An Acoustic Analysis of Surrounding Vowel Effects on Intervocalic /h/ in Turkish

Abstract

Previous studies on Turkish glottal consonant /h/ typically investigated the acoustic characteristics of this consonant; however, recent studies generally examine the formant frequency changes between preceding and following vowels as to determine the place of articulation of fricatives. This study investigates the place of articulation of Turkish /h/ in intervocalic position by comparing formant frequency changes of preceding and following vowels through their height and rounding characteristics of vowels. A production experiment is conducted with 21 speakers in a sound-proof booth. Stimuli consisted of eight Turkish vowels in preceding and following positions of intervocalic /h/ embedded into a carrier sentence (e.g., [Adam tohum yazdı] ‘The man seed write -past’). Rawdata analysis was performed on normalized mean F1, F2, F3, F2_3 values of each vowel adjacent to /h/. Findings for preceding vowels showed a decrease in rounding features of mean F1, F2, F3 and F2_3 values. On contrary to preceding vowels, findings for the following vowels indicated an increase in both height and rounding features for the mean F1 and F2 values. Overall results suggested that formant changes on the following vowels elicited more significance for the acoustic changes in following vowels compared to preceding vowels.

Keywords

• Dil Çalışmaları (Diğer)

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. Aksan, D. (1980). Her yönüyle dil: Ana çizgileriyle Dilbilim II. Ankara University Press.
2. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press.
3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
4. Bickford, A. C. & Floyd, R. (2003). Tools for analyzing the World’s language: Articulatory phonetics (3rd ed.). SIL International.
5. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2023). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. (Version 6.2.04) [Computer Software]. https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
6. Brinton, L. J. (2000). The structure of modern English: A linguistic introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
7. Brosnahan, L. F. & Malmberg, B. (1979). Introduction to phonetics. Cambridge University Press.
8. Catford, J.C. (1988). A practical introduction to phonetics. Oxford University Press.
9. Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.
10. Collins, B. & Mees, I. M. (2003). The phonetics of English and Dutch (5th ed.). Brill.
11. Davenport, M. & Hannahs, S. J. (2020). Introducing phonetics and phonology (4th ed.). Routledge.
12. Ergenç, İ. & Uzun, İ. P. (2020). Türkçenin ses dizgesi (2nd ed.). Seckin Press.
13. Ertan, E. (2013). Spectrographic characteristics of Turkish /h/. Open Journal of Acoustics, 3, 97-102. https://doi.org/10.4236/oja.2013.34015
14. Fant, G. (2005). Speech acoustics and phonetics. Springer.
15. Flemming, E. S. (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. Routledge.
16. Gussenhoven, C. & Jacobs, H. (2011). Understanding phonology. Routledge.
17. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. (1999). Cambridge University Press.
18. Hayward, K. (2000). Experimental phonetics. Pearson.
19. Johnson, K. (2003). Acoustic and auditory phonetics (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
20. Kassambara, A. (2020). ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots (R package ggpubr version 0.4.0). https://rpkgs.datanovia.com/ggpubr/
21. Keating, P. A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology, 5(2), 275-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000230X
22. Kent, R. D. & Read, C. (2002). Acoustic analysis of speech. Thomson Learning.
23. Kılıç, M. A. (2012, September). Türkçedeki ötümsüz sürtünmeli ünsüzlerin akustik özellikleri. [Acoustic characteristics of Turkish voiceless fricative consonants]. Presented at 16. International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, (ICTL-2012), Ankara, Türkiye.
24. Knight, R. A. (2012). Phonetics: A coursebook. Cambridge University Press.
25. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish: Descriptive grammars. Routledge.
26. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
27. Ladefoged, P. & Disner, S. F. (2012). Vowels and consonants (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
28. Laufer, A. (1991). Phonetic representation: Glottal fricatives. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 21(2), 91-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0025100300004448
29. Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge University Press.
30. Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01
31. Mackay, I. R. A. (1978). Introducing practical phonetics. Little, Brown and Company.
32. Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press.
33. Malik, M. A. & Kokub, I. (2020). Segmental study of Punjabi glottal fricative /h/: An acoustic analysis of glottal fricative in Majhi and Lehndi dialects of Punjabi. Competitive Linguistic Research Journal, 2(1), 1–17.
34. Mielke, J. (2002). Turkish /h/ deletion: Evidence for the interplay of speech perception and phonology. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 28, 55-72. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.28.2002.159
35. O’Connor, J. D. (1973). Phonetics. Penguin Books.
36. Odden, D. (2005). Introducing phonology. Cambridge University Press.
37. Pandey, P., Mahesh, M. ve Dutta, H. (2017). The glottal fricative and Schwa deletion in Hindi: Implications for speech synthesis. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology (IJSRST), 3(8), 643-646. https://ijsrst.com/IJSRST1738146
38. Pickett, J. M. (1999). The acoustics of speech communication: Fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology. Allyn and Bacon.
39. R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
40. Roach, P. J. (1983). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. Cambridge University Press.
41. Selen, N. (1979). Söyleyiş sesbilimi, akustik sesbilim ve Türkiye Türkçesi. TLA Press.
42. Sezer, E. (1986). An autosegmental analysis of compensatory lengthening in Turkish. In, Studies in compensatory lengthening (227-250). Foris Publications.
43. Skandera, P. & Burleigh, P. (2005). Manual of English phonetics and phonology. Gunter Narr Verlag.
44. Stevens, K. N. (2000). Acoustic phonetics. The MIT Press.
45. Sun, T., Yu, H. Z. & Jin, Y. S. (2014). An acoustics study on prepositional consonant [h] in Xiahe Tibetan. Advanced Materials Research, 926-930(2014), 1791–1794. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.926-930.1791
46. Syrdal, A. K. & Gopal, H. S. (1986). A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79(4), 1086-1100. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.393381
47. Titze, I. R. (1994). Principles of voice production. Prentice Hall University Press.
48. Van der Hulst, H. & Van de Weijer, J. (1991). Topics in Turkish phonology. In H. Boeschoten, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Turkish Linguistics Today (pp. 11-59). Brill.
49. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
50. Wright, R., Hargus, S. & Miller J. (2005). Comparing the acoustics of voiced and voiceless fricatives in Deg Xinag. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4785727
51. Xu, Y. & Gao, H. (2013). FormantPro as a tool for speech analysis and segmentation. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 26(4), 1435-1454. https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.26.4.1435-1454
52. Xu, Y. & Gao. H. (2018). FormantPro. (Version 1.4.3) [Praat Script]. http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~uclyyix/FormantPro/
53. Yavuz, H. & Balcı, A. (2011). Turkish phonology and morphology. Anadolu University.
54. Zsiga, E. C. (2013). The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Cite this publication

@article{arslan2024acoustic,
  author = {Arslan, Merve Nur and Uzun, {\.I}pek P{\i}nar},
  title = {{An Acoustic Analysis of Surrounding Vowel Effects on Intervocalic /h/ in Turkish}},
  journal = {Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters},
  volume = {42},
  number = {1},
  pages = {248--261},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2024},
  month = {8},
  issn = {1301-5737},
  doi = {10.32600/huefd.1534383},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/an-acoustic-analysis-of-surrounding-vowel-effects-on-intervocalic-h-in-turkish},
  language = {en},
  keywords = {Dil {\c{C}}al{\i}{\c{s}}malar{\i} (Di{\u{g}}er)},
  abstract = {Previous studies on Turkish glottal consonant /h/ typically investigated the acoustic characteristics of this consonant; however, recent studies generally examine the formant frequency changes between preceding and following vowels as to determine the place of articulation of fricatives. This study investigates the place of articulation of Turkish /h/ in intervocalic position by comparing formant frequency changes of preceding and following vowels through their height and rounding characteristics of vowels. A production experiment is conducted with 21 speakers in a sound-proof booth. Stimuli consisted of eight Turkish vowels in preceding and following positions of intervocalic /h/ embedded into a carrier sentence (e.g., [Adam tohum yazd{\i}] `The man seed write -past'). Rawdata analysis was performed on normalized mean F1, F2, F3, F2\_3 values of each vowel adjacent to /h/. Findings for preceding vowels showed a decrease in rounding features of mean F1, F2, F3 and F2\_3 values. On contrary to preceding vowels, findings for the following vowels indicated an increase in both height and rounding features for the mean F1 and F2 values. Overall results suggested that formant changes on the following vowels elicited more significance for the acoustic changes in following vowels compared to preceding vowels.},
  affiliation = {- and Ankara University}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Arslan, Merve Nur
AU  - Uzun, İpek Pınar
TI  - An Acoustic Analysis of Surrounding Vowel Effects on Intervocalic /h/ in Turkish
T2  - Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters
VL  - 42
IS  - 1
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024/08/16/
SP  - 248
EP  - 261
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 1301-5737
DO  - 10.32600/huefd.1534383
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/an-acoustic-analysis-of-surrounding-vowel-effects-on-intervocalic-h-in-turkish
AB  - Previous studies on Turkish glottal consonant /h/ typically investigated the acoustic characteristics of this consonant; however, recent studies generally examine the formant frequency changes between preceding and following vowels as to determine the place of articulation of fricatives. This study investigates the place of articulation of Turkish /h/ in intervocalic position by comparing formant frequency changes of preceding and following vowels through their height and rounding characteristics of vowels. A production experiment is conducted with 21 speakers in a sound-proof booth. Stimuli consisted of eight Turkish vowels in preceding and following positions of intervocalic /h/ embedded into a carrier sentence (e.g., [Adam tohum yazdı] ‘The man seed write -past’). Rawdata analysis was performed on normalized mean F1, F2, F3, F2_3 values of each vowel adjacent to /h/. Findings for preceding vowels showed a decrease in rounding features of mean F1, F2, F3 and F2_3 values. On contrary to preceding vowels, findings for the following vowels indicated an increase in both height and rounding features for the mean F1 and F2 values. Overall results suggested that formant changes on the following vowels elicited more significance for the acoustic changes in following vowels compared to preceding vowels.
KW  - Dil Çalışmaları (Diğer)
LA  - en
AD  - Ankara University
ER  -