyngealization. However, a minor question to be answered is whether pharyngealizing

voiced consonants is easier or pharyngealizing voiceless ones. Another question to be

answered in this study is related to Pharyngeals. The hypothesis suggests that the voiceless

pharyngealized consonants would be easier for Finnish speakers to pronounce as it is in the

same phonological environment of the Finnish language.

3.1. Pilot study

In order to prove this hypothesis, we carried out a pilot study in which we recorded with

one native Arabic speaker, from Saudi Arabia, and one Finn who has been learning the Arabic

language for over two years now. Twenty sentences were prepared as cards, from which the

subjects were asked to read in a language studio.

Figure 01 - An example card (though it was given without the phonetic transcriptions)


A total of eight consonants are introduced in this study. Four are voiced along with their

voiceless counterparts. Four are pharyngealized and their plain counterparts. Each sound is

repeated five times. Additionally, ten distractors were included.

The sentences were then trimmed into words’ audio files. Subject words were analyzed

using Praat acoustic analysis software.

Figure 02 - An example waveform and spectrum of the sound /t̥/ pronounced by a native

Arabic speaker (on the left) and a Finn learning Arabic as a foreign language (on the right

hand).


F1 and F2 were collected, and the results are shown in the following table:

Table 01 - the average of F2 collected in the eight different sounds from a native Arabic

speaker and a Finnish learner of Arabic as a second language.

It is quite a known fact that a low F2 at consonant release is an essential cue to

pharyngealization in Arabic. The results confirm that especially in /t̥/, and /d̥/.

The practice was very beneficial for me as I got involved in working on something very

much related to the thesis. The biggest research project I worked on before was a baby thesis

for my BA degree. I was intimidated by working on a big project like a master thesis, but this

pilot study paved the way for me. I realized that all I have to do is do the same on a bigger

scale, meaning doing more analysis and getting more results. However, the methodology

would be quite the same. Then I just realized that I would like to do the same study on a

bigger scale so that we may get more significant results.

I also faced some difficulties and made some mistakes that were avoided in this study

like:

The difficulty of cutting the files to get them ready for the Praat analysis. We used some

online website for cutting the audio files called http://mp3cut.net/, but sometimes it was not

accurate in cutting the files, so sometimes some sounds dropped, and we had to work on the

file again. It is a good idea to give some ample space before and after the target word even if

it included some other sounds as it is pretty easy to exclude them later on Praat. This problem

was prominent in the native speaker’s file as he was more fluent and sounds were very close


to each other. The best solution for that though is to use a reliable acoustic analysis software,

like Praat, in editing and analyzing the files acoustically from A to Z.

Another mistake that we did was the repetition of words. We repeated two words in

different examples. Maybe it could have been better to bring different words to get better and

more accurate results in the end.

The fact that all the sounds under investigation here are put at the beginning of the

words might help in getting more accurate results, but I am not sure whether this helps in the

authenticity of speaking the language or not. This idea turned out after discussing with my

supervisor to be a rather big mistake. Acoustic analysis of consonants is complicated in the

sense that we cannot get formant values from it to analyze reliably. Hence, and after

reviewing previous similar studies, came the idea of analyzing adjacent (before and after)

vowels. The consonant pronunciation affects the preceding and following phoneme that is

adjacent to it. The good idea is to surround the target phoneme with vowels. Vowels have the

most explicit formant values, and that makes analysis easier and more reliable.

During this pilot study, we also got learn that both waveform and spectrograms are

fundamental in any acoustic analysis. Waveforms were used mainly, in this study, to decide

where the phoneme starts and ends. It is more evident there than in the spectrogram.

On the other hand, We need to look at the spectrogram in order to see the difference in

pharyngealization as the pharyngealized consonants tend to have a lower F2. That is why we

had to make use of both the waveform and the spectrogram. The methodology I used for

identifying the beginning and the end of the consonant was to mark at the peak of the

waveform just before it starts to have its familiar shape of the vowel and go back till the

beginning since formants started to appear. It is a brief period, and that is why analyzing

consonant sounds can be a bit tricky. Then we got the mean F1, and F2 of the selected area

and recorded it.


3.2. Data collection methodologies background

We noticed that these methods were majorly used: nasoendoscopy, videofluoroscopy,

Electromagnetic articulography (EMA), and spectrography in analyzing pharyngealization.

The study scope is only limited to acoustic analysis (sound waves and spectrograms).

However, it was crucial to read about other methodologies for a better understanding of the

meaning of formants (spectrographic analysis). We found that listing them here would also

help the reader for a better understanding of the thesis in general and the formants’ analysis in

particular.

3.2.1. Methodologies definitions

Here we list the essential pharyngealization analysis methodologies on which most

related studies use. Then we end with the methodology I followed in my study:

3.2.1.1. Nasoendoscopy

An investigation performed using a long flexible tube with a bright light at the end which

is inserted through one of the subject’s nostrils and can be positioned to look down into the

pharynx. It sends the digital images for display on a monitor at a sampling rate of 30 frames

per second. After capture, the images were replayed in slow motion with the synchronized

audio signal from the built-in audio recorder. The frame of maximum articulatory constriction

for each target sound was identified and a copy taken for analysis. (Al-Tamimi, 2011)

3.2.1.2. Videofluouroscopy

A technique for viewing and recording real-time X-ray imaging using a video camera and

must be carried out in the radiology department of a hospital under medical supervision. It

can deliver a lateral view of the oropharyngeal areas and render visible movements of the

jaw, tongue, epiglottis, and larynx in the vertical and front-back planes. Images are displayed

on a monitor at the sampling rate of 30 frames per second. (Al-Tamimi, 2011)


3.2.1.3. Electromagnetic articulography (EMA)

A modern technique to record articulatory data. A sampling rate of 200 Hz gives an

outstanding temporal resolution. That allows the capturing of excellent speech movements. In

the following sections, we present the EMA data, extracted from an ongoing project on the

direction of pharyngealization co-articulatory effects in the Arab world, to provide an

interpretation of the different articulatory observations. (Embarki, 2011)

Spectrography and sound waves are analyzed after recording audio files using a decent

voice recorder usually in a language studio (where it allows to capture only the voice of the

subject without any background noise). Later on, these data are opened and analyzed

acoustically with the help of sound analysis software (e.g., Praat, emu).

Another exciting method was observed in (Yeou, 2011), where “Idealised models based

on realistic vocal-tract area functions are proposed for Arabic uvular /χ/, /ʁ/ and pharyngeal /

ħ/, /ʕ/ and compared against data from four male speakers of Moroccan Arabic (MA).” (Yeou,

2011). These idealized models were used to create “versions of [aCa] sequences… and

subjected to perception tests” (Yeou, 2011).

Another method was taking the “center-frequency measurements … of F1, F2 and F3

from combined FFT and LPC spectra using a 512-point Hamming window setting at the

onset of the vowel following the target consonant in the context of initial position, and at the

offset of the vowel preceding the target consonant in the final position context. LPC

coefficients were adjusted for sampling rate (11025 Hz) and speaker gender.” (Al-Tamimi,

2011)

Something else which sounded interesting is converting the acoustic values into the

Bark scale to model perception (Al-Tamimi, 2011).

A different way of analyzing the acoustic data was Locus equations (LEs), outlined

by Lindblom (1963). They “are linear regression functions derived by plotting the onset

frequencies of the F2 transitions of different vowels on the y-axis against their F2 steady

states on the x-axis. The formula is given in (1):

F2mid – F2onset = k*F2mid+c (where k and c are slope and intercept, respectively).

A relatively flat slope indicates minimal vowel co-articulatory effects, in which case F2

onset frequency is not sensitive to the nature of the following vowel (i.e., maximal co-


articulatory resistance of the consonant articulation to vowel effects). On the other hand, a

relatively steep slope indicates maximal coarticulation of the consonant with the vowel as F2

onset tends to have the same frequency as the vowel steady state (minimal coarticulatory

resistance of the consonant articulation to the vowel). (Embarki, 2011)

One way to study the coarticulation effect of pharyngealization is to compare the

dynamics of the articulation of sequences containing pharyngealized consonants with similar

sequences containing their plain cognates. (Embarki, 2011)

Frequency measurements were made of vowels immediately following and preceding

the pharyngeal consonants /ʕ/ and /ħ/. (Hassan, 2011)


3.3. Data collection and methodology

Many things have changed from the pilot study conducted above. The data was

collected from 10 Finnish speakers learning Arabic as a second language. The methodology is

called “rapid-reading paradigm,” and did not involve any reading. The reading process during

the pilot study proved to have an effect of pronunciation. Not all the learners are in the same

level of recognizing the Arabic alphabets and reading them correctly. That is why the “rapid-

shadowing paradigm” was used here, and it proved a success in this study. It involves a

beforehand recording of a native speaker. Then recording is then played to be repeated

directly after listening by the subjects (learners). Meaning that the subject listens to the

recorded word or phrase in Arabic and tries to repeat it, as best as s/he can.

Then, we created simple powerpoint slides. Each slide includes one Arabic word that

plays automatically when the slide is turned. The subject then has his/her headphones. The

subject listens and repeats. At the same time, Praat is on recording in the background

mono .wav file.

*

Figure 03 - a snapshot of one of the slides used for conducting the study using the “rapid-

shadowing paradigm."

After each session (lasted for 10 minutes on average). We saved the recording and then

cut each word in a separate file (having 12 target sounds * 5 repetitions = 60 different files).

We ended up in the end with 60 files times ten subjects = 600 files to be analyzed. Moreover,


there was also the native recording that was used to create the slides (12 sounds* 5

repetitions= 60 files).

Later on, the files were saved as an extended file each containing 60 words in .wav

format. Each of these files then was cut into 60 different ".wav" files using Praat. When

cutting the files, special attention to leave a silent gap before and after the targeted sound

carrying words were considered.

Each of these files was taken then to be annotated, using Praat also. The words were

annotated in a manner that: Not all the phonemes annotated, but rather to annotate the target

sound, preceding vowel, and following vowel. Those phonemes are the ones related to our

study, so we did not waste time and effort annotating the whole words. What helped in that

was reviewing previously conducted studies. For a thesis study, in my opinion, it is crucial to

run a study that other researches has gone through previously. It is our first study, and if there

is no reference to get back to it will be very hard and messy.

Later on, the files were saved and categorized as learners and native. Where the native

category included only one speaker with 60 different words, and the learners included ten

different speakers categories named in initials and categorized. Each category of them

included 60 different files.

Praat was used again in opening these files and collecting the formants (F1, F2, and F3)

of the target phoneme, and adjacent vowels (before and after). Then, the formants were

collected and categorized in a spreadsheet in which many tables were created for

investigating the goodness of the files acoustically.

Many tables were created for different purposes. The most important ones of them will

be included in the next chapter of “results and discussions” for displaying what results the

study uncovers. By the end of the chapter, there will be a discussion, where we can offer

some findings based on this study and discuss them. Moreover, there will be suggestions

about future studies that may help in pushing the research into new areas in that field.


4. Results

The results of the pilot study showed that the production of voiceless pharyngealized

consonants is easier for Finnish speakers than producing voiced pharyngealized consonants.

However, is too simplistic to rely on its results. That is why a more advanced study was

conducted. I would not say it is a fully fledged one, as we rely here only on acoustic analysis

data. Instead, it is good enough to produce reliable results along with references from similar

previous studies.

In this chapter, we are going to preview some figures of the data collected. Then, we are

going to comment on them and discuss what these results may be interpreted. The main aim

though has to be stressed once again, as the data is quite big and can answer many questions.

However, instead, we would focus our attention on answering the following questions:

A. How good are Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 in pharyngealization (turning

an allophonic feature into a phonemic one)?

B. Pharyngeals, a novel two consonants for the Finnish language. Is it possible for

Finnish speakers to learn them?

C. Which is easier to learn, for Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2: Pharyngealized

consonants or pharyngeals?

D. Is it true that because voiceless consonants outweigh voiced ones in Finnish that

Voiceless pharyngealized consonant will be easier for them to learn than voiced

pharyngealized ones?

The structure of this section will be in the following manner: We are going to take each

question in a subsection and provide the needed analysis for answering it. This chapter will

include data from this study and background results of previous studies to support our

discussion. We find this crucial in our study for many reasons. First, we want our study to be

linked with previous ones so all can form a more significant scientific body that always

grows. Second, our study uses acoustic analysis methods only, and we find it necessary to

make use of other physiological analysis methods as a background to it. They will give depth


to our acoustic analysis findings, and simply will make more sense. Moreover, it will help the

reader to understand more what we are arguing about.


4.1. How good are Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 in pharyngealization (turning an

allophonic feature into a phonemic one)?

In order to answer this intriguing question we need to follow some steps: First, fetch

Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 data of pronouncing Pharyngealized consonants, and

their counterparts. Second, compare those data to a native’s. Third, apply some statistical

analysis methods to get a decent percentage (if there is any). Fourth, review previous studies

related findings along with ours. Fourth, link second language learning theories to our

findings, especially in the area of phonemes and allophones. Fifth, relate everything together

and come up with a result. Finally, discuss this result and its possible meaning, and effect on

language learning methodologies.

4.1.1. Data presentation and acoustic analysis


Table 02 - Pharyngealized Vs plain in Learners

Learners’ values

Phoneme F # Av adjacent Vs Phoneme F # Av adjacent Vs

/t/̥

F1 682

/t/

F1 701

F2 1464 F2 1620

F3 2381 F3 2492

/s/̥

F1 702

/s/

F1 671

F2 1460 F2 1573

F3 2541 F3 2512

/d̥/

F1 695

/d/

F1 666

F2 1343 F2 1671

F3 2575 F3 2549

/ð̥/

F1 674

/ð/

F1 674

F2 1371 F2 1635

F3 2490 F3 2523

Average

F1 688 1.015

Average

F1 678

F2 1409 0.8671 F2 1625

F3 2497 0.9913 F3 2519

Table 02 shows the learners’ data formants on the one hand. On the other hand, table 03

shows the native’s data formants. Most important part to look for in both tables would be the

ratio of difference at the bottom middle of each.

The data we have here goes under previous studies in pharyngealization. Here we have

“a consistent raising of F1 frequencies” (Al-Tamimi, 2011). The ratio is slightly higher in the

native’s data than the learners’. Nevertheless, the fact that in the learners’ F1 data was always

higher than in their plain counterparts proves that there was a successful attempt for

pharyngealization. Which takes us to the fact that there was an attempt for a constriction

(pharyngealization) in the rear half of the vocal tract. “A formant frequency is raised by a

constriction which is closer to a velocity minimum. For F1, the velocity maximum is at the


Table 03 - Pharyngealized Vs plain in Native

Native’s values


/t/̥

F1 639

/t/

F1 627

F2 1240 F2 1634

F3 2698 F3 2477

/s/̥

F1 654

/s/

F1 610

F2 1202 F2 1594

F3 2714 F3 2517

/d̥/

F1 642

/d/

F1 610

F2 1099 F2 1609

F3 2794 F3 2514

/ð̥/

F1 622

/ð/

F1 591

F2 1108 F2 1580

F3 2705 F3 2546

Average

F1 639 1.0492

Average

F1 609

F2 1162 0.7244 F2 1604

F3 2728 1.0855 F3 2513

lips and the minimum at the glottis, so any constriction in the rear half of the vocal tract will

tend to raise the F1 frequency."

“The most consistent and obvious acoustic difference between plain and emphatic

coronals is seen in the F2 frequency in adjacent vowels at the border with the

consonant.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011). Data from tables 02 and 03 follows the same pattern. There

is a consistent undeniable decrease of the F2 formants in both learners’ and native’s F2

formant frequency values. The lowering of F2 is established to be the “principal acoustic

correlate” (Watson 2002: 270). Hence, this is a substantial proof of a successful attempt from

the learners of pharyngealizing the subject consonants. They listened to them, noticed the

difference and repeated them correctly. However, not in the same values of the native values

as here also we find stronger pharyngealization values in the native’s data. (Al-Tamimi, 2011)

F2 lowering is a reflection of a constriction at its velocity maximum. “There is an F2

velocity maximum in the oropharynx, in the zone bounded approximately at the lower

extremity by the laryngeal aditus and at the upper extremity by the uvula. The results from

measurements of F2 frequencies are therefore consistent with the constriction seen in the

videofluoroscopic images to occur at the level of CV2 which is at about the mid-point of the

oropharynx where the velocity maximum for F2 will be located. It is also consistent with the

constriction seen in the nasoendoscopic images formed by the epiglottis and the pharyngeal

walls, often with the tongue root bunching up against it in a dome-like shape.” (Al-Tamimi,

2011)

“The situation with F3 is more ambiguous.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011) Likewise, it is

ambiguous in our study formant values. Sometimes higher (e.g. /s̥/, and /d̥/), sometimes lower

(namely, /t̥/, and /ð̥/). However, in the native’s data F3 is consistently higher in

pharyngealized consonants. Nevertheless, most previous studies did not rely on it and only

relied on F1 and F2. “In all vowels after an initial emphatic, the mean frequency for F1 was

higher than after a plain consonant, while for F2 was lower. All tokens conformed to this

pattern.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011). Hence, the F3 value is a topic that is open for discussion;

however, we are not going to rely on its values here in any results, because of its ambiguity

situation.


In the instances of the ambiguity of F3, a discussion of the vowel effect was carried out

in Al-Tamimi’s (2011): “The context in which there is the greatest difference in F3 values

between plain and emphatic consonants is at the onset of /uː/. Differences in other vowel

contexts are quite small and less consistent. After an emphatic, F3 at the onset of /uː/ is some

300–450 Hz higher than after a plain consonant. There is a velocity minimum for F3 in the

upper part of the oropharynx in the region of the uvula. It would appear, then, that the

secondary articulatory constriction for emphatics in the context of /uː/ in JA may be higher in

the oropharynx than it is for other vowel contexts. The difference in location of the

constriction may even be greater than is suggested by the F3 values because of the resonance-

lowering effect of the lip-rounding inherent in /uː/.” Hence, it can be a complication to rely

on its results.

F2 lowering is the primary clue for pharyngealization. “Lowering of F2 has been the

most consistently reported acoustic exponent of emphatics for different Arabic

varieties.” (Al-Ani 1970; Odisho 1973; Ghazeli 1977; Giannini & Pettorino 1982;

Bukshaisha 1985; Laufer & Baer 1988; Heselwood 1992; Al-Masri & Jongman 2004;

Zawaydeh & de Jong; Al-Tamimi 2011 & Heselwood 2011).

Additionally, “A raised F1 suggests a constriction in the post-uvular pharyngeal area, an

unchanged F1 suggests uvular constriction, while velar constriction would cause F1 to lower

(Khattab et al. 2006: 138).

How does this happen is explained in Al-Tamimi (2011): The bunching of the tongue in

front of the epiglottis observed in the production of many of the emphatics has the effect of

reducing the pharyngeal volume and, together with the epiglottal retraction, lends support to

the suggestion that emphatic coronals are produced with pharyngealization.

In another instance in the same study, Al-Tamimi (2011) mentions: “The epiglottis

retracts and lowers consistently to a greater degree during the production of an emphatic

coronal than during the production of a plain coronal.” This clarification concludes that the

epiglottis also plays a significant role in pharyngealization, and not only in pharyngeals.

However, his cannot be considered exclusive though as Ali and Daniloff’s (1972) study

suggest that it can also be uvularization: “cinefluorographic study of Iraqi Arabic found

emphatics to exhibit simultaneous slight depression of the palatine dorsum, a rearward

movement of the pharyngeal dorsum towards the posterior pharyngeal wall, and a lowering


velum towards a rising tongue dorsum. Although the data suggest pharyngealization, they do

not exclude uvularisation, and the height of the larynx was not evaluated.” Ghazeli’s (1977)

cinefluorographic study of Tunisian reports similar results as well.

Another observation of the tongue movement is reported in “Al-Nassir’s (1993) X-ray

study of Iraqi, Laradi’s (1983) videofluorographic and endoscopic study of Libyan, Laufer

and Baer’s (1988) endoscopic study and Al-Tamimi & Heselwood’s (2011) nasoendoscopic

and video-fluoroscopic study of Jordanian coronal emphatics, have all been able to observe a

rearward movement of the tongue root towards the back of the upper pharynx and a

depression in the tongue dorsum.” (Embarki, 2011).

Another explanation for F1 and F2 formant frequencies in emphatics is suggested by

Hassan (2011): If F1 were consistently higher, and F2 lowered, this would constitute good

evidence for laryngeal constriction as a function of aryepiglottic sphinctering, tongue

retraction, and larynx raising. However, the characteristic lowering of F2 could be indicative

of a pharyngeal co-articulatory gesture where the larynx is lowered.

Embarki (2011) conducted a study on emphatics and their plain counterparts in Arabic.

Our study presents similar values of F1, and F2 (F1 raising and F2 lowering in emphatics) as

his. As he mentions: “The pharyngealized consonants /t̥, d̥, s̥, ð̥/ in MSA presented variable

slope values, a one-way ANOVA showed significant effects of the consonant on slope values

(F(3, 63) = 4.86, p < .01). For the plain consonants /t, d, s, ð/, the effects of consonant on

slope values were not significant (F(3, 63) = 1.23, p = .304).

We come out of the previous studies findings that F2 is the primary cue for

pharyngealization and that F1 raising is the secondary one. On the other hand, the F3 case is a

complication that is not necessary for analyzing pharyngealization. Our results show a

consistent rise in F1 along with a consistent considerable drop in F2 frequency values. That is

why we can say that Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 managed successfully to turn an

allophonic characteristic in Finnish language (pharyngealization) into a phonemic one. Not in

a native-like manner, but reasonably good enough.


4.1.2. Data against L2 learning theories

In this section, we are going to measure our data against Lado’s (1957) contrastive

analysis hypothesis (CA). For a quick introduction to this theory, please check the first

chapter (theoretical background).

A central proposal of this theory is the idea of “phonemic split.” An example of it was

given in the theoretical background, but we are going to talk elaborately here about it. Our

case here suggests that pharyngealization in Arabic for Finnish speakers learning Arabic as

L2 is considered a “phonemic split." In the sense that pharyngealization is already present in

the Finnish phonological environment, but as an allophonic feature. Our subjects are trying to

shift this though to be a phonemic feature (i.e., to distinguish it as a different phoneme).

Suggesting that in Finnish, for example, the first phoneme in the minimal pair “takki” and

“täkki” is considered only one /t/, although it has two different allophones /t/ and /t̥/. On the

other hand, an Arabic speaker distinguishes them as two different phonemes. This

phenomenon is considered by some researchers to induce maximal learning difficulty

(Alwabari 2013).

Our study result does not approve of this opinion. The data shown proved that the

subjects' attempts of pharyngealized compared to their counterparts are quite close to the

native’s data. They are not perfectly matching; however, they follow the same pattern of

rising in F1 and a noticeable decline in F2 frequencies. Hence, we prove the opposite of this

part of the theory.

In another instance, this study would support the theory in that: it is easier to learn a

new sound in TL if it is similar to a sound in NL. Many other studies support this also

including (Brière, 1966; Eckman et al., 1997; Flege & Port, 1981; Gass & Selinker, 2001).


4.2. Pharyngeals, a novel two consonants for the Finnish language. Is it possible for Finnish

speakers to learn them?


Running through the experience of teaching Arabic as L2 in Finland, I found out that

pharyngeals are the hardest to learn. In this section, we are testing, analyzing, achieving

results, and discussing them. The aim is to find out how good Finnish speakers learning

Arabic as L2 are in pronouncing the two Arabic pharyngeals (/ħ/, and /ʕ/). Finally, the results

will find its place in a L2 learning theory to link themselves with language learning theories.

“In general, pharyngeal consonants exert a strong vowel retraction (F1 raising and F2

lowering) effect on the stressed vowel.” (Hassan, 2011). As we can see in table 04, there is a

very visible “vowel retraction.” In the native values, which are considered to be our reference

of a near optimum pronunciation frequency values of these pharyngeals in the Arabic

language, we find that the distance between F1 and F2 frequencies are almost double the F1

frequency value (i.e., 814hrz). On the other hand, the learners' values say that the difference

is even higher with a ratio of 2.2296. Could this be an over pronunciation, or can it be


Table 04 - Pharyngeals in learners and native

Learners’ values Native’s values

Phoneme

F # Av adjacent

Vs

Ratio Phoneme

F # Av adjacent Vs

Ratio

/ħ/F1 776 2.0451

(811hrz) /ħ/F1 933 1.9753

(910hrz)F2 1587 F2 1843

/ʕ/F1 671 2.4396

(966hrz) /ʕ/F1 752 2.0284

(814hrz)F2 1637 F2 1566

AverageF1 723 2.2296

(889hrz) AverageF1 842 2.0235

(814hrz)F2 1612 F2 1704

interpreted differently? In order to answer this question we need to review the mechanism of

pronouncing a pharyngeal consonant first:

The mechanism of a pharyngeal consonant pronunciation is explained quite vividly in

Hassan (2011) study as: “The multiple components of laryngeal constriction, aryepiglottic

stricture, tongue retraction, and larynx raising appear to come more strongly into play in the

case of pharyngeal consonants, since the acoustic results are consistent with a reduced

resonating chamber volume.”

Additionally, Esling (2005) argues that the tongue is not the main articulator in

pharyngeals: “In the normal operation of the pharyngeal articulator, however, significant

articulatory activity takes place beneath this point of upper stricture, so that the tongue would

not be the main articulator responsible for the pharyngeal articulation but rather the

aryepiglottic constrictor mechanism.

Embarki (2011) adds that: The additional parameter of larynx height also contributes

significantly to pharyngeal volume and to sound quality.

Moreover, “Results from nasoendoscopy and videofluoroscopy show that the extent of

retraction of the epiglottis into the pharynx and over the glottis is an important factor

distinguishing between laryngeals on the one hand and pharyngeals on the other.” (Al-

Tamimi, 2011)

Additionally, “Esling’s model of the laryngeal articulator can coherently justify a

phonological analysis in which the pharyngeals are regarded as the emphatic counterparts of

the laryngeals, i.e., as emphatic laryngeals.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011)

“Normally, the laryngeal constriction is responsible for raising the larynx as the tongue

retracts, thus reducing the volume of the pharyngeal cavity. Such action would result in

converging F1 and F2 frequencies, which have sometimes been observed acoustically.

“(Embarki, 2011).

Now, and in the light of the comments mentioned above about pharyngeals, let us have

a closer look inside the details of our data ratios. F1 is generally lower in the learners’

frequency values. As we mentioned above, “A formant frequency is raised by a constriction

which is closer to a velocity minimum. For F1, the velocity maximum is at the lips and the

minimum at the glottis, so any constriction in the rear half of the vocal tract will tend to raise

the F1 frequency.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011). This finding would suggest that the constriction done


in the pharyngeal area, unique to our case, that is performed by the learners is not as good as

the one performed by the native speaker. Hence, the F1 frequency value is lower.

On the other hand, the F2 frequency value is also lower, but how can we interpret that?

F2 lowering is a reflection of a constriction at its velocity maximum. “There is an F2 velocity

maximum in the oropharynx, in the zone bounded approximately at the lower extremity by

the laryngeal aditus and at the upper extremity by the uvula.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011). This idea

would suggest that the shape of the tongue is not done in a dome-like shape, which is optimal

for that case as recorded in Al-Tamimi, (2011) “nasoendoscopic images formed by the

epiglottis and the pharyngeal walls, often with the tongue root bunching up against it in a

dome-like shape.” In other words, the position and shape of the tongue is the main reason

behind the lowering of the F2 frequency values. Additionally, the lowering suggests a wider

constriction in the vertical axis of the mouth, so this would suggest that the tongue should be

in a higher position in performing the pharyngeals, which the learners’ could not do!

In our study, the ratio between F1 and F2 in the learners were higher, but this does not

mean a better pronunciation of the pharyngeals. Hence came the importance of analyzing F1

and F2 separately. F1 lowering in the learners’ frequencies showed that the pharyngeal

contraction was not concise enough. F2 lowering can be interpreted that the tongue shape and

hight is not high enough for the pharyngeal phoneme pronunciation. Unfortunately, we did

not have own nasoendoscopic or videofluoroscopic data to refer to and conclude more

accurate explanation for our acoustic analysis. However, luckily we have already conducted

studies in very similar data, which made us narrow done the findings into very few

possibilities.

In the light of Al-Tamimi (2011) study findings: “The acoustic data confirms the

importance of the position of the epiglottis as observed nasoendoscopically and

videofluoroscopically for the formant resonances associated with the pharyngeal and the

laryngeal environments. The greater extent of retraction and lowering of the epiglottis, and of

pharyngeal wall contraction, in the production of pharyngeals, correlates well with the greater

approximation of F1 and F2.” Moreover, our data findings, we conclude that the correlation

of the approximation of F1 and F2 is the clue for an optimum pharyngeal pronunciation. It is

even more complicated here because not only higher or lower F1 and/or F2 values would


have meaningful results. Both values should be related to each other and also analyzed

separately for concluding a result.

In a nutshell, the ratio between F1 and F2 will be the judge of our call here whether the

pharyngeals were pronounced correctly by learners or not. In general, the ratio 2.2296

(2.0235 in native) does not bare a close similarity. That is why we can say that Finnish

speakers learning Arabic as L2 did not perform well in pronouncing Arabic pharyngeals. It

may just take more practice until they get there.

However, individually /ħ/ 2.0451 (1.9753 in native) is a similar excellent value. This

result proposes that /ħ/ (voiceless pharyngeal) was much easier for them to pronounce. This

result might be related to their phonological system as voiceless consonants are way more

popular in Finnish than voiced ones. /ʕ/, on the other hand, have a ratio of 2.4396 (2.0284 in

native), which quite a big difference and suggests a significant difficulty in pronouncing the

pharyngeal voiced counterpart.

4.2.2. Data against L2 learning theories

Most applicable L2 learning theory here would be Best’s (1995) perceptual assimilation

model (PAM) (an introduction of it is in the theoretical background chapter.)

PAM suggest that if a sound is an alien to the NL, then it will be hard to learn

(Alwabari, 2013). In other words, it is out of the NL phonological space. Our data agree with

this suggestion, and that is what we are about to discuss here.

It is the /ʕ/ phoneme that we are about to discuss here. It is a perfect outsider according

to PAM and hence is considered hard to learn. However, how did /ʕ/ end up as a big hurdle

for Finnish speakers according to PAM?

The Perceptual assimilation model suggests that the more the sound is similar to the

native language, the easier it is to learn. Moreover, it is not only about the presence of this

sound in the NL phonological environment, but also according to many facts, like the degree

of constriction, the biodynamic constraints, and the spatial dimension. In my opinion, /ʕ/

represents the notable difficulty as it is quite an alien to the Finnish language in many

aspects.


/ʕ/ is part of “the universal phonetic domain.” However, it is not by any means part of

the Finnish “native phonological space;” there are no other consonants in the Finnish

language that are pronounced from the pharyngeal area. Additionally, The Finnish language’s

“spatial dimension” does not include the pharyngeal area. In general, the Finnish language is

a more of a frontal language. Rarely, does it use any back consonant? The farthest at the back

is the velar area. There might be only the uvular plosive /q/; however, it is not frequently

used.

The “degree of constriction” of /ʕ/ is not a common one in the NL here. It is way in the

front that we find the first fricative in Finnish (i.e., alveolar /s/ and /z/). Another interesting

fact is that /ʕ/ is also voiced. Also, this makes the mission almost impossible for Finnish

speakers (according to PAM), as they do not have and fricative voiced consonant that is

frequently used. Not even in the front. Additionally, Voicing is not a common feature of

Finnish language, some consonants are voiced, like /d/ and /g/, but they are not commonly

used. It is like all the circumstances are there to put hurdles for Finnish speakers to pronounce

this phoneme.

The last paragraph just explained all the reasons why /ʕ/ should be hard to learn for

Finnish speakers in the light of PAM. On the other hand, our results confirm that /ʕ/

pronunciation attempts by Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 were not successful.


4.3. Which is easier to learn, for Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2: Pharyngealized



That is a tricky question! The answer to it can be as simple as “pharyngealized.” From

the results shown in tables 02, 03, and 04, we find that Finnish speakers learning Arabic as

L2 were more successful in pronouncing pharyngealized consonant than pronouncing

pharyngeals. However, we cannot just say that we have to prove it with numbers, so let’s

review the results here again.

In the pharyngealized consonant, F1 result for learners was 1.015 between

pharyngealized and their plain counterparts, while it was 1.0492. On the other hand, F2 result

was 0.8671 but was 0.7244 in the native’s result. Let’s bare in mind that a slight increase in

F1 and a considerable drop in F2 values is what marks pharyngealized consonants from their

plain counterparts. Moreover, we can notice in both results that the native’s values are better

than the learners’ (regarding pharyngealization.) However, the learners’ formant frequencies

values seem to be following the same pattern only with lesser accuracy.

One argument about pharyngealization is that it is already in the phonological system,

but not a phonemic feature. It is instead an allophonic one. Allophonic features tend to be

always less stressed compared to phonemic ones. That is why it was not very clear in their

values. Knowing that they could though identify this phonemic value and recall it from their

native phonological system, and convert it into a phonemic one is an eye-opener here.

Nevertheless, it is predictable that this should take them some time and practice to master the

pronunciation of it.

Pharyngeals did not come off quite well. The values we recorded that affect the

pharyngeals show that there is an attempt for correct pronunciation. However, this attempt is

not close enough. Pharyngeals are two “totally new” consonants for the Finnish speakers.

Moreover, they both are hard to learn for most non-native Arabic speakers. This is explicit in

instances like news or commercial purposes; usually they are replaced by other phonemes

that are lighter in pronunciation. /ʕ/, for example, is often replaced with just the vowel


following it (e.g., “Omar” (a popular Finnish candy), and “Ali” (a popular Finnish stand-up

comedian)).

A notable observation here is that when I was trying to emphasize its pronunciation in

the class, some attempts were turned into a glottal stop /ʔ/. It seems that forming this

constriction in the pharyngeal area is quite hard that in the early attempts of it the attempter

either has it loose (pronouncing the following vowel,) or totally closed (having a plosive).

The data of the learners show a 2.4396 between F1 and F2 frequency value in /ʔ/.

Comparing that to the native’s frequency value 2.0284, we find a big difference in the degree

of approximation between the F1 and F2 values. “Spectrographic analysis identifies degree of

approximation of F1 and F2 as the principal acoustic correlate of the distinction, and

psychoacoustic analysis shows that auditory integration of F1 and F2 takes place in open

vowels in the context of the pharyngeals but not the laryngeals.” (Al-Tamimi, 2011). In the

light of Al-Tamimi’s (2011) finding, we can say that the attempt was rather far from close.

There is no threshold value here to say it is correct or wrong, as the closer, the better, but a

0.4112 is quite a considerable difference.

On the other hand, /ħ/ is another pharyngeal in Arabic that is quite a confusing case.

The confusion here may result from the fact that /ħ/ is the only voiceless consonant produced

in the pharyngeal area. This area is apparently inactive in a language system like Finnish, as it

does not have either the voiced pharyngeal /ʔ/, or back fricative consonants. The interesting

fact here is that; in the voiced case /ʔ/, the learners tend to attempt pronouncing it from a

slightly back part of the mouth (resulting in a glottal stop or just the following vowel).

However, in the voiceless pharyngeal version /ħ/, the learners tend to push it forward

resulting in the pronunciation of the uvular /χ/ or even in some instances the velar /x/. The

reason behind that is still unknown, and it can be the topic of another compelling study.

Our records show though that Finnish language speakers learning Arabic as L2

performed good enough in imitating this new phoneme. The ration between F1 and F2 in

learners reads as 2.0451, while in the native it is 1.9753 (as shown in table 04). This result

shows a difference of 0.0698 in the ratio between learners and speakers, which is quite a

slight difference and shows a quite successful attempt.


If we looked at both cases getting the average of pharyngeal learners records 2.2296

and comparing it to native pharyngeal records 2.0235, we get a difference in the ratio of

0.2061. It does not look so good, but we can blame the vocal cords for that.

4.3.2. Data against L2 learning theories:

Flege’s (1995) speech learning model (SLM) is a good application in our study case in

this section. Please check the theoretical background chapter for an introduction about it.

Here we discuss the functionality of the theory against our data. In this section, we are

answering the question of whether our subjects (Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2)

performed better in perceiving and producing pharyngealized consonants or pharyngeal

consonants.

The first theory of Flege’s Speech learning model proposes that the learners perceive

the new sounds in TL as allophonic features in their NL phonological environment. Learning

a new sound would be difficult to place, so they attach some allophonic feature to an already

found sound in their NL.

This hypothesis sounds interesting, but let’s check it against our data here and see if it

makes sense. Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 performed better in pharyngealized

sounds than in pharyngeal sounds. Hence, pharyngealized consonants are easier to perceive

and produce. Their results, though, were not as good as the native’s results. They already

have the plain counterparts in the NL phonological environment, except for /ð̥/. Finnish

language has the back vowel /a/ which when followed or preceded by a consonant adds to it a

pharyngealized allophonic feature (though not as strong as the one found in the Arabic

language).

On the other hand, pharyngeals production was not quite close to the native’s.

Exclusively, the /ʕ/ phoneme has the most less similar ratio, compered to the native’s.

Interestingly, it is very hard to find a close phoneme in the Finnish NL phonological

environment and attach some allophonic feature to it to produce it correctly. The situation of /

ħ/ also helps here. It is easier to easier to pronounce /h/ with allophonic feature to get a near

sound of it. Clearly, the ratio is better in /ħ/ than in /ʕ/


The second hypothesis (H2) argues that a new phonetic category can be configured to

represent TL sounds that differ from the NL sound perceptually. (Alwabari, 2013) However,

this phonetic creation process is slow, and can be not accurate.

To conclude, the hypothesis goes along well with our findings and interpretation of

them. However, this hypothesis also entails that, as a learner, it would not be possible to

perceive and produce native-like new phonemes. To elaborate, perceiving and production of

new sounds will be always related to already found sounds in the NL. Then can come the

creation of a new phonetic category that can be different from the native one.


4.4. Is it true that because voiceless consonants outweigh voiced ones in Finnish that

Voiceless pharyngealized consonant will be easier for them to learn than voiceless


4.4.1. Data presentation and acoustic analysis:


Table 05 - Voiceless pharyngealized Vs Voiced pharyngealized in learners

Learners’ values

Voiceless


/t/̥

F1 682

/t/

F1 701

F2 1464 F2 1620

F3 2381 F3 2492

/s/̥

F1 702

/s/

F1 671

F2 1460 F2 1573

F3 2541 F3 2512

Average

F1 692 1.0087

Average

F1 686

F2 1462 0.9160 F2 1596

F3 2461 0.9836 F3 2502

Voiced


/d̥/

F1 695

/d/

F1 666

F2 1343 F2 1671

F3 2575 F3 2549

/ð̥/

F1 674

/ð/

F1 674

F2 1371 F2 1635

F3 2490 F3 2523

Average

F1 684 1.0209

Average

F1 670

F2 1357 0.8209 F2 1653

F3 2532 0.9984 F3 2536

This assumption has been already proved to be right in the case of pharyngeals, but is it

also true in pharyngealized consonants? That is what we are going to figure out about in the

following section.


Table 06 - Voiceless pharyngealized Vs Voiced pharyngealized in native

Native’s values

Voiecelss


/t/̥

F1 639

/t/

F1 627

F2 1240 F2 1634

F3 2698 F3 2477

/s/̥

F1 654

/s/

F1 610

F2 1202 F2 1594

F3 2714 F3 2517

Average

F1 646 1.0453

Average

F1 618

F2 1221 0.7565 F2 1614

F3 2706 1.0837 F3 2497

Voieced


/d̥/

F1 642

/d/

F1 610

F2 1099 F2 1609

F3 2794 F3 2514

/ð̥/

F1 622

/ð/

F1 591

F2 1108 F2 1580

F3 2705 F3 2546

Average

F1 632 1.0533

Average

F1 600

F2 1103 0.6919 F2 1594

F3 2749 1.0866 F3 2530

Tables 05, and 06 show the pharyngealized voiceless consonants’ formants frequency

values against the voiced ones in both learners and native sounds. In general, we find that the

learners’ frequency formants of F1 and F2 in the voiced consonants are closer to the native’s

than the voiceless ones. To elaborate, The average ratio (between pharyngealized and plain

consonants) oF F1 in learners’ voiceless consonants is 1.0087 (1.0453 in native). Moreover,

F2 is 0.9160 (0.7565 in native). On the other hand, voiced consonants record a lower ratio of

difference: 1.0209 (F1 of learners), and 1.0533 (F1 of native). Additionally, F2 is 0.8209 in

learners, while it is 0.6919 in native. It seems quite a complicated issue here, so we will try to

make it more simple by just making a small table (table 07) with just the average ratio and its

difference.

These results show that learners performed better in pharyngealizing voiced consonants

than voiceless ones. That is quite an unexpected result. On the other hand, they performed

better in voiceless pharyngeal than the voiced one.


Table 07 - voiced and voiceless ratios in both learners and native formant values

Type Formant Learners Native Difference

VoicelessF1 1.0087 1.0453 -0.0366

F2 0.9160 0.7565 0.1595

VoicedF1 1.0209 1.0533 -0.0324

F2 0.8209 0.6919 0.1290

5. Conclusion

Getting familiar with the target language (Arabic) phonological system, and the native

language (Finnish) one was the absolute start of this study. We learned there how Arabic is a

consonantal language, and how many of these consonants are produced at the back of the

mouth. Moreover, we got to know the phonological system of Finnish and how it is more of a

vocalic one.

Second step was to learn more about the phonetics and phonology of our study’s sounds

(i.e., pharyngealized and pharyngeal sounds.) Most importantly, how the double articulation

mechanism occur in the pharyngealized one. We also got to understand that not only the

tongue affects the production of the pharyngeals. The epiglottis has an important role to play

in their production. Thanks to all the new technology of fibreoptic nasoendoscopic,

cineradiography, X-ray, and electromyography; it was possible to record the movement of the

organs.

Acoustic analysis of collected data from Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 was

done against native’s data. With the help of praat, all analysis was done running through;

recording, annotating, and formants capture. The results were then statistically analyzed.

The results were then discussed in an atmosphere of previous studies findings,

phonological theories fact, and second language learning theories. We had four question that

were answered also:

A. How good are Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2 in pharyngealization (turning

an allophonic feature into a phonemic one)?

Data shows that the Finnish speakers data is quite close to the native’s. The pattern was

correct (rise in F1 and drop in F2) in all the instances. However the native’s data were

always better than the speakers.

B. Pharyngeals, a novel two consonants for the Finnish language. Is it possible for

Finnish speakers to learn them?

It was quite hard. The data, in general show a considerable gap between the learners’ and

native’s ratio. In particular /ʕ/ is considered the hardest to learn. On the other hand, /ħ/

results were fair.


C. Which is easier to learn, for Finnish speakers learning Arabic as L2: Pharyngealized


Pharyngealized.

D. Is it true that because voiceless consonants outweigh voiced ones in Finnish that

Voiceless pharyngealized consonant will be easier for them to learn than voiced


No, it is not true. The data showed better results in the voiced pharyngealized consonants

than the voiceless ones. On the other hand, the voiceless pharyngeal’s results were better

than the voiced one. We conclude from here that voicing is not an issue to affect the

learning of pharyngealized consonants and pharyngeal ones.


References

Al-Masri, Mohammed & Allard Jongman. (2004. Acoustic Correlates of Emphasis in

Jordanian Arabic: Preliminary results. Proceedings of the 2003. Texas Linguistics

Society Conference, ed. by Augustine Agwuele, Willis Warren & Sang-Hoon Park, 96–

106. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document

#1071. Cantineau, Jean. 1960. .tudes de Linguistique Arabe. Paris: C. Klinksieck. Al-

Nassir, Abdulmunim A. 1993. Sibawayh the Phonologist. London: Kegan Paul.

Ali, Latif H. & Raymond G. Daniloff. 1972. A Contrastive Cine-fluorographic Investigation

of the Articulation of Emphatic-Non-emphatic Cognate Consonants. Studia Linguistica

26.81–105.

Al-Nassir, Abdulmunim A. 1993. Sibawayh the Phonologist. London: Kegan Paul.

Alwabari, Sawsan (2013). Non-native production of Arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized

consonants. Carleton University.

Ashby, P. (2011). Understanding phonetics. London: Hodder Education. Adamson, Benetta.

1981. A Spectrographic Analysis of Pharyngeal Consonants in Sudanese Arabic. Work

in Progress 3.81–96. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Reading.

Al-Ani, Salman. 1970. Arabic Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.

Al-Tamimi, Feda & Heselwood, Barry (2011) A study of the laryngeal and pharyngeal

consonants in Jordanian Arabic using nasoendoscopy, videofluoroscopy, and

spectrography. In Hassan, Z. M., & Heselwood, B. (Eds.), Instrumental studies in

Arabic phonetics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange

Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp.

171-204). Timonium, Maryland: York Press.

Brière, E. (1966). An investigation of phonological interference. Language, 42 769-796.

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1990a). Gestural specification using dynamically-defined

articulatory structures. Phonetics, 18 299-320. Boff-Dkhissi, Marie-Christine. 1983.

Contribution . l’.tude Exp.rimentale des Consonnes d’Arri.re de l’Arabe Classique

(locuteurs marocains). Travaux de l’Institut Phon.tique de Strasbourg 15.1–363.

Bukshaisha, Fawzia. 1985. An Experimental Phonetic Study of Some Aspects of Qatari

Arabic. University of Edinburgh.

Butcher, Andrew & Kusay Ahmad. 1987. Some Acoustic and Aerodynamic Characteristics of

Pharyngeal Consonants in Iraqi Arabic. Phonetica 44. 156–172.

Eckman, F. R. & Iverson, G. K. (1997). Structure preserving in interlanguage phonology. In

S. J. Hannahs, M. Young-Scholten. Focus on phonological acquisition (pp. 183-207).

Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

El-Halees, Yousef. 1985. The Role of F1 in the Place of Articulation Distinction in Arabic.

Journal of Phonetics 13.287–298.

Embarki Mohamed, Ouni Slim, Yeou Mohamed, Guilleminot Christian & Al Maqtari Sallal

(2011) Acoustic and electromagnetic articulographic study of pharyngealization

Coarticulatory effects as an index of stylistic and regional variation in Arabic. In

Hassan, Z. M., & Heselwood, B. (Eds.), Instrumental studies in Arabic phonetics.

Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


Flege, J. E., Mackay, I. R. & Meador, D. (1999). Native Italian speakers' perception and

production of English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106 (5),

2973-2987

Flege, J. E. & Port, R. (1981). Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English.

Language and Speech, 24 (2), 125-146.

Gass, S. & Selinker,L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course.

Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Ghazeli, Salem. 1977. Back Consonants and Backing Coarticulation in Arabic. University of

Texas.

Giannini, Antonella & Massimo Pettorino. 1982. The Emphatic Consonants in Arabic. (=

Speech Laboratory, Report 4.) Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Laufer, A., & Baer, T. (1988). The emphatic and pharyngeal sounds in Hebrew and in Arabic.

Language and Speech, 31(2), 181-205.

Hassan, Zeki Majeed. (1981). Experimental Study of Vowel Duration in Iraqi Spoken Arabic.

University of Leeds.

Hassan, Zeki Majeed & Esling, John H. (2011) Investigating the emphatic feature in Iraqi

Arabic Acoustic and articulatory evidence of coarticulation. In Hassan, Z. M., &

Heselwood, B. (Eds.), Instrumental studies in Arabic phonetics. Amsterdam,

Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Khattab, Ghada, Feda Al-Tamimi & Barry Heselwood. 2006. Acoustic and Auditory

Differences in the /t /-/t./ Opposition in Male and Female Speakers of Jordanian Arabic.

Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 16 ed. by Sami Boudelaa, 131–160. Amsterdam &

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Laradi, Widad. 1983. Pharyngealisation in Libyan (Tripoli) Arabic: An instrumental study.

University of Edinburgh.

Laufer, A., & Baer, T. (1988). The emphatic and pharyngeal sounds in Hebrew and in

Arabic.Language and Speech, 31(2), 181-205.

Lindblom, Bj.rn. 1963. On Vowel Reduction. Quarterly Progress Status Report 29, Speech

Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Major, R. C. (1994). Current trends in interlanguage phonology. In M. Yavaş first and second

language phonology (pp. 181-204). San Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group

Inc.

Odisho, Edward Y. (1973). The Role of the Rear Section of the Vocal Tract in Baghdadi

Arabic. University of Leeds.

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. (1969). Principles of Phonology. Berkeley: University of California

Press. Watson, Janet C. E. 2002. The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Watson, Janet C.E. 1999. The Directionality of Emphasis Spread in Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry

30.289–300.

Yeou, Mohamed & Maeda Shinji (2011) Airflow and acoustic modeling of pharyngeal and

uvular consonants in Moroccan Arabic. In Hassan, Z. M., & Heselwood, B. (Eds.),

Instrumental studies in Arabic phonetics. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.


Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan. (1998). Gradient Uvularization Spread in Ammani-Jordanian

Arabic. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 11 ed. by Alabbas Benmamoun, Mushira Eid

& Niloofar Haeri, 117–141. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


production of arabic pharyngeal and pharyngealized ... · on the other hand, the classification of...

Documents