Effectsof Ageand Genderon Emphasis Production

Yarmouk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of English Language and Literature
Effects of Age and Gender on Emphasis Production in Jordanian

Arabic: A Socio-phonetic Study
“A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Masters of Arts in Linguistics, Yarmouk University, Jordan”
By
Ibrahim Eshlash Odeh Almomany
Supervisor
Prof. Rasheed S. Al-Jarrah
Program: Linguistics
2018
Dedication
To
My Beloved Parents,
My Brothers, My Sisters,
My Nephews and My Nieces
I
Acknowledgements
I am by and large indebted to Allah first and then to my supervisor, Prof.
Rasheed Al-Jarrah, whose constant support, guidance, and patience have
enabled me to acquire a better understanding of the subject. Fully heartily-
fledged, my words stand worthless to express the academic and brotherly
essence Prof. Rasheed has shown me; his immense knowledge, gorgeous
kindness, prophetic patience, and insightful guidance have always been in. His
guidance has definitely helped me write the thesis this way; it would have never
been like this without him reading and re-reading it. Many thanks go to the
great syntactician, Dr. Osama Omari, who has supported me immensely
revising both earlier versions of the thesis proposal and the final draft of this
thesis. My gratitude is also extended to the great phonetician Dr. Wael Zuraiq
for his invaluable comments and recommendations that surely improved the
quality of this thesis.
My gratitude is also extended to the ever-greatest phonetician and brother on
earth Dr. Majdi Abudalbuh, who has always been by my side from the very
beginning of my academic journey, providing me with his insightful and
sagacious comments. Without Dr. Majdi's inspiration, I would have never
written anything in socio-phonetics, for he was the one who taught me the MA
phonetics course and the BA sociolinguistics course. I would like to heartily
thank the greatest teacher I have ever seen, Dr. Oqab Al-Shawashreh, for his
II
enthusiasm and continuous support throughout my MA journey. Last but not the
least, heartfelt thanks are extended to my parents, brothers, sisters, students, and
colleagues, for they all supported me in collecting the data of the study.
III
Table of Contents
Dedication ................................................................................................................................. I
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. II
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................IV
Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................VI
List of Arabic Phonetic Symbols ........................................................................................ VII
Consonants ........................................................................................................................ VII
Vowels............................................................................................................................... VIII
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Arabic Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter One: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6
1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
1.2. Context of the Study................................................................................................ 10
1.3. Thesis Statement ...................................................................................................... 11
1.4. Purpose of the Present Study ................................................................................. 11
1.5. Hypotheses ............................................................................................................... 12
1.6. Questions of the Study ............................................................................................ 12
1.7. Significance of the Study......................................................................................... 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 14
2.1. Acoustic Studies on Emphasis ................................................................................ 14
2.2. Gender- and Age- related Studies on Emphasis ................................................... 22
Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................... 32
3.1. Sample of the Study ................................................................................................ 32
3.2. Stimulus Materials .................................................................................................. 33
3.3. Procedures and Acoustic Measurements .............................................................. 36
3.4. Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................. 37
Chapter Four: Findings ......................................................................................................... 40
4.1. Observation One: Main Effect(s) of Emphasis ..................................................... 40
4.2. Pair-wise Interactions ............................................................................................. 42
4.2.1. Emphasis*Gender ............................................................................................ 43
4.2.2. Emphasis*Age .................................................................................................. 44
4.2.3. Emphasis*Vowel Quality ................................................................................ 46
4.2.4. Emphasis*Manner ........................................................................................... 49
IV
4.2.5. Emphasis*Position of the Target Consonant ................................................ 50
4.2.6. Emphasis*Word Size ....................................................................................... 50
4.2.7. Emphasis*Vowel Length ................................................................................. 50
4.3. Overall Interaction .................................................................................................. 52
Chapter Five: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 55
5.1. Observation One: Main Effect of Emphasis ......................................................... 55
5.2. Pair-wise Interactions ............................................................................................. 62
5.2.1 Emphasis and Gender...................................................................................... 63
5.2.2 Emphasis and Age ............................................................................................ 66
5.2.3 Emphasis and Other Segmental Variables .................................................... 69
5. 2.3.1. Emphasis and Vowel Quality ....................................................................... 69
5. 2.3.1.1. Emphasis and Vowel Quality in the Target Syllable ........................ 69
5. 2.3.1.2. Emphasis and Vowel Quality in the Non-Target Syllable ............... 70
5.2.3.2. Emphasis and Manner ...................................................................................... 72
5.2.3.3. Emphasis and Position of the Target Consonant ............................................ 74
5.2.3.4. Emphasis and Word Size .................................................................................. 75
5.2.3.5. Emphasis and Vowel Length ............................................................................ 76
5.3. Overall Interaction .................................................................................................. 77
5.3.1. Interaction between Emphasis and all other Independent Variables (except
for vowel quality and vowel length in the non-target syllable)................................... 77
5.3.1.1. Consonantal Cues ......................................................................................... 78
5.3.1.2. Vocalic Cues .................................................................................................. 78
5.3.2. Emphasis and All Other Independent Variables (except for vowel quality
and vowel length in the target syllable) ........................................................................ 87
5.3.2.1. Consonantal Cues ........................................................................................... 87
5.3.2.2. Vocalic Cues .................................................................................................... 88
5.4. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research................................... 91
5.4.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 91
5.4.2. Limitations of the study ................................................................................... 95
5.4.3. Recommendations for Further Future Research .......................................... 95
References ............................................................................................................................... 97
V
Abbreviations
JA Jordanian Arabic
AJA Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic
CD Consonant Duration
RTR Retracted Tongue Root
VD Vowel Duration
RJA Rural Jordanian Arabic
UJA Urban Jordanian Arabic
F1 First Formant Frequency
F2 Second Formant Frequency
F3 Third Formant Frequency
COG Center of Gravity
ORD Original Regional Dialect
Hz Hertz; kHz (kilohertz)
ms Millisecond
MSA Modern Standard Arabic
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
TS Target Syllable
DS Distant Syllable
VI
List of Arabic Phonetic Symbols
Consonants
Symbol Description
ʔ Glottal stop
b Voiced bilabial stop
t Voiceless alveolar stop
θ Voiceless dental fricative
ʒ Voiced palato-alveolar fricative
ħ Voiceless pharyngeal fricative
x Voiceless velar fricative
d Voiced alveolar stop
ð Voiced dental fricative
r Voiced alveolar trill
z Voiced alveolar fricative
s Voiceless alveolar fricative
ʃ Voiceless palato-alveolar fricative
sˁ Voiceless alveolar emphatic fricative
dˁ Voiced alveolar emphatic stop
tˁ Voiceless alveolar emphatic stop
ðˁ Voiced dental emphatic fricative
ʕ Voiced pharyngeal fricative
γ Voiced velar fricative
f Voiceless labio-dental fricative
q Voiceless uvular stop
k Voiceless velar stop
l Alveolar lateral
m Voiced bilabial nasal
n Voiced alveolar nasal
h Voiceless glottal fricative
w Labio-velar semi-vowel
j Palatal semi-vowel
VII
Vowels
Symbol Description
a: Long low back vowel
a Short low back vowel
i: Long high front unrounded vowel
ɪ Short mid-high front unrounded vowel
u: Long high back rounded vowel
ʊ Short mid-high back rounded vowel
e near-mid front unrounded vowel
VIII
Abstract
Almomany, Ibrahim Eshlash Odeh. Effects of Age and Gender on

Emphasis Production in Jordanian Arabic: A Socio-phonetic Study.
Master Thesis, Department of English Language and Literature, Yarmouk
University, 2018.
(Supervisor: Prof. Rasheed S. Al-Jarrah)
The main objective of the study reported in the thesis below was to find out the
effects age and gender each had on emphasis production in a sub-dialect of
Rural Jordanian Arabic, namely Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic. Concisely, the
sounds, [tˤ] and [sˤ[, were investigated word-initially and word-finally in both
mono- and bi-syllabic words, relative to their plain counterparts, [t] and [s]. For
this, twelve native speakers of Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic, six males and six
females, were divided further into three age groups, namely Young (18-35 years
old), Middle-aged (36-50 years old) and Old (51-70 years old). Five acoustic
parameters (namely VOT, F1, F2, F3, and consonant duration) were used to
measure the effect(s) of age and gender on emphasis as produced by the
subjects of the study. Our findings showed that Voice Onset Time (VOT) was a
reliable acoustic exponent for emphasis in Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic in that the
VOT of [tˤ] was significantly shorter than the VOT of its plain counterpart
sound, [t], for all age and gender groups. Besides, emphaticized vowels in the
target syllable were only distinguished by raised F1 and F3 and lowered F2 at
the vowel midpoint. However, consonant duration turned out to be a non-
significant parameter for emphasis production for all age and gender groups. To
1
further support the influence of age and gender on emphasis production, two
further investigations were carried out: pair-wise and overall interactions. As for
the former, some significant findings were obtained, including: (1) emphasis
was more evident in males' speech; hence VOT was longer in males’ speech
than in females’, (2) emphasis was more evident (emphatic VOT being shorter)
in the speech of the middle-aged group than in the speech of the old and the
young groups, (3) vowel quality values indicated some significant effect(s) of
emphasis production as emphatic F3 in non-target syllables turned out to be
more raised only for low-back vowels ([a:] and [a]) but more lowered for front
vowels ([i:] and [ɪ]), and (4) vowel length was only significant in the target
syllable, evidenced only by a more lowered emphatic F2 value for both short
and long vowels. However, non-significant findings for pair-wise interactions
included: (1) manner was not significant by any acoustic means neither in the
target nor in the non-target syllables, (2) position of the target consonant was
not significant in both the target and non-target syllables, and (3) word size was
also not significant by any acoustic means. As for overall interactions, the
findings showed only some significant interaction in terms of F1 and F2 in the
target syllable. To illustrate, emphatic F1 was more raised when the ‘variables’
of gender (male), manner (stop), target consonant locus (word-initial), vowel
quality (front), word-size (mono-syllabic), and vowel length (short) interact, but
was more lowered when male, young, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high
back, mono-syllabic and short interact. Emphatic F2 was more lowered when
2
middle-aged, male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high back, mono-syllabic
and short interact. In addition, there was a significant interaction only in terms
of F2 in the non-target syllable. To illustrate, emphatic F2 was more raised
when male, stop, word-initial, front, bi-syllabic and long interact, and also more
raised when male, stop, word-initial, front, bi-syllabic and short interact.
However, the magnitude of change was higher in the former case than in the
second.
3
‫الخالصة‬
‫المومني‪ ,‬ابراهيم شالش عوده‪ .‬تأثير عمر وجنس المتكلم على نطق األصوات المفخمة في اللهجة‬
‫األردنية‪ -‬دراسة صوتية اجتماعية‪ .‬قسم اللغة االنجليزية وادابها‪ ,‬جامعة اليرموك‪.8102 ,‬‬
‫(المشرف‪ :‬األستاذ الدكتور رشيد الجراح)‬
‫هدفت هذه الدراسة بشكل أساسي إليجاد تأثير كال من عاملي العمر والجنس على نطق التفخيم في واحدة‬
‫من اللهجات األردنية وهي لهجة أهل عجلون‪ .‬وبالتحديد تمت دراسة الصوتين المفخمين الصاد والطاء‬
‫في بداية ونهاية الكلمات ذوات المقطع الواحد والمقطعين‪ .‬وبناء عليه‪ ،‬تم تقسيم عينة الدراسة المؤلفة من‬
‫اثني عشر مشاركا إلى ثالث مجموعات عمرية‪ ،‬وهي‪ :‬فئة الشباب (‪ )53-81‬وفئة متوسطي السن (‪-53‬‬
‫‪ )35‬وفئة كبار السن (‪ .)05-38‬وتم استخدام خمسة معايير أكيوستية )‪ (acoustic parameters‬وهي‬
‫)‪ ، (VOT, F1, F2, F3, and CD‬وذلك لقياس تأثيرات العمر والجنس على التفخيم كما نطقته عينة‬
‫الدراسة‪.‬‬
‫وقد أظهرت النتائج أن الـ )‪ (VOT‬هو معيار أكيوستي موثوق عند نطق التفخيم في هذه اللهجة‪ .‬كما‬
‫أظهرت النتائج ان أكثر ما يميز األصوات المعلولة المفخمة )‪ (emphaticized vowels‬هو ارتفاع قيم‬
‫)‪ (F1 and F3‬وانخفاض قيمة )‪ (F2‬عند نقطة منتصف الصوت المعلول‪ .‬لكن بالمقابل لم يكن طول‬
‫الصوت الصامت معيار أكيوستي موثوق على نطق التفخيم عند كل فئات الدراسة‪ .‬وللتأكد من مصداقية‬
‫تأثير العمر والجنس على نطق التفخيم في هذه اللهجة تم إجراء فحصين إضافيين وهما‪ :‬التفاعل الثنائي‬
‫والتفاعل الكلي بين متغيرات الدراسة‪ .‬وقد أظهرت نتائج الفحص األول ما يلي‪ .8 :‬كان التفخيم أكثر‬
‫ظهورا عند فئة الذكور ‪ .2‬كان التفخيم أكثر ظهورا عند الفئة العمرية المتوسطة ‪ .5‬أظهرت قيم نوعية‬
‫الصوت المعلول بعض التأثيرات ذات الداللة على نطق التفخيم ‪ .4‬كان طول الصوت المعلول معيار‬
‫أكيوستي موثوق فقط في المقطع المستهدف )‪ .(target syllable‬وبالمقابل كانت النتائج التي ليست لها‬
‫داللة على النحو التالي‪ .8 :‬لم تكن طبيعة نطق الصوت )‪ (manner of articulation‬معيار أكيوستي‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫موثوق سواء في المقطع الذي ترد فيه أو خارجه ‪ .2‬لم يكن موقع الصوت في الكلمة ذات داللة سواء في‬
‫المقطع المستهدف أو خارجه ‪ .5‬لم يكن حجم الكلمة ذات داللة على أي معايير أكيوستية ( ‪acoustic‬‬
‫‪ .)means‬أما بالنسبة للتفاعل الكلي بين متغيرات الدراسة فإن النتائج تشير إلى بعض التفاعالت‬
‫المحدودة فيما يخص قيم )‪ (F1 and F2‬في المقطع الذي ترد فيه‪ .‬لكن تجدر اإلشارة إلى أن كم التغير‬
‫كان أعلى في الحالة األولى منها في الحالة الثانية‪.‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. Introduction
Being a feature of almost all Semitic languages including Hebrew and
Arabic (Abudalbuh, 2011; Algryani, 2014; Salem, 2017), emphasis is a wide-
spread phenomenon in most Arabic dialects, including Jordanian Arabic, the
dialect under present investigation. According to Herzallah (1990), Zawaydeh
(1998), Jongman, Herd, Al-Masri, Sereno, and Combest (2011), emphasis is
often referred to as 'pharyngealization,' 'dorsalization,' 'velarization,' and
'backing.' Nonetheless, emphasis is, grossly speaking, defined as the co-
articulation of primary and secondary articulation, mainly a constriction in the
dental/alveolar region along with a constriction in the posterior region (Ghazeli,
1977; Yeou, 1997; Bin-Muqbil, 2006; Jongman, Herd, and Al-Masri, 2007;
Jongman et al., 2011; Algryani, 2014; Jaber, Al-Omari and Al-Jarrah
(forthcoming)).
Still, there is little consensus as to the essence of the posterior
constriction for emphatics (Jongman et al., 2011 and Rababa, 2017). For
instance, Algryani (2014) adds that the controversy over emphasis is attributed
to what some researchers (e.g. Herzallah, 1990; Zawaydeh, 1998; Jongman, et
al., 2011) refer to as 'pharyngealization,' given that not all emphatics get the
pharynx involved in their production.
6
A sizeable body of research conducted so far on Arabic phonetics and
phonology makes a distinction between the sound classes of gutturals and
emphatics. The former includes the two laryngeals [h, ʔ], the two pharyngeals
[ħ, ʕ], and the three uvulars [χ, q, γ]; whereas the latter includes [tˁ, dˁ, sˁ, ðˁ]
(Bin-Muqbil, 2006). It is worth noting that the secondary articulation (i.e. the
dorsal one) for emphatics is the factor distinguishing these consonants from
their plain counterparts: [t, d, s, ð].
Another distinction thus laid on the table by some researchers (e.g.
Algryani, 2014) concerns the classification of emphatic consonants. They posit
that there are two sets of emphatic consonants: primary emphatics versus
secondary emphatics. The former includes [tˁ, dˁ, sˁ, ðˁ], but the latter includes
]b, r, m, l[. The clear-cut distinction between these two sets is that the so-called
primary emphatics have contrasting counterpart phonemes (e.g. t, d, s, ð) while
the other set (i.e. secondary emphatics) does not.
Despite all this, Pepiot (2013) argues that cross-gender differences can
never be accounted for only by means of acoustic measurements. Instead,
gender-related effects must be linked to a complex set of factors such as
physiology, philosophy, sociology, and anatomy. Most researchers adhere to the
view that acoustic variation among males (vis-à-vis females) is foremost
accounted for by means of biological and anatomical differences that take place
during the age of puberty (Pepiot, 2013). This is probably due to the size of the
7
vocal tract, which is longer for males than for females (Abudalbuh, 2011;
Holmes, 2013).
The study of emphasis is not recent, for it dates back to the 8 th century
AD. Apart from phonological and phonetic investigations, the phenomenon has
not been investigated thoroughly from other perspectives, particularly socio-
phonetic. For example, little attention has been given to the acoustics of
emphasis production (Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004), especially in Arabic
dialectology (Abudalbuh, 2011). Emphasis, according to Rababa (2017), has not
been given full considerations both acoustically and regionally. For this, the
present study sets itself the goal of investigating the acoustics of emphasis with
age and gender as social variables affecting emphasis production in Ajlouni-
Jordanian Arabic (Henceforth AJA). In a nutshell, the purpose of the current is
therefore twofold: (1) to investigate the effect(s) of age on the production of
emphasis in AJA, and (2) to investigate the effect(s) of gender on the production
of emphasis in the same dialect.
Shedding some light on gender and age from a pure sociolinguistic view
point, Holmes (2013) believes that males and females speak differently due to
social and cultural influences. To this end, the term gender, as opposed to the
term sex (i.e. biological differences), is used to refer to the speaker's socially-
and culturally-dependent traces on sex (Meyerhoff, 2006; Holmes, 2013;
Coates, 2016). Holmes (2013) adds that men and women do use the same
8
language forms in varying degrees, so it is all about when, how, and why men
and women use the same (or different) language forms.
To socially explain women's linguistic behavior, Holmes’ (2013) views
first draw on the fieldwork interviews done in New York and in Norwich, which
all support the claim that gender is affected by the speaker's social status. One
explanation put forward by Holmes (2013) is that women strive to maintain
(and thus color) their status in the speech community, thus pretentiously use the
so-called prestigious/standard forms more frequently than they actually do.
Another explanation also suggested by Holmes (2013) lies in the society's
expectations for women to have a better social conduct than men. Holmes
(2013, p.168) puts it like this: "Misbehaviour from boys is tolerated where girls
are more quickly corrected". Probably for this, women are covertly urged to
speak more prestigiously than men. Holmes' (2013) claim that women produce
more frequent tokens of the standard forms is still contentious, and therefore not
inclusive of all social groups1.
Age also seems to play a great role in affecting the speech of men and
women at the age of puberty. For example, Holmes (2013) argues that each age
group's pitch, the perceptual realization of acoustics, is different. Due to faster
physiological growth of their vocal tract, boys' pitch tends to be lower than
girls'. What this means is that boys tend to develop masculinity features such as
1
Distinction between standard and prestigious is still debatable.
9
using the vernacular rapidly. In this regard, Holmes (2013) argues, "It is more
masculine to speak with a lower-pitched voice, and so young boys often
develop this masculine feature, along with other more obviously sociolinguistic
features of male speech such as the greater use of vernacular forms described
above" (p. 175).
Taking age as a social variable, along with gender and education, Daher
(1997) claims that the effect of the education factor is far stronger among men
than among women. The correlation is like this: the higher the speaker's level of
education is, the more the variation is. The level of education has turned out to
be the most effective factor showing phonological variation in Syrian Arabic.
More interestingly, Daher (1997) claims that the age gap between males and
females narrows down for the age group (25-39). His findings highlight the
significant role played by age as a social variable affecting phonological
variation, and hence properties of sounds.
1.2. Context of the Study
Jordanian Arabic (henceforth JA) has often been reported to have four main
sub-varieties: Urban, Rural, Bedouin, and Ghorani (Zuraiq and Zhang, 2006).
However, these sub-dialects can be further divided into sub-varieties
(Zawaydeh, 1999). For example, Rural Jordanian Arabic (henceforth RJA) can
also be further divided into sub-varieties such as Ramtha Jordanian Arabic
(Rababa, 2017) and Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic (Alghazo, 1987). The current
10
study mainly focuses on Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic (henceforth AJA) as spoken
by most people residing in the so-called Ajloun district, whether living in the
city center of Ajolun or living in its suburbs (e.g. Ibbin, Ain Janna, Anjara,
Baoun, Rasoun, and Kufranjeh). Interestingly, whereas JA, like Modern
Standard Arabic (henceforth MSA) has the four primary emphatics [tˁ, dˁ, sˁ, ðˁ]
contrasted with their plain counterparts [t, d, s, and ð], AJA includes the whole
set of the so-called emphatics except for [dˁ], though its plain counterpart ]d[
does exist.
1.3. Thesis Statement
Although emphasis is surely a characterizing feature of Arabic, the
researcher has found only one study, namely Rababa's (2017), focusing on
emphasis in RJA (vis-à-vis UJA). Yet, no study to date has tried to unravel the
effect of age on emphasis production by Jordanians. Therefore, the present
study seeks to investigate emphasis from one of the least-researched socio-
linguistic perspecives, namely age and gender. As our current study tries to
investigate the acoustic correlates of emphasis production in AJA, it concerns
itself with how age and gender, as social variables, each influences emphasis
production in this sub-dialect of JA.
1.4. Purpose of the Present Study
The present study is planned to be an in-depth investigation into the acoustic
correlates of emphasis production in AJA, taking into consideration age and
11
gender as extra-linguistic influences on emphasis production. To be more
precise, our current study tries to unravel how consonant duration (CD), VOT,
F1, F2, and F3 interact with age and gender when producing emphatics by the
subjects of the study.
1.5. Hypotheses
The following hypotheses are laid on the table for verification:
 Emphasis is more evident in males' speech.
 Emphasis is more pronounced for old speakers.
 Variation is expected to be affected by the age of the speaker.
 Emphasis can be blocked by certain speech segments.
 Emphasis is immensely affected by both the linguistic and non-linguistic
environments.
1.6. Questions of the Study
As a multiple-goal oriented study, our analysis is designed to address three main
questions, namely:
1. Which acoustic parameter(s) (i.e. CD, VOT, F1, F2, and F3) is/are more
relevant, and thus more reliable, for emphasis production in AJA?2
2. What effects does age have on the acoustic correlates of emphasis
production in AJA?
2
This probably needs to be investigated from a perception perspective.
12
3. What effects does gender have on the acoustic correlates of emphasis
production in AJA?
To further validate our findings, pair-wise and overall analyses have addressed
the following inquiries:
1. How do the ‘variables’ of manner, target consonant locus, vowel quality,
word-size, and vowel length interact with emphasis pair-wise?
2. How do the ‘variables’ of manner, target consonant locus, vowel quality,
word-size, vowel length, age and gender interact with emphasis in an
overall fashion?
1.7. Significance of the Study
Conducting a study on such an under-researched area in acoustic phonetics
would probably bridge the gap reported in the very few studies conducted so far
on emphasis production (Rababa, 2017; Abudalbuh, 2011; Al-Masri and
Jongman, 2004). Therefore, Age- and gender-based effects on emphasis
production are issues worthy of further investigation. It is expected that the
findings of such research would help us maintain a better understanding of the
acoustic correlates of emphasis production on linguistic and social grounds.
13
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1. Acoustic Studies on Emphasis
Contrasted with the phonetic and phonological investigations of
emphasis, the acoustic analysis of emphasis has not received its due share of
research (Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004; Abudalbuh, 2011). In this section, we
survey those studies that have focused on emphasis from this perspective.
Zawaydeh (1999), investigating emphasis spread in Ammani-Jordanian
Arabic, notes that F2 lowering for vowels adjacent to emphatics is a reliable
acoustic correlate of emphasis in this dialect; she adds that emphasis spread is
found to be both rightward and leftward. While the former has shown a gradient
status (i.e. the farther the vowel from the emphatic sound is, the higher its F2
value becomes), the latter has revealed a consistent status (i.e. F2 values remain
relatively consistent irrespective of the position of the vowel to its neighboring
emphatics).
Although laryngeals, pharyngeals, and some uvulars are traditionally
grouped under the umbrella term of gutturals, Zawaydeh (1999) brings an
acoustic piece of evidence to add emphatics to this group of sounds. She claims
that although all gutturals do not involve a common articulator, they can have
something in common acoustically. With the exception of laryngeals, gutturals
all involve some constriction in the pharynx during the articulations of these
sounds. Being language-specific, gutturals cannot therefore be considered as a
14
natural class in Arabic from an articulatory standpoint. This is probably so
because there is a pharyngeal narrowing while articulating pharyngeals,
emphatics, uvulars, but not laryngeals. Therefore, it is not possible to account
for gutturals articulatorily; hence the laryngeal subclass is excluded altogether
(Zawaydeh, 1999). This state of affairs actually fosters the importance of
conducting acoustic experiments, which would group pharyngeals, laryngeals,
uvulars, and emphatics as one class since they all show raised F1. What this
basically means is that raised F1 is the common denominator for all gutturals,
including laryngeals and emphatics.
Having considered the motivations behind uvularization, Zawaydeh
(1999) seems to reject what has been reported by other researchers that
uvularization is a characteristic of the syllable, vowel, or certain consonants.
Instead, she contends that uvularization occurs only in some environments. That
is, uvularization, as a supra-segmental feature, accompanies uvularized
consonants like coronal emphatics. What this means is that uvularization is not
a syllable-oriented feature (Cf. Lehn, 1963; Broselow, 1976; 1979; Sha'ban,
1977; Sayyed, 1981). Besides, Zawaydeh (1999) casts doubt on the view that
uvularization is an inherent feature of vowels (Khalafallah, 1961), simply
because if this were the case, plain counterparts to uvular vowels should be
present in the language vowel inventory. Zawaydeh (1999) therefore adheres to
the view that uvularization is only an underlying feature of some consonants,
15
thus allowing uvularization to spread to a specified domain where some vowels
can be uvularized.
The lowering of the second formant (F2) is probably the acoustic measure
which shows uvularization spread. However, regarding leftward and rightward
spreading of emphasis, it is well established in the literature (e.g. Ghazeli, 1977;
Younes, 1982; Herzallah, 1990, among others) that there are some opaque
sounds that may block spreading, namely [j], [i], [u], [w], [ʃ], [ʒ] (see Table 5
below). Davis (1995) claims that rightward spreading (but not leftward
spreading) is blocked by these opaque segments. However, Zawaydeh (1998)
has found that neither rightward spreading nor leftward spreading of
uvularization is blocked by the so-called opaque sounds. But Rababa (2017) has
found that front vowels, with the exception of [e], [i:] and [ɪ], block emphasis
spread in RJA. What this means is that although the majority of researchers
argue in favor of the so-called opaque sounds, they still disagree as regards what
these sounds are.
Being interested in figuring out the nature of emphasis spread, be it
phonological or phonetic, Zawaydeh (1999: 146) defines phonetic blocking as
"the absence of a low F2 on a vowel following a high segment in a word that
contains an uvularized segment". Claiming that emphasis spread is phonetic (i.e.
not blocked by any high segment), Zawaydeh argues that although rightward
spreading is gradient (i.e. phonetic), leftward spreading is categorical (i.e.
16
phonological). Varying manners of spreading are due to what Zawaydeh calls
"the difference between anticipatory and perseverative spreading," with the
former being stronger than the latter because emphatics occurring word finally
make up for being final by spreading emphasis more strongly throughout the
word (see Zawaydeh 1999: 174).
Watson (2002) claims that the most reliable acoustic correlate of
emphasis is F2 lowering of the vowels in the emphatic environment. As evinced
in the production of emphasis, the oral cavity is extended while the pharyngeal
cavity is contracted, resulting in a compact spectral shape of F1 (reduced
pharyngeal cavity) and F2 (i.e. enlarged mouth cavity) for emphatics. What this
basically means is that while labialization entails F1 lowering,
pharyngealization entails F1 raising. Labialization is thus an enhancing feature,
resulting in F2 being more effective in the identification of emphasis.
Rababa (2017) has investigated the acoustic correlates of emphasis
production in two mutually intelligible dialects of JA, namely RJA and UJA. By
focusing on the two uvulars: [χ, γ], along with the colloquial variant of [q] in
JA, he argues for the possibility of producing the 10 plain consonants [b], [d],
[k], [dʒ], [f], [ʃ], [l], [n], [w], and [ḥ] as emphatics in RJA.
Rababa (2017), among others (e.g. Abudalbuh, 2011; Jongman et al.,
2011; Al-Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004; Jongmanet al., 2007;
Aldamen, 2013; Al-Deaibes, 2016), has found that vowels in emphatic
17
environments show raised F1 and F3 values but a lowered F2 value; he
contends that these formant values are not as reliable for front vowels as they
are for back ones.
Correlated with the vowel first three formants' values, Ladefoged and
Johnson (2014) argue that tongue advancement and height play a significant
role in emphasis realization. It is found that the more front the vowel is, the
higher its F2 value becomes. Besides, the higher the vowel is, the lower its F1
value becomes. In fact, looking at spectrograms of front and/or back vowels
would best show how the F1 and F2 values correlate with tongue shape. For
example, a vowel like /ɒ/, a short-low front vowel, would have a compact of F1
and F2 while a vowel like /ɪ/, a short mid-high front vowel, would have a
compact of F2 and F3. Compare:
18
Figure (1): Adopted from Ladefoged and Johnson (2014: 196).
A note worthy of mention here is that these spectrograms demonstrate the
correlation between tongue shape and the first two formant frequencies in
English. However, the story of Arabic is not far from being irrelevant; for
tongue advancement and height are at the heart of producing vowels in almost
all languages.
Following this, Rababa (2017) has found that RJA and UJA, though
being dialects of the same language, show different acoustic qualities with
regard to the vowel’s first three formant frequencies. That is, F2 and F3 vowel
values are more lowered in UJA than in RJA, and thus F1 and F2 vowel values
are more lowered in RJA than in UJA.
19
Another finding that has turned out to be valid in a number of previous
investigations is that CD is not a reliable acoustic cue for emphasis (Rababa,
2017; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004; Al-Adam, 2015; Boxberger, 1981). While
there is almost some consensus among the researchers that CD is not a reliable
cue for emphasis, there is not such consensus as regards vowel duration
(henceforth VD). To illustrate, according to Rababa (2017), VD seems to be a
reliable cue for emphasis, but according to Al-Masri and Jongman (2004) and
Al-Adam (2015), VD is not a credible cue for emphasis at all, a debate that
needs to be settled by further future investigations.
Rababa (2017) has found that VD is always shorter in RJA than in UJA.
More significantly, the two uvulars [x, γ], along with the colloquial variant of
/q/, are produced as is in RJA, but are velarized in UJA. While UJA seems to
keep the ten plain consonants: [b], [d], [k], [dʒ], [f], [ʃ], [l], [n], [w], and [ḥ]
unaltered as in MSA, RJA sounds to back them.
With regard to emphasis spread/directionality, it is found that emphasis
spread goes beyond the target syllable in leftward and rightward fashions, with
the sounds falling to the right being affected more by emphasis. This simply
means that the more distant the syllable (i.e. from the target syllable) is, the less
affected by emphasis it becomes (Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004; Jongman et al.,
2011; Rababa, 2017).
20
Voice Onset Time (VOT) is also a reliable acoustic correlate for
emphasis in that voiceless stops have shorter VOT than their emphatic
counterparts. For instance, Abudalbuh (2011) and Aldamen (2013) have showed
that [t] has a significantly shorter VOT than [tˤ].
Contrary to Zawaydeh (1999), Rababa (2017) and Algryani (2014) claim
that there are some opaque phonemes that may block emphasis. Rababa (2017)
has argued that front vowels (except for [e, i:, ɪ]) block emphasis spread,
whereas back and central vowels accompany emphasis. Having more raised F1
and F3 values and more lowered F2 value in emphatic contexts, vowels in RJA
differ from those in UJA with regards to emphasis production. More
significantly, Rababa (2017) posits a more important correlation of emphasis,
not only on articulatory basis but also on regional grounds in that F1 and F2
vowel values neighboring emphatics are more narrowed in RJA than in UJA,
whereas F2 and F3 vowel values are more narrowed in UJA than in RJA. This
finding is verified by Lehn (1963) in that there is some variance with regard to
the features of emphasis among speakers of different dialects.
Algryani (2014), on the other hand, has claimed that phonemes like [ʃ, j,
i:, i, e:] can block emphasis. This can actually be ascribed to both vowel height
and frontness, correlating respectively with F1 and F2, being at the heart of
producing emphatics (Algryani, 2014). More interestingly, Jaber, Al-Omari, and
21
Al-Jarrah (forthcoming) have found that it is the morpheme boundary, not the
syllable boundary, which blocks emphasis spread in JA, be it right- or left-ward.
Alghazo (1987) has investigated the essence of emphasis spread in AJA,
the dialect under present scrutiny. He has argued that emphasis is phonological
as it interacts with other phonological processes such as assimilation. To
illustrate, an emphatic sound deemphasizes when occurring word-finally,
followed by a homorganic plain sound.
2.2. Gender- and Age- related Studies on Emphasis
Not only does the present study investigate the acoustic correlates of
emphasis production, but it also investigates gender- and age-related effects on
emphasis production in AJA. Therefore, in this subsection, we try to survey
those studies that have tackled the issue of emphasis with reference to gender
and age as social variables affecting its production. What is worth mentioning
upfront here is that no study, to the best of my knowledge, has as yet
investigated emphasis production taking age and gender factors together.
Studying the acoustic and auditory opposition between [t] and [tˤ] in
males' and females' speech of JA, Khattab, Al-Tamimi, and Heselwood (2006)
have found that F2 onset values are a highly significant exponent for emphasis
irrespective of the speaker's gender. F1 onset values, on the other hand, have not
turned out to be a consistent exponent for emphasis (as those of F2) with respect
to the speaker's gender. Concisely, they maintain that females tend to front
22
vowel onsets following the emphatic /t/ (having a front-quality onsets akin to
vowels following the plain /t/), while males tend to keep them as back-quality
vowel onsets.
In order to arrive at a more uniform conclusion, Khattab et al. (2006)
consider it vital to consider the underlying social factors, such as locality,
gender, and/or social class, affecting emphasis productions by natives of JA.
Khattab et al. (2006) confess that their results run counter to those of Al-Masri
and Jongman (2004), who have claimed that emphasis is more salient in
females’ speech (i.e. more lowered F2 values), than in males’. However,
Khattab et al. (2006) trace this disconformity of research finding to (1) the
locality of the participants and (2) the composition of the stimulus materials.
Given Al-Masri's and Jongman's (2004) minimal pair test material, it is
expected that they result in a more formal style, which in turn would yield
higher degrees of emphaticness. Attempting a solution, Khattab et al. (2006)
propose that the social factors be regulated in research design when trying to
unravel the effect(s) of gender on emphasis production. However, Alzoubi
(2017: 132-133) contends that "their assumption was affected by a rigid
interpretation of diglossia that enforces a strict compartmentalization of the
functions booked for Modern Standard Arabic and other spoken varieties The
results from the current study invalidate this assumption and demonstrate that
23
the wordlist/minimal pairs tasks show linguistic differences that project
information about speakers identity and their social affiliations".
Alzoubi (2017) has studied some social aspects, including the speaker's
social class, origin, and gender, affecting emphasis production in Amman City.
His study has been focused on the production of the two primary emphatics ([tˤ]
and [sˤ]) vis-à-vis their plain counterparts. The findings have been drawn on a
variety of acoustic parameters such as VOT, the first three formant frequencies
of the emphaticized vowel, and the Center of Gravity (henceforth COG) of the
fricatives and stops, to use Alzoubi's terminology. Considering the interaction
between the linguistic and extra-linguistic factors, Alzoubi (2017) has
pinpointed that females maintain a lesser degree of emphaticness, evidenced by
the values of the first three formant frequencies (for details see Alzoubi, 2017:
94). Similar findings have been attested for consonantal cues, namely VOT.
Alzoubi (2017) argues that social class has affected the degree of
emphaticness as produced by natives of West Amman and East Amman, the
two social classes representing the higher and lower social classes, respectively.
To illustrate, speakers of the West Amman variety retain a greater emphatic-
plain contrast relative to F3, while speakers of the East Amman variety show a
greater emphatic vs. plain contrast with regard to COG. Finally, origin or
original regional dialect (ORD) of the speaker, to use Alzoubi's terminology,
has also turned out to have some impact on the production of emphatic vs. plain
24
contrasts. The acoustic exponents affected by ORD are F2, F3, VOT, and COG
of stops. More specifically, three ORDs are attested in this study, namely Rural
Palestinian ORD, Urban Palestinian ORD, and Rural Jordanian ORD. The
findings show that VOT and formant frequencies of Rural Palestinian ORD
differ from those of Urban Palestinian ORD and Rural Jordanian ORD. As for
COG, rural Jordanian ORD shows a greater difference as opposed to Urban
Palestinian and Rural Palestinian ORDs. All in all, the effect of ORD points to
the conclusion that Urban Palestinian speakers show a lesser degree of
emphatic-plain contrasts, a state of affairs that definitely affects the realization
of emphaticness.
Adopting the mixed-effect model, Alzoubi (2017) has found that there is a
very significant effect of the emphatic sound on the acoustic cues of emphasis,
namely F1, F2, F3, VOT, and stop COG, but no significant effect on fricative
COG. Post hoc tests have shown that (1) F1, F3 are raised, (2) F2 is lowered in
emphatic environments, (3) VOT is shortened for the emphatic stop, and (4)
COG is lowered for emphatic stops. Further investigation of the difference
between emphatic fricatives and emphatic stops, Alzoubi (2017) has thus
arrived at the conclusion that stops show greater emphatic-plain contrast than do
fricatives. To clarify, given the mean values of F3, it has turned out that the
acoustic correlates of emphasis are more salient for voiceless stops than for
fricatives. Interesting findings have been attained for the effect(s) of vowel
25
types. Clearly, vowels such as /a, aa/, /i, ii/, and /ai/ have shown, higher mean
values with regard to F2, but vowels like /u, uu/, or /au/ have not shown similar
differences. As for F3, the emphatic vs. plain contrast is found to be more
evident (i.e. higher) for the vowels /u, uu/, /au, ai/, /a, aa/, /i, ii/, respectively
(Alzoubi, 2017). As for his investigations of the effect(s) of consonant/vowel
locus, Alzoubi (2017) has found that that F1 behaves significantly different in
emphatic vs. plain environment only when the vowel occurs before the target
sounds. F2, on the other hand, shows significance only if it occurs after target
sounds. Also, COG in coda position acts differently for emphatic vs. plain stop
contrasts; for emphatic stops retain a lower COG than that of their plain
counterparts (Alzoubi, 2017).
Al Malwi (2017), studying the effects of age and gender as social variables
affecting VOT by Abha-Arabic speakers, contends that gender has a salient
effect on VOT for voiced stops and emphatic stops. Precisely, men retain longer
VOT for the voiceless emphatic stops while women, conversely, show longer
negative VOT for the voiced stops. Integrating age into his study, Al Malwi
(2017) pinpoints, after running a three-way ANOVA for age groups (4-6, 7-9,
10-12, and adults), gender group (male vs. female), and voicing group (voiced,
voiceless, and emphatic), that the effects of age, gender, and voicing have
turned to be very significant.
26
Studying gender weight for emphasis production in JA, Abudalbuh (2010)
has arrived at the following conclusions. First, VOT for voiceless emphatic
stops is significantly shorter than VOT for voiceless plain ones. Second, he has
argued that emphasis and gender do not, by any means, show any interaction on
VOT. Third, he has stressed that emphatic fricatives have shorter durations
compared with their plain counterparts.
As regards VD, vowels in emphatic contexts are found to be longer than they
are in plain contexts. Formant frequencies, on the other hand, have been
affected by emphasis; for F1 is found to be raised in emphatic environment at
the vowel onset and midpoints, but F2 is lowered in emphatic contexts. F3,
however, is only significantly higher in emphatic contexts at the vowel onset
and offset (Abudalbuh, 2010).
A delineated analysis of formants frequencies in emphatic contexts has
revealed that F2 stands out as the strongest exponents of emphasis, particularly
at the vowel onset. Being more salient for F1 and F2, vowel onset has
incorporated the greatest degree of change for emphasis. Decaying in effect
from the vowel onset to the vowel offset, F2 signals a gradient status of
emphasis spread. Whereas F1 effect has remained consistent regardless of the
vowel quality, F2 and F3 have showed some variations. For instance, the fall of
F2 has exerted its ultimate value on the low front vowel /æ/ while the rise of F3
has exerted its ultimate value on the long back vowel /u/ (Abudalbuh, 2010).
27
Producing acoustically distinct manifestations of emphasis, males and
females have been weighed differently on F1, F2, and F3 values. To illustrate,
F1 and F3, have been found to be significantly higher in males' speech but not
in females'. At the level of detail we are considering here, it should be pointed
out that F1 value in males' speech is consistently and significantly higher in
emphatic contexts throughout the vowel, but F1 value is only significantly
higher at the vowel onset for females (Abudalbuh, 2010). Therefore, males
exhibit significantly raised F3 values in emphatic contexts at both vowel onset
and offset, whereas females' F3 is only significantly raised at the vowel onset.
Upon normalizing the data, Abudalbuh (2010) proposes that males tend to show
more emphaticness in their speech than do females with regard to F1 and F2 at
the vowel onset and midpoint.
According to Abudalbuh (2011), gender plays a significant role in the
production of emphasis in JA. Utilizing several acoustic measurements,
Abudalbuh argues that emphasis (or emphaticness) is more salient in the speech
of men than in the speech of women with regards to F1 and F2 values at onset
and midpoint of the vowel.
Studying the acoustic cues of emphasis in JA, Al-Masri and Jongman (2004)
have arrived at the following conclusions. First, CD has not yielded any
significant variations in both emphatic and non-emphatic environments. Second,
VD has remained consistent regardless of which environment it occurs in or
28
how far it is from the target syllable, again lending no significant variations.
Third, F2, conversely, has shown the greatest significance in emphatic
environment with an average drop of 521 Hz compared with its plain
counterpart (for details, see Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004: section 5.3). Fourth,
there are some opaque segments such as /i/ and /u/ that block rightward
emphasis spread.
Relying on the most reliable acoustic cue (namely F2), Al-Masri and
Jongman (2004) have found that the magnitude of emphasis is greater for
females than it is for males. Because the researchers have confined themselves
to studying only the rightward spreading due to, as they claim, stimulus
limitations, Al-Masri’s and Jongman’s (2004) findings go in tandem with
Zawaydeh's (1999) in that rightward emphasis spread is gradient.
Al-Masri’s (2009) study is mainly focused on the acoustic and perceptual
correlates of emphasis for mono and bi-syllabic words in UJA. His overall
analysis of monosyllabic words has revealed the following findings. First,
emphatic fricatives occurring word-finally have longer durations than their plain
counterparts. Second, F1 shows a significant rise in emphatic environment, but
tends to decline as the vowel gets farther from the target consonant. Third, F2
tends to remain consistent in emphatic positions, being lowered irrespective of
the position of the target consonant. Fourth, like F1, F3 tends to increase in
emphatic positions, but its value decreases as the vowel falls farther away from
29
the target consonant. Fifth, high front and low front vowels affect formant
frequencies more than do high back ones. Finally, no interaction was attested
for gender variation in monosyllables.
As for emphasis correlates in bi-syllabic words, Al-Masri (2009) makes the
following claims. First, CD and VD have not revealed any coherent results.
Second, raised F1 and F3 are reported, but lowered F2 is reported in emphatic
context for almost all the data. This pattern of significance, however, fades
away as the measurement is taken outside the target syllable (i.e. the syllable
containing the vowel and the target consonant). Yet, Al-Masri (2009, p. 145)
argues that, "This is clearer when the measurements are taken on the left rather
than right of the target vowel, thus showing more prominence for anticipatory
emphasis spread". Like vowel quality in monosyllables, the interaction in bi-
syllabic words shows that emphasis gets clearer in the contexts of high and low
front vowels than in the contexts of high back ones. As for gender variations in
bi-syllabic words, emphatic-plain contrast has been more salient in the speech
of males than in the speech of females.
To wrap up, almost all researchers have agreed that F2, being lowered in
emphatic contexts, is the most reliable acoustic correlate of emphasis. However,
there has been less consensus as regards the reliability of VD in the
identification of emphasis. As for CD, most of them have argued that it is not a
reliable acoustic exponent for emphasis. Besides, VOT has been reported to be a
30
reliable acoustic correlate of emphasis only for stops. As for emphasis spread
and directionality, there has been no clear-cut conclusion among the
researchers.
After reviewing the related literature available to date, we might deduce that
the effects of age and gender on emphasis production are still contentious. This
can be attributed to the socio-linguistic variations among speakers of different
dialects (Lehn, 1963), a state of affairs that will probably result in incoherent
and inconsistent findings. Besides, most of the previous studies have neglected
the possible effect(s) some variables may have when interacting with other
variables in a holistic fashion. Therefore, some of the findings of the previous
literature have been arrived at only by means of mathematical operations (e.g.
Rababa, 2017), which will probably yield findings that are less reliable due to
outliers in the data. Also, there has been no consistency as regards the
methodology the researchers adopted to arrive at their findings. As their
conflicting findings might be attributed to inconsistent methodologies, we call
for more specific methodological frameworks when further probing the
phenomenon of emphasis from a socio-linguistic standpoint.
31
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter provides details on the methods and procedures used in the
present study. Details about the participants of the current study, the acoustic
measurements, and stimulus material are provided. Given the methods,
procedures and findings of the study, some limitations that might cause making
pseudo-generalizations are pinpointed. These limitations would be due to
inconsistent data-collection methods, unreliable measurements, and inaccurate
analysis of the figures, to mention but a few.
3.1. Sample of the Study
The participants of the present study are twelve native speakers of AJA. As
age- and gender-related effects are the major variables in this study, the six
participants in each group are divided with regard to age into three subgroups
(Young:18-35, Middle-aged: 36-50, and Old: 51-70) and with regard to gender
into two subcategories (Males and Females). All of the participants are from the
countrysides of Ajloun City, namely Dair Alsmadiyeh, Sakhra, Ibbin, Ain
Janna, and Ibillin. Table (1) below shows the distribution of the sample of the
present study in terms of age and gender.
Age Group Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic

Age
M F
Young 18-35 2 2
Middle-aged 36-50 2 2
Old 51-70 2 2
Table (1): Participants of the current study based on age and gender.
32
Table (2) below further displays the age and gender of each respondent:
Respondent Age Gender
1 22 Female
2 27 Female
3 37 Female
4 40 Female
5 51 Female
6 61 Female
7 25 Male
8 34 Male
9 37 Male
10 39 Male
11 68 Male
12 70 Male
Table (2): Age and gender of each respondent.
3.2. Stimulus Materials
As the present study is focused on the two emphatic sounds [tˁ, sˁ] along with
their plain counterparts [t, s], the stimuli production materials for these sounds
are presented in a list of forty-eight minimal pairs, yielding 96 tokens for each
33
respondent. The total tokens are 1152 (96*12). The two primary emphatics are
targeted word-initially and word-finally in both monosyllabic and bisyllablic
words. Besides, the stimuli material of this study contains the vowels ]a:], [a],
[i:], [ɪ], [u:], and [ʊ]. The goal is twofold: (1) to keep track of emphasis spread,
its directionality, and thus influence on neighboring sounds, and (2) to figure
out which sounds are opaque to emphasis spread. Tables (3) and (4) below
display the stimulus material for the main variables.
34
Mono-syllabic Words
Word-Initial Word-Final
Consonant Vowel
Plain Gloss Emphatic Gloss Plain Gloss Emphatic Gloss
a: sa:b Dissipated sˤa:b Touched ba:s Kissed ba:sˤ Bus
a sab Badmouthed sˤab Poured bas Enough basˤ* __
i: si:b Leave! sˤi:b Touch! ni:s* __ ni:sˤ Porcupine

s/sˤ
ɪ sɪn A tooth sˤɪn Shut up! bɪs A cat bɪsˤ*
u: su:g Drive!/Market sˤu:g* __ bu:s Kiss! bu:sˤ* __
ʊ sʊm Poison! sˤʊm Tie nʊs* __ nʊsˤ Half

tightly!
a: ta:b Repented tˤa:b Recovered ba:t Stayed ba:tˤ* __
overnight
a tam Done! tˤam Covered mat Did matˤ Stretched
(something)
lazily
t/tˤ i: ti:n Figs tˤi:n Mud bi:t* __ bi:tˤ* __
ɪ tɪf Spit! tˤɪf* __ zɪt Throw! zɪtˤ* __
u: tu:b Repent! tˤu:b Bricks fu:t Enter! fu:tˤ __
ʊ tʊn* __ tˤʊn* Tuna fish bʊt Decide! bʊtˤ Stab!
Table (3): Stimulus material for monosyllables (*Please note that the asterisk after each
word indicates that it is a non-word).
35
Bi-syllabic Words
Word-Initial Word-Final
Consonant Vowel
Plain Gloss Emphatic Gloss Plain Gloss Emphatic Gloss
a: sabba:r* __ sˤabba:r Cactus ha:ʤɪs Obsession ha:ʤɪsˤ* __
a samar Female sˤamar* __ ?abus Shall I kiss! ?abusˤ* __

name
i: safi:* __ sˤafi: Pure mi:das A furniture mi:dasˤ* __
s/sˤ shop name
ɪ samɪr Male sˤamɪr* __ bɪmʊs* Related to bɪmʊsˤ Is
name sucking
u: su:mu: Estimate! sˤu:mu: Fast! mu:bɪs* __ mu:bɪsˤ* A
village
name
ʊ sabʊr* __ sˤabʊr Cactus fʊsfʊs Flies fʊsfʊsˤ* __
fruit
a: tu:ba:s* __ tˤu:ba:s Name of ʃa:mɪt Humiliating ʃa:mɪtˤ High
a city in
Palestine
a tabar* __ tˤabar An axe bafʊt Slicing bafʊtˤ Stand
up
t/tˤ abruptly
i: tami:s A type of tˤami:s* __ ʃi:mat Characteristics ʃi:matˤ* __
bread
ɪ tɪbɪr Gold tˤɪbɪr* __ ɵa:bɪt Fixed ɵa:bɪtˤ* __
nuggets
u: tʊmu:r Dates tˤʊmu:r* __ du:da:t Worms du:da:tˤ* __
ʊ tamʊr Dates tˤamʊr Heap bʊket Bouquet bʊketˤ* __
Table (4): Stimulus material for bi-syllabic words (*Please note that the asterisk after each
word indicates that it is a non-word).
3.3. Procedures and Acoustic Measurements
The participants of the present study were seated in a comfortable room
either at their houses or at Ajloun Vocational Institute, and were then cordially
asked to read the word list in the carrier sentence' 'ɪћki (target word) (ɪ)lwalad.''
The stimulus sentences were displayed randomly to the participants with no

36
target word at the beginning or end of the list. The recordings were performed
using the digital voice recorder, Remax RP1, which had a noise reduction
quality. The recordings, all performed by the investigator himself, were stored
on a laptop (Toshiba, Core i3). The digitized recordings were then filed as
follows: M18-35 for young males, F18-35 for young females, M36-50 for
middle-aged males, F36-50 for middle-aged females, M51-70 for old males, and
F51-70 for old females. The recordings were then imported to Praat, the speech
analysis software, to obtain acoustic measurements for consonant duration,
VOT, and the first three vowel formant frequencies (F1, F2, and F3), taken at
the vowel midpoint. Whereas the acoustic measurements were de facto carried
out only for the targeted syllable of monosyllabic words, the measurements for
bisyllabic words were conducted for both the target syllable (i.e. the syllable
containing the target consonant) and the other distant syllable (i.e. the syllable
not containing the target consonant).
3.4. Statistical Analyses
As the main goal of the study was to see the interaction between the
independent and dependent variables of the study, some statistical tests were
needed. The independent variables were gender, age, emphasis, vowel quality,
manner, target consonant locus, word size, and vowel length. The dependent
variables, on the other hand, were consonant duration, VOT, F1, F2 and F3. For
this, three main statistical parametric tests were conducted. First, the
37
Independent Sample T-test was used to inspect the first observation of the study
(i.e. effect(s) of emphasis on the dependent variables). Second, a Two-Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to inspect the second
observation (i.e. the pair-wise interactions between emphasis on the one hand
and each of the other independent variables on the other). Third and last, a
Multiple-Way Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted for the third
observation (i.e. the overall interaction between all the variables).
The justification for making use of the pair-wise and overall interactions
analysis approaches is like this: the current study is a socio-phonetic
investigation that tries to pull together both phonetics and sociology. Inherent in
this line of reasoning is the fact that the independent variables are both phonetic
and sociological in nature. What this means is that a traditional approach may
not do the job on its own. To illustrate, Baayen, Davidson, and Bates (2008)
make the following argument against the traditional approach but in favor of
what they call the linear mixed-effects model:
Traditional approaches to random effects modeling suffer multiple drawbacks

which can be eliminated by adopting mixed-effects linear models. These
drawbacks include (a) deficiencies in statistical power related to the problems
posed by repeated observations, (b) the lack of a flexible method of dealing with
missing data, (c) disparate methods for treating continuous and categorical
responses, as well as (d) unprincipled methods of modeling heteroskedasticity and
nonspherical error variance (for either participants or items). (p. 391)
Such model of analysis, according to those researchers, helps include random
effects into the statistical model, an advantage propagated by some other
researches along the following lines:

38
Some of that residual error is due to the properties of the participants and the test
items themselves, so including random effects helps reduce the residual in the
model and lets us account for more of the variance. (Eddington, 2015, p. 110)
To sum up, the adaptation of this approach can help us arrive at a more uniform
analysis regarding the interaction between emphasis and other independent
variables (whether segmental or non-segmental) interacting simultaneously.
39
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter displays three main findings of the experiments. First, using
the Independent Sample T-test, the main effects of the independent variable,
namely emphasis on each of the dependent variables (CD, VOT, F1 in the target
syllable, F2 in the target syllable, F3 in the target syllable, F1 in the non-target
syllable, F2 in the non-target syllable, and F3 in the non-target syllable), were
reported, respectively. Second, using a Two-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA), the pair-wise interactions between emphasis and all other
independent variables of gender, age, vowel quality in the target syllable, vowel
quality in the non-target syllable, manner, position of the target consonant, word
size, vowel length in the target syllable, and vowel length in the non-target
syllable were displayed. Third, using the Multiple-Way Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA), the interaction(s) between all the independent variables, including
emphasis, were reported.
4.1. Observation One: Main Effect(s) of Emphasis
Upon conducting the Independent Sample T-Test to examine the main
influence of emphasis on each of the dependent variables mentioned above, the
following findings for CD and VOT were obtained.
- There was no significant difference between CDs in emphatic or plain
environments (T= 1.457, p= .145).
40
- There was, on the other hand, a significant difference between
emphatic and plain VOT (T=16.819, p= .000), where the emphatic
VOT (Mean=19.92) was significantly shorter than the plain one
(Mean=38.87).
As for the formant frequencies, the following findings were found for the target
syllable:
- There was a significant difference between the emphatic and
plain F1 in the target syllable (T=-3.337, p= .001), where the
emphatic F1 (Mean= 528.84) was significantly higher than the
plain one (Mean= 502.46).
- There was a significant difference between the emphatic and
plain F2 in the target syllable (T=10.208, p= .000), where
emphatic F2 (Mean= 1236.48) was significantly lower than
plain F2 (Mean= 1526.87).
- There was a significant difference between emphatic and plain
F3 in the target syllable (T= -3.272, p=.001), where emphatic
F3 (Mean= 2754.47) was significantly higher than plain F3
(Mean=2673.99).
However, the following findings were obtained for the non-target syllable:
- There was no significant difference between the emphatic and plain F1
(T= -.686, p= .493).
41
- There was also no significant difference between the emphatic and
plain F2 (T= 1.846, p=.065).
- There was no significant difference between emphatic and plain F3
(T= -.398, p=.691).
4.2. Pair-wise Interactions
This subsection displays the results of the pair-wise interactions that hold
between emphasis and the independent variables on each dependent variable.
Hence, a Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess
this interaction. This subsection is thus organized in the following fashion. In
4.2.1, findings of the interaction between emphasis and gender are presented. In
4.2.2., the findings of the interaction between emphasis and age are displayed.
In 4.2.3., the findings of the interaction between emphasis and vowel quality are
presented. In 4.2.4., the findings of the interaction between emphasis and
manner are displayed. In 4.2.5., the findings of the interaction between
emphasis and position of the target consonant are presented. In 4.2.6., the
findings of the interaction between emphasis and word size are displayed. In
4.2.7., the findings of the interaction between emphasis and vowel length are
displayed.
42
4.2.1. Emphasis*Gender
Upon conducting the Two-Way ANOVA to examine the interaction
between emphasis and gender on each of the dependent variables mentioned
above, the following findings for CD and VOT were obtained.
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and gender in
terms of CD (F= .740, p= .390).
- There was, however, a significant interaction between gender and
emphasis in terms of VOT (F= 4.142, p= .043), where only males'
emphatic VOTs were significant (Mean= 3.681) as shown in Figure
(2) below
Figure (2): The Influence of Emphasis and Gender Interaction on the VOT.
43
As for the formant frequencies, the following findings were obtained for the
target syllable:
terms of F1 (T= .053, p= .818).
terms of F2 (F= .107, p= .744).
There was no significant interaction between emphasis and gender in terms of
F3 (T= 1.429, p=232). Having looked at interactions between emphasis and
gender on other dependent variables, the following findings were obtained for
the non-target syllable:
- There was no significant interaction in terms of F1 (F= .008, p= .928).
- There was also no significant interaction between emphasis and
gender in terms of F2 (F= .458, p= .499).
terms of F3 (F= .035, p= .851).
4.2.2. Emphasis*Age
Upon conducting the Two-Way ANOVA to examine the interaction
between emphasis and age on each of the dependent variables mentioned above,
the following findings for CD and VOT were obtained.
44
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and age in
terms of CD (F= .273, p= .761).
- There was, on the other hand, a significant interaction between
emphasis and age in terms of VOT (F=4.729, p= .010), where the
plain VOT of the second age group (Mean=22.854) was significantly
longer than that of the third age group (Mean=19.250), which was, in
turn, longer than the plain VOT of the first age group (Mean=14.729)
as shown in Figure (3) below
Figure (3): The Influence of Emphasis and Age Interaction on the VOT.
target syllable:
45
terms of F1 (F= .540, p= .583).
terms of F2 (F= .255, p= .775).
terms of F3 (F= .029, p= 971).
non-target syllable:
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and age in terms of
F1 (F= .191, p= .826).
F2 (F= .082, p= .922).
F3 (F= .084, p= .920).
4.2.3. Emphasis*Vowel Quality
The findings obtained for the interactions between emphasis and vowel
quality on the one hand on each dependent variable on the other hand for both
the target and non-target syllables are displayed, respectively.
First, the following findings for CD and VOT were obtained for the target
syllable:
46
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel quality
in terms of CD (F= .642, p= .527).
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel quality
in terms of VOT (F= 1.513, p= .222).
target syllable:
- There was also no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel
quality in terms of F1 (F= .590, p= .554).
- There was a significant interaction between emphasis and vowel quality in
terms of F2 (F= 10.897, p= .000)3, as depicted in Figure (4) below.
Figure (4): The Influence of Emphasis and Vowel Quality Interaction on F2.
3
Despite the fact that there is a statistical significance, it cannot be accounted for due to the
fact that the Levene's Test of homogeneity was not significant at any level, as shown in
Figure (4) above, where there is no interaction effect through the axis intersection
47
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel
quality in terms of F3 (F= .772, p= .462).
Second, the following findings for CD and VOT were obtained for the non-
target syllable:
quality in terms of CD (F= .616, p= .541).
quality in terms of VOT (F= .071, p= .932).
As for the formant frequencies, the following findings were obtained:
quality in terms of F1 (F= .076, p= .927)
- There was also no significant interaction between emphasis and
vowel quality in terms of F2 (F= 1.417, p= .243).
- There was a significant interaction between emphasis and vowel
quality in terms of F3 (F= 3.956, p= .020), where emphatic /a/
(Mean=104.657) and plain /i:/ (Mean=119.250) were significantly
high as shown in Figure (5) below
48
Figure (5): The Influence of Emphasis and Vowel Quality in the Non-target Syllable
Interaction on the F3.
4.2.4. Emphasis*Manner
The Two-Way ANOVA shows that there was no significant interaction
between emphasis and manner in terms of CD (F= 2.535, p= .112), VOT 4, F1 in
the target syllable (F= .698, p= .548), F2 in the target syllable (F= 1.078, p=
.299), F3 in the target syllable (F= .010, p= .919), F1 in the non-target syllable
(F= .022, p= .883), F2 in the non-target syllable (F= .022, p= .965), and F3 in
the non-target syllable (F= 1.572, p= .210).
4
Manner is always "stop" for VOT, so this cannot be analyzed.
49
4.2.5. Emphasis*Position of the Target Consonant5
Having run the Two-Way ANOVA, the researcher found that there was
no significant interaction between emphasis and position in terms of CD (F=
.132, p= .706), F1 in the target syllable (F= .001, p= .973), F2 in the target
syllable (F= .016, p= .900), F3 in the target syllable (F= .728, p= .780), F1 in
the non-target syllable (F= .159, p= .690), F2 in the non-target syllable (F=
.968, p= .326), and F3 in the non-target syllable (F= 1.079, p= .299).
4.2.6. Emphasis*Word Size
Running the Two-Way ANOVA shows that there was no significant
interaction between emphasis and word size6 in terms of CD (F= .272, p= .602),
VOT (F= 2.901, p= .090), F1 in the target syllable (F= .000, p= .997), F2 in the
target syllable (F= .021, p= .884) and F3 in the target syllable (F= .755, p=
.385).
4.2.7. Emphasis*Vowel Length
The findings obtained for the interactions of emphasis and vowel length
on each dependent variable for both the target and non-target syllables are
displayed.
First, as for CD and VOT for the target syllable, the following findings were
obtained:
5
Position of the target consonant is always word-initial for VOT, so this cannot be analyzed.
6
Word size is only bi-syllabic with regard to F1, F2 and F3 in the non-target syllables.
50
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel length in
terms of CD (F= .002, p= .963).
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel length
in terms of VOT (F= 1.799, p= .181).
in terms of F1 (F= 3.281, p= .070).
in terms of F3 (F= .432, p= .511).
- There was a significant interaction between emphasis and vowel length
only in terms of F2 (F= 5.335, p= .021), whereby F2 of both the short
(Mean= 345.353) and long (Mean= 212.163) was significantly lowered in
emphatic environments, as is depicted in Figure (6) below:
Figure (6): The Influence of Emphasis and Vowel Length Interaction on F2.
51
Second, the following findings for CD and VOT were obtained for the non-
target syllable:
length in terms of CD (F= .008, p= .929).
length in terms of VOT (F= 1.035, p= .311).
length in terms of F1 (F= .432, p= .354).
length in terms of F2 (F= .058, p= 17.217).
length in terms of F3 (F= 1.200, p= .274).
4.3. Overall Interaction
To measure the interaction(s) of emphasis with all other independent
variables as a one-unit whole, the Multiple-Way ANOVA test was conducted
twice. On the first occasion, vowel quality and vowel length in the non-target
syllables were excluded. On the second occasion, vowel quality and vowel
length in the target syllables were excluded.
52
First, as for CD and VOT, the following findings were obtained:
- There was no significant interaction between emphasis and all other
independent variables in terms of CD (F= 1.049, p= .287).
independent variables in terms of VOT7 (F= 1.219, p= .123).
independent variables in terms of F3 (F= 1.066, p= .266).
- There was a significant interaction between emphasis and all other
independent variables in terms of F1 (F= 1.431, p= .000), where the F1
(Mean= 146.000) for emphatic, male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-
high front, mono-syllabic and short was the highest and F1 (Mean=
139.500) for young, non-emphatic, male, stop, word-initial, high and
mid-high back, mono-syllabic, and short was the second highest.
(Mean=532.500) for middle-aged, non-emphatic, male, stop, word-
initial, high and mid-high back, mono-syllabic, and short was
significantly high.
7
Manner is always stop and position of the target consonant is always word-initial, so
influence relative to these two variables on VOT cannot be computed.
53
Second8, as for CD and VOT, the following findings were obtained:
independent variables in terms of CD (F= .911, p= .781).
independent variables in terms of VOT9 (F= .829, p= .777).
independent variables in terms of F1 (F= 1.142, p= .132).
independent variables in terms of F3 (F= 1.149, p= 1.22).
(Mean= 1057.00) for emphatic, male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-
high front, bi-syllabic, and long was the highest and the F2
(Mean=731.500) for emphatic, male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-
high front, bi-syllabic, and short was the second highest.
8
Word size is only bi-syllabic, therefore interaction cannot be computed for the whole set of
dependent variables.
9
Note that the independent variables manner, position of the target consonant and word size
were not computed, given that manner is only stop /t, t‫؟‬/ , position is only word-initial and
word size is only bi-syllabic for VOT.
54
Chapter Five: Discussion
Now it is high time that the researcher attempted some answers to the
research questions stated at the very beginning of this research endeavor.
Concisely, the researcher discusses the findings relevant to the three main
observations. These are: (1) the main effect of emphasis on the dependent
variables of the study; (2) the pair-wise interaction(s) between emphasis on the
one hand and the other (non)segmental independent variables on the other hand
on the dependent variables; (3) the overall interaction(s) of emphasis with all
independent variables on the dependent variables.
5.1. Observation One: Main Effect of Emphasis
The present study findings confirmed the following findings. First,
emphasis had some effect only on VOT, F1 in the target syllable, F2 in the
target syllable and F3 in the target syllable, but seemed to have no significant
effect on CD, F1 in the non-target syllable, F2 in the non-target syllable and F3
in the non-target syllable. Although these findings were in line with the findings
already reported in some previous research, they ran counter to the findings of
others. To illustrate, according to Rababa (2017), Aladam (2015), Al-Masri and
Jongman (2004), and Boxberger (1981), CD was by no means a reliable
acoustic correlate of emphasis, but according to Al-Masri (2009), CD was
consistently longer for emphatic fricatives, especially when occurring word-
finally.
55
Second, like the findings of Alzoubi (2017), Aldamen (2013), Abudalbuh
(2011), Abudalbuh (2010), and Khattab et al. (2006), VOT for emphatic stops
was significantly shorter than for their plain counterparts as depicted in
Spectrograms (1) and (2) below:
Spectrogram (1): VOT for plain /t/ being 55ms.
Spectrogram (2): VOT for emphatic / tˤ/ being 25 ms.
56
This result might be a corollary of the belief that the commencement of
voicing is delayed by the secondary articulation characteristic of emphatics
(Lehn, 1963), thus increasing, according to Abudalbuh (2010: 62) “the tension
of the vocal tract during the closure phase of the voiceless emphatic stop” (For
more details, see Khattab, et al. 2006: 156). In simple terms, what this basically
means is that the secondary articulation executed with emphatics is done at the
expense of the duration already available for voicing. From a phonological
perspective, RTR and voicing are two laryngeal features produced almost
simultaneously, a state of affairs that would lead to shortening one so as to save
space for the other.
Third, compared with their occurrences in plain contexts, F1 and F3 are
always raised in emphatic environments (Alzoubi, 2017; Al-Deaibes, 2016;
Aldamen, 2013; Abudalbuh, 2011; Jongman et al., 2011; Al-Masri, 2009;
Abudalbuh, 2010; Jongman et al. (2007); Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004). This
observation was confirmed by our study findings (see Spectrogram (3) below).
Although phoneticians have not as yet found an explanation for the
relative height of F1 and F3 in emphatic environments, common sense tells us
that emphatics do influence the first and the third formant frequencies because
emphaticness here is a secondary articulation which diffuses its influence all
over the spectrum.
57
However, upon surveying the literature on the phenomenon, two altered
views are found. First, Watson (2002) has suggested, on articulatory grounds,
that F1 and F2 form a compact-like spectrum. F2 values are lowered due to an
enlarged mouth cavity, while F1 is raised due to a narrowed pharyngeal cavity.
Second, other researchers (e.g. Norlin, 1987; McCarthy 1994; Zawaydeh, 1999,
and Bin-Muqbil, 2006) believe that the constriction takes place higher in the
pharynx than is usually assumed. To illustrate, RTR does not thoroughly depict
the essence of the secondary posterior constriction maintained for emphatics
due to the now-belief that this constriction is found to occur higher up than
where RTR is found. Arguing that the F1 raised value in emphatic environments
is inconsistent, Bin-Muqbil (2006) casts doubt on the claim that Arabic
emphatics are usually produced with the feature RTR. His argument is like this:
if retraction of tongue root is at practice while producing emphatics, it is
expected that they consistently show higher F1 values. Likewise, being close
enough to the node of F1, F2 is also expected to project higher values when
neighboring emphatics (i.e. having RTR feature). However, it has turned out
that F2 of vowels neighboring emphatics is lowered. According to Bin-Muqbil
(2006), this is probably due to the belief that tongue root is not responsible for
the production of secondary articulation such as emphaticness (see Norlin,
1987; McCarthy 1994; Zawaydeh, 1999); rather the constriction of the tongue
dorsum is what produces emphaticness on neighboring vowels, thus lowering
the values of F2 as this lowering increases opening of the vocal tract near the
58
second node of F2. To sum up, the two arguments relate to what causes the
constriction, whether it is the tongue root or the tongue dorsum. For the former
group, it is the tongue root, but for the latter it is the tongue dorsum.
Be that as it may, the findings of the current study support the view that
F2 is probably the only reliable indicator of emphasis in the dialect under
current scrutiny. However, it is worthy of mentioning that F2 in emphatic
environments is not as high as F2 in plain ones. Compare:
Spectrogram (3): F1, F2 and F3 for the vowel /i:/ in emphatic environment, e.g. / tˤi:n/.
59
Spectrogram (4): F1, F2 and F3 for the vowel /i:/ in plain environment, e.g. /ti:n/.
This finding is definitely supported by previous research (see Alzoubi,
2017; Abudalbuh, 2011; Abudalbuh, 2010; Al-Masri, 2009; Khattab, et al.,
2006; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004). Further support of this argument lies in the
fact that the high-front vowel /i:/ in the emphatic environment projected a
compact-like spectrum, a finding that might run counter to Ladefoged’s and
Johnson’s (2014) correlation between the fronteness of the vowel and the height
of F2. According to Ladefoged and Johnson (2014) frontness enhances F2
height, i.e the more front the vowel is, the higher its F2 value (see Spectrograms
3 and 4 above). In other words, the difference between our finding and that of
Ladefoged and Johnson (2014) concerns the relative height of F2 for front
vowels (such /i:/) in emphatic environments. In our study, whereas the height of
F2 is like that of Ladefoged and Johnson (2014) in plain environments, it is not
as high in emphatic environments.
60
Being at the heart of producing emphatics, vowel quality (i.e. height
and/or frontness) varies greatly among languages due to intrinsic variations. For
instance, the vowel /i:/ in American English is believed to be produced at its
ultimate height and frontness as the following Figure (7) below shows:
Figure (7): A vowel quadrilateral for transcribing English vowels.
What this means is that English distinguishes four- tongue height levels.
However, this might not be the case for Arabic /i:/, since Arabic distinguishes
only three vowel height levels.
As regards F1, F2 and F3 in the non-target syllable, the current findings
do not confirm those of most other researchers who have proposed that
emphasis goes beyond the target syllable in both fashions: rightward and
61
leftward (Rababa, 2017; Jongman et al., 2011; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004). It
has turned out that there is no interaction between emphasis and the three
formant frequencies of the vowel in the non-target syllable irrespective of the
target consonant locus, be it word-initial or word-final. However, our finding
partially agrees with Al-Masri (2009), who suggests that the effect of emphasis
is not as evident in the non-target syllable as it is in the target one.
Contrary to Watson (2002), neither F1 nor F2 showed any pattern of
significance either affected by enlargement of the oral cavity or narrowing of
the pharyngeal cavity. To this end, she argues that F1 raised value in emphatic
contexts is not as consistent as that of F2. Following Norlin's (1987),
McCarthy's (1994) and Zawaydeh's (1999) suggestion, F2, being close to the
second node of F1, is expected to be also raised. Nonetheless, none of the two
showed any significance though both were of vowels neighboring emphatics.
5.2. Pair-wise Interactions
This subsection discusses the interactions between emphasis on the one
hand and each of the other independent variables, segmental and non-segmental,
on each dependent variable, on the other hand. Hence, the researcher opts to
answer the research questions and thus comment on these findings in light of
what has been claimed in the previous literature. This section is subdivided
further into three subdivisions: In 5.2.1, discussion of the interaction between
emphasis and gender is provided; in 5.2.2., the findings of the interaction
62
between emphasis and age are discussed; and in 5.2.3., the findings of the
interaction(s) between emphasis and other segmental independent variables are
discussed.
5.2.1 Emphasis and Gender
Given the findings of the present study, CD has turned out to be an
invalid acoustic correlate of emphasis in emphatic vis-à-vis plain contrasts, as
there has been no difference between males and females. VOT, on the other
hand, has revealed that there is some interaction between emphasis and gender
in favor of males’ speech. What this means is that males tend to produce longer
emphatic VOTs than do females, as can be shown in Spectrograms 5 and 6
below:
Spectrogram (5): VOT for / tˤ/ as produced by a male speaker, being about 42 ms.
63
Spectrogram (6): VOT for / tˤ/ as produced by a female speaker, being 26 ms.
Therefore, although our findings confirm those of Alzoubi (2017) and Almalwi
(2017), they run counter to those of Abudalbuh (2010).
One possible explanation for this may be provided on sociolinguistic
grounds. The participants in Abudalbuh (2010)’s study are all university
students, a state of affairs that makes us believe that his sample (males and
females) is less homogenous than ours. It is common observation that females
in university setting tend to adapt to the more prestigious variants, so that their
language is not marked as being rural or Bedouin.
Moving to the vowel first three formant frequencies of the target vowel,
there was no interaction effect between emphasis and gender in terms of F1,
partially lining up with Khattab's, Al-Tamimi's, and Heselwood's (2006) finding
that F1 onset values are not as high and reliable correlates of emphasis as those
of F2 with respect to the speaker's gender. On the other hand , the researcher
64
finds that this finding does not support Al-Masri's (2009) finding that emphatic
F1 value is more raised in males' speech compared with females'. Regarding
Abudalbuh's (2010) finding, emphasis is more salient in males' speech than in
females' only for F1 at the vowel onset and midpoint. The finding of our study
cannot endorse (nor refute) Abudalbuh's (2010) finding; hence ours is
concerned only with the formant values at the vowel midpoint.
There was also no significant interaction between emphasis and gender
as regards F2 value at the vowel midpoint, thus opposing what most other
researchers have claimed so far. For example, Al-Masri and Jongman (2004)
have claimed that females show more correlates of emphasis by virtue of F2
lowered value. Yet, Alzoubi's (2017) finding showed females’ lesser degree of
emphaticness evinced by the vowel first three formant frequencies. In addition,
the present finding is not in line with Abudalbuh's (2010) finding that emphasis
is more salient in females' speech than in males' by virtue of F2 at the vowel
onset and midpoint.
Moreover, the current finding is not in line with Al-Masri's (2009)
finding in bi-syllabic words, where he has found an interaction between
emphasis and gender in that emphasis is more prominent in males' speech than
in females' by virtue of the vowel F1, F2 and F3. Our current finding, however,
agrees with Al-Masri's (2009) finding that there is no interaction between
65
emphasis and gender on F2, yielding no difference between males' speech and
females'.
It has also been found that there is no interaction between emphasis and
gender as regards F3 value at the vowel midpoint, a finding that does not
concord with what other researchers have found, in that the interaction between
emphasis and gender shows an effect on F3 value being raised in emphatic
environment (Alzoubi, 2017; Al-Masri, 2009; Abudalbuh, 2010).
As for F1, F2 and F3 in the non-target syllable, we have found that there
is no interaction between emphasis and gender. Our finding therefore opposes
Al-Masri's (2009) that emphatic F1 and F3 are more raised in males' speech
than females', but emphatic F2 is more lowered in males' speech than females'.
Overall, the researcher has found that the interaction gender has with
emphasis production in Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic is confined only to VOT,
where males produce longer tokens than females. Still, there have been no
interaction effects between emphasis and gender on CD, F1 in the target
syllable, F2 in the target syllable, F3 in the target syllable, F1 in the non-target
syllable, F2 in the non-target syllable and F3 in the non-target syllable.
5.2.2 Emphasis and Age
Given the interaction between emphasis and age, the researcher has found
that there is no interaction effect between emphasis and age in terms of CD, F1
in the target syllable, F2 in the target syllable, F3 in the target syllable, F1 in the
66
non-target syllable, F2 in the non-target syllable and F3 in the non-target
syllable. Nonetheless, the researcher has found that VOT is the only dependent
variable that is affected by the interaction between emphasis and age. In this
regard, three main findings are worthy of further illustrations.
First, emphatic VOTs produced by all age groups are significantly shorter
than plain VOTs. However, what is worth noting at this juncture is that there is
still variation between the three age groups. To illustrate, the middle-aged group
showed the most magnitude of change as compared with the other two age
groups, namely the old and the young, as shown in Spectrogram (7) below:
Spectrogram (7): emphatic VOT for a male respondent from the second age group for the
word / tˤi:n/, being about 20 ms.
67
The old age group carries the second highest magnitude of change, as shown in
Spectrogram (8) below:
Spectrogram (8): emphatic VOT for a male respondent from the third age group for the
word / tˤi:n/, being about 25 ms.
Astonishingly, the first age group showed the least magnitude of change, as
shown in Spectrogram (9) below:
Spetrogram (9): emphatic VOT for a male respondent from the first age group in the
word / tˤi:n/, being about 31ms.
68
As no study has as yet corroborated such interaction in this and other sub-
dialects of Jordanian Arabic, it would become difficult to make comparisons.
5.2.3 Emphasis and Other Segmental Variables
For further support of our findings, the researcher opts to unravel how
other segmental independent variables interact with emphasis. This section is
therefore divided into five subsections. In 5.2.3.1. the interaction(s) between
emphasis and vowel quality is/are discussed; in 5.2.3.2. the interaction(s)
between emphasis and manner is/are discussed; in 5.2.3.3. the interaction(s)
between emphasis and position of the target consonant is/are discussed; in
5.2.3.4. the interaction(s) between emphasis and word size is/are discussed; and
in 5.2.3.5. the interaction(s) between emphasis and vowel length is/are
discussed.
5. 2.3.1. Emphasis and Vowel Quality
As vowel quality is at the core of studying emphasis spread, the present
study has tried to show the essence of the interaction between emphasis and
vowel quality in both the target syllable and the non-target syllables on the
dependent variables.
5. 2.3.1.1. Emphasis and Vowel Quality in the Target Syllable
No interaction has been found between emphasis and vowel quality in
terms of CD, VOT, F1 and F3. Despite all this, the only interaction effect that
has been found between emphasis and vowel quality was on F2. However, the
69
results of the interaction are not reliable, as Levene's Test of Homogeneity was
not significant at any level. Our findings in terms of F1, F2 and F3 do not
strongly support what other researchers have suggested, regarding the
interaction between emphasis and vowel quality (e.g. Alzoubi, 2017; Rababa,
2017; Algryani, 2014; Ladefoged and Johnson, 2014; Abudalbuh, 2010; Al-
Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004; Zawaydeh, 1999; Zawaydeh, 1998).
5. 2.3.1.2. Emphasis and Vowel Quality in the Non-Target Syllable
The current study has shown no significant interaction between emphasis
and vowel quality on CD, VOT, F1 and F2. The findings in terms of F1 and F2
somehow support Zawaydeh’s (1998, 1999) findings in that emphasis spread is
not affected by what other researchers considered blockers such as front vowels
except for /e/ /i:/ and /ɪ/ (Rababa, 2017). The present finding therefore
contradicts Alzoubi’s (2017), where a significant interaction is found between
emphasis and vowel quality relative to the magnitude of change some vowels
project. For instance, /a/, /i/ and /ai/ show higher F2 mean values compared with
the qualities of possibly all other vowels.
Our present findings do not also lend support to Ladefoged's and
Johnson's (2014) and Algryani’s (2014) correlation between tongue
advancement and tongue height on the vowel’s F1and F2 vlaues. The three
main vowel qualities, (namely the low-back /a/, high-front /i/ and high-back /u/)
have not yielded any effect of vowel quality on emphasis production in terms of
70
F1 and F2. However, our view supports Rababa (2017), Jongman et al. (2011)
and Al-Masri and Jongman (2004) in that the more distant the syllable from the
target syllable is, the less affected by emphasis it becomes. The present findings
are true given Lehn's (1963) view that exponents for emphasis vary significantly
among speakers of different dialects.
Contrary to Al-Masri (2009), neither high- and low-front vowels nor
high-back ones have shown any interaction with emphasis. Despite that the
stimuli of the present study incorporated both words and non-words, there has
been found no effect of vowel quality on emphasis production. This is contrary
to what has been reported by Khattab et al. (2006), who have claimed that non-
words result in a more formal style yielding more emphaticness.
Besides, our finding in terms of F1 and F2 partially supports the finding
of Abudalbuh (2010) that there was some interaction between emphasis and
vowel quality in terms of F2, which has maintained a consistent status
irrespective of vowel quality, but not in terms of F1, whose values have kept
fluctuating consistently.
However, F3 has turned out to be significant as regards the interaction
between emphasis and vowel quality. Hence, emphatic F3 value of the high-
front vowel /i/ has exerted its ultimate value, being more lowered than its plain
counterpart. Emphatic F3 of the low-back vowel /a/ value has, conversely,
exerted its ultimate value being higher than its plain counterpart.
71
Our finding regarding this behavior of F3 is in line with Rababa's (2017)
in that emphasis is more evident when neighboring back vowels in emphatic
context by virtue of F3 being more raised. Following Alzoubi's (2017) finding
(the high-back vowel /u/ shows higher F3 in emphatic environment than does
the high-front vowel /i/), the present finding confirms that F3 of the vowel /u/
has not showed any significance in emphatic environment while the vowel /a/
has. The same finding, however, runs counter to Alzoubi's (2017) finding
regarding the raised emphatic F3 value of the front vowel /i/. The present study
has shown that the F3 value of the front vowel /i/ has exerted the lowest value
as compared with other vowel qualities, thus not being a reliable exponent of
emphasis.
Al-Masri (2009), on the other hand, has suggested that emphasis is more
evident in front than in high back vowels. Despite the fact that Al-Masri's study
was conducted on some urban varieties of Arabic and ours on some rural
varieties, we are still in a position to oppose his findings, given that the front
vowel /i/ in emphatic context has shown the least value of F3.
5.2.3.2. Emphasis and Manner
Upon examining the interaction between emphasis ansd manner, it has
turned out to us that there is no interaction between emphasis and manner in
terms of CD, F1 in the target syllable, F2 in the target syllable, F3 in the target
72
syllable, F1 in the non-target syllable, F2 in the non-target syllable and F3 in the
non-target syllable.
As for CD, it has turned to be not affected by any means the interaction
between emphasis with manner. That is, stops and fricatives have both behaved
similarly in emphatic environments in terms of CD, a finding that opposes Al-
Masri’s (2009) in that emphatic fricatives in mono-syllabic words have longer
durations than their plain counterparts when occurring only word-finally.
However, the story of CD in bi-syllabic words is totally different. Like ours, Al-
Masri’s (2009) has showed that there have not been any coherent results in
terms of CD. Along with Masri’s (2009), our current finding runs counter with
that of Abudalbuh’s (2010), where emphatic fricatives have turned to have
shorter durations than their plain counterparts.
Moving on to the interaction between emphasis and manner in terms of
F1, F2 and F3, no effect has been attested. As far as I know, only one study
(Alzoubi's, 2017) has tackled the interaction between emphasis and manner on
the vowel first three formant frequencies. Whereas our study has shown no
interaction effect, Alzoubi’s (2017) has found that stops show a weightier
magnitude of change in the direction of emphasis than do fricatives, especially
given the mean values of F3.
73
5.2.3.3. Emphasis and Position of the Target Consonant
The present study has revealed that there is no significant interaction
between emphasis and position of the target consonant in terms of CD, F1 in the
target syllable, F2 in the target syllable, F3 in the target syllable, F1 in the non-
target syllable, F2 in the non-target syllable and F3 in the non-target syllable. In
terms of CD, the finding has turned out to be in line with that of Al-Masri and
Jongman (2004) that CD has not been a significant correlate of emphasis.
As regards the interaction between emphasis production and consonant
locus, the current study has showed there has been no interaction in terms of F1,
F2, and F3, neither in the target nor in the non-target syllable. However,
regarding the amount of emphasis spread, there has been no consensus among
researchers as regards the effect of consonant locus on emphasis production in
terms of F1, F2 and F3. Their main concern has been that whether emphaticness
is phonetic or phonological. The main stream of research suggests that
emphaticness is a phonological process as it is sometimes blocked by some
neighboring sounds, often called opaque sounds such as [i], [y], [u], [w], etc.
Most previous research findings regarding this issue in particular have again
been inconsistent. For example, Heath (1987) has reported that the opaque
sounds in Moroccan Arabic are [i], [y], [ʃ], and [ʒ] while Younes (1982) and
Herzallah (1990) have claimed that the opaque sounds in Northern Palestinian
are [i], [y], [ʃ], [ʒ], [u], and [w].
74
As for AJA, Alghazo (1987) has found that emphasis spreading is
phonological in that it interacts with other phonological processes such as
assimilation. However, he has claimed that emphatics deemphasize when
occurring word-finally. All in all, researchers (e.g. Rababa, 2017; Zawaydeh,
1999; Jongman et al., 2011; Al-Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004)
have claimed that the farther the syllable from the target syllable is, the less
affected by emphasis it becomes. Jaber et al. (forthcoming) have stressed that it
is the morpheme boundary, not the syllable boundary, which blocks emphasis
spread right- or left-ward in Jordanian Arabic.
However, we have not found any effect for the locus of the emphatic
sound on neighboring segments in either direction. In other words, neither the
target syllable nor the non-target syllable has been affected by the target
consonant locus.
5.2.3.4. Emphasis and Word Size
As regards the interaction between emphasis and word size, be it mono-
syllabic or bi-syllabic, there has been no interaction between the number of
syllables a word has and the magnitude of emphaticness it projects. That is,
there has been no interaction between emphasis and word size in terms of CD,
VOT, F1, F2 and F3. This finding is by no means in line with Al-Masri (2009),
who has reported that only emphatic fricatives have shorter durations than their
plain counterparts in mono-syllabic words but not in bi-syllabic words.
75
5.2.3.5. Emphasis and Vowel Length
Not being given an adequate amount of consideration in the literature, vowel
length has turned out to be a reliable acoustic cue for emphasis, i.e. there
has/have been some significant interaction(s) between emphasis and vowel
length both in the target and non-target syllables.
As for the interaction between emphasis and vowel length in the target
syllable, it has turned out to us that although they do not interact on the
consonantal cues (namely CD and VOT), nor on F1 and F3, there has been
some significant interaction in terms of F2. The study has yielded that short
emphatic vowels show more lowered F2 values compared with their plain
counterparts. Long emphatic vowels also show more lowered F2 values
compared with their plain counterparts. Despite this, short emphatic vowels
have shown more lowered F2 values than long emphatic ones.
Although vowel length, as an independent variable affecting the degree of
emphaticness, has not been thoroughly tackled in the previous literature, our
findings regarding this still adds to the validity of Abudalbuh's (2010), Khattab's
et al. (2006), Al-Masri's and Jongman's (2004) and Watson's (2002) finding that
F2, compared with F1 and F3, is the most credible acoustic correlate of
emphasis.
However, as regards emphasis and vowel length in the non-target
syllable, no significant interaction between emphasis and vowel length in terms
76
of consonantal or vocalic cues has been found. That is, none of the dependent
variables CD, VOT, F1, F2, or F3 has been affected by the interaction of
emphasis and vowel length. These results also support the finding of other
researchers (e.g. Rababa, 2017; Al-Adam, 2015; Al-Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and
Jongman, 2004; Boxberger, 1981) who have claimed that CD is not a reliable
acoustic exponent of emphasis. Our finding has also supported that of Al-Masri
(2009), Rababa (2017), Jongman et al. (2011), Al-Masri and Jongman (2004) in
terms of the vocalic cues in that the pattern of significance exhibited on F1 and
F3 being raised and F2 being lowered in emphatic contexts fades away as the
measurement is taken out of the target syllable.
5.3. Overall Interaction
This section is primarily devoted to unravel the interactions between
emphasis and all other independent variables, be it segmental or non-segmental,
on the dependent variables. Concisely, this chapter provides a delineated
discussion of these interactions in terms of CD, VOT, F1, F2 and F3.
5.3.1. Interaction between Emphasis and all other Independent

Variables (except for vowel quality and vowel length in the non-
target syllable)
The overall interaction between emphasis and all other independent
variables has revealed the following main findings. First, there has been no
interaction between emphasis and all other independent variables in terms of the
consonantal cues, namely CD and VOT (5.3.1.1). Second, there has been some
77
significant interaction between emphasis and all other independent variables in
terms of vowels’ F1 and F2 but not in terms of F3 (5.3.1.2).
5.3.1.1. Consonantal Cues
No significant interaction between emphasis and all other independent
variables in terms of CD has been attested, thus confirming previous research
findings (e.g. Rababa, 2017; Al-Adam, 2015; Al-Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and
Jongman, 2004; Boxberger, 1981) which have showed that CD is not a reliable
acoustic cue for emphasis, though such studies have not tackled the issue from a
wholistic approach like ours.
However, unlike the findings of others, ours has showed that VOT is
indeed an invalid acoustic correlate of emphasis in AJA. It is worth noting here
that the current study is, as far as I know, the only study that tackled the
interaction between emphasis and all other independent variables as one group.
Therefore, it would be illogical to make comparisons between our findings and
those of others in terms of the VOT values.
5.3.1.2. Vocalic Cues
Our findings have showed that there is some significant interaction
between emphasis and all other independent variables in terms of F1 and F2.
First, F1 has been immensely influenced by the interaction between emphasis
and all other independent variables. The interaction has been between emphasis
on the one hand and gender, manner, position of the target consonant, vowel
78
quality, word size and vowel length on the other. This interaction has yielded a
higher F1 value for vowels in emphatic environments compared with their
occurrences in plain environments. This significant magnitude of change in the
direction of emphasis has been in favor of the clustering male, stop, word-
initial, high and mid-high front, mono-syllabic and short. The second highest
interaction has been between emphasis and age, gender, manner, position of the
target consonant, vowel quality, word size and vowel length as a whole cluster.
This interaction has shown a lowered F1 for vowels in emphatic environments
compared with their occurrences in plain environments. This significant
magnitude of change in the direction of emphasis has been in favor of the
clustering young, male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high back, mono-
syllabic, and short.
Given the above findings, there has been some variance regarding the
variables involved in both interactions. To illustrate, whereas the former
interaction has been in favor of the clustering male, stop, word-initial, front,
mono-syllabic and short, pointing to emphasis by virtue of F1 raised value, the
latter interaction has been in favor of the clustering young, male, stop, word-
initial, back /u/, mono-syllabic and short, counter-pointing to emphasis by
virtue of F1 lowered value. In simple language, the effect of vowel quality and
age has been detected when all the variables interact simultaneously, a state of
affairs that has not been crystalized in on-to-one and pair-wise interactions.
79
Second, there has been some significant interaction of emphasis and all
other independent variables in terms of F2. This interaction has been between
emphasis and age, gender, manner, position of the target consonant, vowel
quality, word size, and vowel length. This weighty magnitude of change in the
direction of emphasis has been in favor of the clustering middle-aged, male,
stop, word-initial, high and mid-high back, mono-syllabic and short, yielding a
more lowered F2 for vowels in emphatic environments compared with their
occurrences in plain environments.
These two manifestations (i.e. F1 and F2 values) of the interactions
between emphasis and all other independent variables are at the core heart of
what has been reported in the previous literature. First, being an articulatorily
classificatory exponent for guttural sounds, F1 for vowels in emphatic
environment is thus socio-acoustically validated (e.g. Zawaydeh, 1999) when
interacting with other segmental and non-segmental factors, yielding a more
raised F1 value. Supporting this, Alzoubi (2017), Rababa (2017), Al-Deaibes
(2016), Aldamen (2013), Abudalbuh, (2011), Jongman et al. (2011), Abudalbuh
(2010), Al-Masri (2009), Jongman et al. (2007) and Al-Masri and Jongman
(2004) have argued that F1 is more raised in emphatic environment, though
Rababa (2017) has suggested that this pattern of significance be not as reliable
for front vowels as it is for back ones. In this regard, our finding opposes what
80
Rababa (2017) has confined F1 with, given that the raised value of F1 for the
front vowel /i/ has proved to be at the heart of the interaction.
Contrary to Ladefoged's and Johnson's (2014) correlation between vowel
height and the value of its F1, the present finding has shown that the high-front
vowel /i/ has proved, when interacting with a set of factors, to have a more
raised F1 value in emphatic contexts. Moreover, the present finding opposes
that of Algryani (2014), who has claimed /i:/ and /ɪ/ to block emphasis,
suggesting an explanation for this by the correlation of tongue shape while
producing vowels.
Alzoubi's (2017) finding, being in an opposition to ours, is that F1 is only
significant when the vowel occurs before the target consonant. In our study, the
magnitude of change of the variables involved has only been word-initial but
not word-final or word-medial as Alzoubi has claimed. Partially agreeing with
Abudalbuh's (2011), F1 value is more raised in males' speech than in females’.
Agreeing with Al-Masri’s (2009), our study has showed that F1 value is
more elevated in emphatic contexts in mono-syllabic words, yet this interaction
effect starts to fade out as the vowel gets farther from the target consonant. Our
study has also showed that F1 raised value in emphatic environments has
proved to be consistent irrespective of vowel quality. This finding supports the
claim already made by Abudalbuh (2010), though his investigation has been
restricted to the pair-wise interaction between emphasis and vowel quality.
81
Considering the second interaction between emphasis and all other
independent variables in terms of F1, the present study has showed that as
vowel quality and age vary within the same group of the independent variables,
the value of F1 in emphatic contexts changes accordingly. That is, the higher
the vowel is, the lower the F1 value becomes, thus supporting Ladefoged's and
Johnson's (2014) correlation between vowel height and value of F1. This
correlation has been crystalized only when all the variables interact
simultaneously.
Although locality is not a variable of our main concern, previous research
(e.g. Lehn1963) has showed that that emphasis features vary among speakers of
different dialects. For example, Rababa (2017) has found that F1 value, though
raised, is still more lowered in RJA than in UJA. As the current study concerns
one subdialect of RJA, our finding confirms that of Rababa (2017), namely F1
is comparatively more lowered when produced by speakers of RJA.
Second, some significant interaction between emphasis and all other
independent variables in terms of F2, being more lowered in emphatic
environment, is attested. The present study has showed some concord with
Zawaydeh (1999) in that rightward emphasis spread is gradient due to the fact
that the interaction has only been in mono-syllabic words with the target sound
occurring word-initially.
82
As for the directionality of emphasis spread, Zawaydeh (1999) has
contended that emphasis spread is bidirectional, i.e. rightward and left-ward;
she has stated that word-final emphatics compensate for being final by
spreading emphasis more strongly throughout the word. According to our
finding, the interaction has only been for word-initial emphatic stops in
monosyllabic words, but not for word-final ones.
As for the sound segments that block emphasis spread, two conflicting
views that definitely merit further future scrutiny have been attested. On the one
hand, Zawaydeh (1999) has claimed that right-ward emphasis spread is never
blocked by the so-called opaque sounds. On the other hand, Rababa (2017) has
found that emphasis is blocked by front vowels except for [e], [i:], and [ɪ].
However, Algryani (2014) has claimed that the phonemes [ʃ, j, i:, ɪ, e:] can
block emphasis. In addition, Al-Masri and Jongman (2004) have claimed that /i/
and /u/ block rightward emphasis as the vowel in the target syllable is not
affected in terms of its F2 value.
As for the magnitude of change some vowels carry in terms of F2 in the
direction of emphasis, Alzoubi (2017) has found that the vowels ]a], [a:], [ɪ],
[i:], and [ai] have showed a greater magnitude of change as evinced on F2
lowered value, whereas vowels like [ʊ], [u:], and [au] have showed no
difference. Our findings neither support Alzoubi’s (2017) former claim nor his
second claim as F2 effect has been only in favor of the vowels ]ʊ] and [u:[.
83
What this basically means is that the debate concerns those sounds which
are opaque to emphasis. Given the findings of the current study, it has turned
out that the opaque sounds include the low-back vowels /a, a:/ and the high and
mid-high front vowels /i:, ɪ/. In short, the interaction only involves the back
vowels [ʊ] and [u:]. This finding has been in line with Rababa’s (2017), which
has showed that F2 lowered value is a more reliable exponent of emphasis for
back vowels than it is for front ones, but runs counter to Al-Masri (2009) who
has pinpointed that F2 effect is clearer for high- and low-front vowels than for
high-back ones in both mono-syllabic and bi-syllabic words.
However, regarding the target consonant locus, the F2 effect has only
been indicative for the target consonant when occurring word-initially in
monosyllabic words. This finding is not therefore in line with that of Alzoubi
(2017) who has claimed that F2 shows significance only when occurring before
the target consonant (i.e. when the target consonant falls word finally). Not only
this, but our study finding does not support the claim made by Al-Masri (2009)
who has suggested that F2 shows consistent status in emphatic contexts
irrespective of the position of the target consonant, especially in mono-syllabic
words.
So far, there has therefore been disagreement among researchers as
regards the so-called opaque sounds. Table (5) below shows the findings of
previous research:
84
Dialect Opaque Sounds Researcher
Northern Palestinian i, y, ʃ, ʒ, u, w Herzallah, 1990 &
Younes, 1982
Jerusalem Palestinian ii, i, y, ʃ, (ee) Card, 1983
Moroccan Arabic i, y, ʃ, ʒ Heath, 1987
Southern Palestinian i, y, ʃ, ʒ Davis, 1993, 1995
Abu Shusha Palestinian ʃ, tʃ, dʒ Shahin, 1997a, b
Libyan Arabic i, e Ghazeli, 1977
Table (5): Opaque sounds in a number of studies.
Our finding that [i:], and [ɪ] do not interact with emphasis on F2 is surely
in congruence with Watson's (2002) claim that F2 is a reliable acoustic cue for
emphasis provided that while producing emphatics labialization entails F1
lowering and pharyngealization entails F1 raising. What this means is that
characterizing labialization as an enhancing feature of emphasis will cause F2 to
be more indicative of emphasis.
A note worthy of mention at this juncture is that vowel quality when
interacting with emphasis has showed reliable results only in the overall
interaction. That is, although some significant interaction had been detected in
pair-wise interactions, the results of the interaction were not reliable due to the
fact that the Levene’s Test of Homogeneity was not significant at any level.
As for the interaction of emphasis with gender in terms of F2, our finding
opposes those of Al-Masri and Jongman (2004) but supports those of
Abudalbuh (2010), Al-Masri (2009), and Khattab et al. (2006). To illustrate,
85
whereas the findings of Al-Masri and Jongman (2004) have shown that
emphasis is more evident in females’ speech, Abudalbuh (2010), Al-Masri
(2009), and Khattab et al. (2006) have showed that it is the other way around,
i.e. emphasis is more evident in males’ speech, a finding confirmed by our study
results. However, it is worth noting that our study, unlike Abudalbuh’s (2010),
is confined to F2 value measured only at the vowel midpoint.
All in all, the F2 effect obtained in our study is measured via an overall
interaction between emphasis and a set of independent variables. This kind of
interaction has rarely been attempted in previous research10, thus yielding, we
believe, more comprehensive results.
Third, moving on to F3 values, it has turned out to us that no interaction
between emphasis and all other variables in terms of F3 is attested, a finding
that is possibly not in concord with what almost all researchers have claimed.
To illustrate, Alzoubi (2017), Rababa (2017), Abudalbuh (2011), Jongman et
al. (2011), Al-Masri (2009), Jongman et al. (2007), Aldamen (2013), and Al-
Deaibes (2016) have all claimed that F3 shows a more raised value in emphatic
environments. Despite this, their findings were not uniform as regards manner,
vowel quality, and gender. For example, Alzoubi (2017) has noted that although
F3 value was more raised for both stops and fricatives, it was in favor of stops
10
Alzoubi (2017) has used a similar kind of analysis, which he calls "mixed-effects model,"
where he has investigated pair-wise interactions between emphasis on the one hand and other
independent variables on the other.
86
(i.e. more raised) than for fricatives. Besides, Alzoubi (2017) and Abudalbuh
(2010) have maintained that there has been no significant interaction between
emphasis and vowel quality on F3 in emphatic contexts. Finally, Abudalbuh
(2010) has found that F3 effect is significantly higher in males' speech than in
females’. However, part of the argument for our finding, being not in line with
the findings of previous research, lies in Lehn's (1963) suggestion that the
features of emphasis vary among speakers of different dialects, a conclusion
that should be verified more thoroughly by future investigations.
5.3.2. Emphasis and All Other Independent Variables (except for

vowel quality and vowel length in the target syllable)
The overall interaction between emphasis and all other independent
variables has revealed the following two main findings. First, as regards the
consonantal cues (namely CD and VOT), no significant interaction between
emphasis and all other independent variables has been attested (see 5.3.2.1.
below). Second, as regards the vocalic cues, there has been no significant
interaction in terms of F1 and F3, but there has been a significant interaction in
terms of F2 (see 5.3.2.2.).
5.3.2.1. Consonantal Cues
As for the consonantal cues (namely CD and VOT), the following
findings have been obtained. First, no significant interaction between emphasis
and all other independent variables in terms of CD has been attested, thus
87
confirming previous research findings (e.g. Rababa, 2017; Al-Adam, 2015; Al-
Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004; Boxberger, 1981) which, though not
tackling the issue from a holistic approach like ours, have all showed that CD is
not a reliable acoustic cue for emphasis. Second, the present study has showed
that VOT is not a credible exponent for emphasis, thus discrediting the findings
of Al Malwi (2017), Alzoubi (2017), Aldamen (2013), and Abudalbuh (2011),
who have all showed VOT to be a reliable exponent for emphasis.
5.3.2.2. Vocalic Cues
As for formant frequencies, there has been no significant interaction in
terms of F1 and F3, while there has been, conversely, a significant interaction in
terms of F2. To illustrate, F1 and F3 have been reported to show more raised
values in emphatic contexts vis-à-vis plain ones, acknowledging that this pattern
of significance gets weaker as one takes the measurement out of the target
syllable (Al-Masri, 2009). This probably adds to the reliability (and validity) of
the present finding where there has been no significant interaction in terms of
F1 and F3. F2, on the other hand, has maintained a consistent status, as reported
by the majority of other researchers (e.g. Watson, 2002; Al-Masri and Jongman,
2004, etc.) to be the most reliable acoustic cue for emphasis. The present
finding has, however, showed two significant sub-findings in terms of F2 in
emphatic contexts, having interacted with gender, manner, target consonant
locus, vowel quality, word size and vowel length.
88
On the first interaction, F2 value in emphatic contexts has showed a
higher mean value (in favor of male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high front,
bi-syllabic, and long). On the second interaction, F2 value in emphatic contexts
has also showed a higher mean value (in favor of male, stop, word-initial, high
and mid-high front vowels, bi-syllabic, and short). Note that the only variable
that changes in both interactions is vowel length, i.e. the first interaction has
been in favor of long, whereas the second has been in favor of short. What this
means is that F2 has turned out to be an unreliable acoustic correlate of
emphasis, for F2 value in emphatic context is always more raised. However, it
should be noted that the magnitude of change in F2 values has been stronger for
the first interaction (Mean = 1057.000) than for the second (Mean = 731.500).
As for vowel quality, the current finding has showed that only the vowels
/ɪ/ and /i:/ are affected by the interaction, yet their F2 values are still not reliable
in the identification of emphasis. The current finding partially supports Al-
Masri and Jongman (2004), who have showed that the vowels /i/ and /u/ in the
syllable to the right of the target syllable block emphasis as the means of their
F2 values in both emphatic and plain environments have not altered
significantly (Mean = 1621 for emphatic contexts versus 1630 for plain
contexts). The current F2 finding has partially been in line with the finding of
Algryani (2014), who has showed that emphasis is blocked by segments like [ʃ,
j, i:, ɪ, e:], and of Alzoubi (2017) who has showed the degree of contrast for
89
vowels like /a, a:/, /ɪ, i:/ and /aɪ/ in emphatic (versus plain) environments has a
higher values, whereas the degree of contrast for vowels like /ʊ, u:/, or /aʊ/ has
showed no difference in terms of F2 values. However, our same finding is not in
line with that of Zawaydeh (1999), which has showed that neither rightward nor
leftward emphasis spread is blocked by such vowels. Besides, Rababa (2017)
has also argued that all front vowels block emphasis except for [e], [i:], and [ɪ].
Although /ɪ/ and /i:/ have only been affected by the interaction between
emphasis and vowel quality, they have yielded higher values of F2 in emphatic
contexts compared with plain contexts. What this means is that neither front nor
back vowels have showed any effect in the direction of emphasis, thus yielding
F2 as being an unreliable acoustic cue for emphasis in AJA. The current finding
does not totally support that of Al-Masri (2009), which has showed that
emphasis effect is more salient in the context of high and low front vowels than
in the contexts of high back ones.
As for the interaction between emphasis and target consonant locus, our
current findings have showed that F2 effect (i.e. raised value) is restricted to
emphatic stops occurring word-initially, thereby partially confirming Alzoubi's
(2017) that F2 value (i.e. being more lowered) shows significance only when
occurring after the target consonant. This finding has also been in line with
those of almost all researchers (e.g. Rababa 2017; Jongman et al., 2011; Al-
Masri, 2009; Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004) that there is variance in the
90
magnitude of change relative to the distance of the vowel from the target
syllable.
A final note worthy of mention here is that the magnitude of F2 value is
gradient in that it decreases as we move from the onset to the offset of the
vowel. Being only measured at the vowel midpoint, the present finding
concerning F2 values has thus supported that of Abudalbuh (2010), which has
shown that vowel onsets incorporate the greatest magnitude of change,
especially for F2 in emphatic contexts. Interpreting the present F2 finding in
light of Ladefoged's and Johnson's (2014) articulatory correlation between F2
value and tongue advancement, F2 value in emphatic contexts has proved this
correlation, showing a more raised F2 at the midpoint of the high- and mid-high
front vowels, namely [i:] and [ɪ].
5.4. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research
5.4.1. Conclusion
Rarely studied from other than phonological and/or acoustic perspectives,
emphasis (sometimes called pharyngealization, dorsalization, backing, and
verlarization) is a wide-spread phenomenon in almost all Arabic dialects. To
this end, the present study is by and large a socio-phonetic investigation of
emphasis. Concisely, it is an attempt to find out how age and gender (as social
variables) affect the features of emphasis in AJA. To achieve just this, the two
primary emphatics [tˤ] and [sˤ], along with their plain counterparts, were
91
investigated in a number of linguistic environments in both mono- and bi-
syllabic words. Thus, the main thesis of the study was to figure out the main
correlates of emphasis in AJA.
However, to verify our findings, some interactions between emphasis and
other independent variables were examined. The independent variables were
both segmental and non-segmental. The former included vowel quality, manner,
target consonant locus, word size, and vowel length, and the latter included age
and gender. However, the dependent variables of the study were CD, VOT, F1,
F2, and F3. The study was thus designed to unravel how the independent
variables (including emphasis) interacted in pair-wise and wholly fashions
relative to each independent variable.
As for the main effect of emphasis, the results showed that only VOT, F1,
F2 and F3 in the target syllables were significant. Particularly, VOT for
emphatic stops was significantly shorter than that of the plain ones. In addition,
F1 and F3 were more raised in emphatic contexts, but F2 was more lowered in
the same contexts. Conversely, there was no effect of emphasis on F1, F2 and
F3 in the non-target syllables.
As for the pair-wise interactions, some interesting findings were attested.
First, VOT was affected by the gender of the participants in that males' VOTs
for emphatic stops were significantly longer than females', but CD, F1, F2 and
F3 for both the target and non-target syllables were not affected. Second, age
92
demonstrated the same pattern of significance that gender had already showed
in that only VOT effect was significant. Concisely, compared with plain VOTs,
emphatic VOT for the middle-aged was the shortest; emphatic VOT for the old
was the second shortest; and emphatic VOT for the young was the third
shortest. Third, vowel quality proved to be significant in the identification of
emphasis in the target syllable, where vowel quality showed a significant
interaction only in terms of F2 (see Figure 4 above). As for the non-target
syllable, only F3 yielded some significance. To illustrate, whereas the vowels
[a, a:] showed higher mean values in emphatic environments, the vowels [ɪ, i:]
showed lower mean values in the same environments. Fourth, manner proved to
have no significant effect on any of the dependent variables in the target and
non-target syllables. Fifth, the position of the target consonant also showed no
significant interaction with emphasis in terms of the dependent variables both in
the target and non-target syllables. Sixth, word size showed no significant
interaction with emphasis. Finally, vowel length proved to be significant only in
the target syllable but showed no significant interactions in the non-target
syllable. At the level of detail we are considering here, there was a significant
interaction only in terms of F2 in the target syllable. That is, F2 value of both
short and long vowels was more lowered in emphatic environments than in
plain ones, but with short vowels having greater magnitude of change than long
vowels in the direction of emphasis.
93
As for the first overall interaction between emphasis and all other
independent variables, the following finding was attested: there was a
significant interaction in terms of F1 and F2, but no significant interaction in
terms of CD, VOT and F3. To illustrate, F1value in the environment emphatic,
male, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high front, mono-syllabic, and short
showed a higher mean value than its plain counterpart. But F1 in the
environment emphatic, male, young, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high back,
mono-syllabic and short showed a more lowered mean value than did its plain
counterpart. As for F2, its mean value was more lowered in the environment
emphatic, male, middle-aged, stop, word-initial, high and mid-high back, mono-
syllabic and short.
As for the second overall interaction between emphasis and all other
independent variables, there was a significant interaction only in terms of F2.
To illustrate, F2 in the environment emphatic, male, stop, word-initial, front, bi-
syllabic and long showed a more raised mean value than did its plain
counterpart. Likewise, F2 in the environment emphatic, male, stop, word-initial,
front, bi-syllabic and short showed a more raised mean value than its plain
counterpart. It is worth noting, however, that the former interaction reflected,
though not in the direction of emphasis, a higher magnitude of change.
94
5.4.2. Limitations of the study
The present study has some limitations that are now worth highlighting. These
include:
- The study was confined only to the two emphatics, namely [tˁ, sˁ].
- The age grouping criterion was not very representative.
- The study incorporated a small number of variables (whether segmental
or non-segmental).
- The study had only two word sizes: mono-syllabic and bi-syllabic.
- The vocalic cues were measured only at the vowel midpoint.
- Vowel quality was only confined to the six main qualities, namely ]a:],
[a], [i:], [ɪ], [u:], and [ʊ].
The stimuli included the nasal sounds [m] and [n], believed (e.g.
Zawaydeh, 1999) to have the effect of lowering the values of the formant
frequencies.
All in all, future research should address more adequate data, attempt finer-
grained analysis of the data, and reach more reliable generalizations.
5.4.3. Recommendations for Further Future Research
The researcher recommends that the following considerations be
considered more thoroughly when further probing the phenomenon in future
research:
95
- Incorporating the other two primary emphatics, namely ]dˤ, ðˤ[ , with more
precision in terms of regional dialectology.
- Incorporating the approximant /l/ in RJA, with more precision in terms of
regional dialectology.
- Incorporating consonant clustering among other variables (e.g. voicing).
- Considering the effects of other non-segmental factors like education, social
class, origin of the speaker, intermarriage, etc.
- Considering the effects of other word sizes on emphasis production.
- Measuring of the vocalic cues at other vowel positions (e.g. vowel onset and
offset).
- Considering other vowel qualities, including diphthongs.
96
References
Abudalbuh, M. (2010). Effects of Gender on the Production of Emphasis in
Jordanian Arabic: A Sociophonetic Study. (MA thesis, University of
Kansas).
Abudalbuh, M. (2011). Effects of Gender on the Production of Emphasis in
Jordanian Arabic: A Sociophonetic Study. Kansas Working Papers in
Linguistics, 32: 20-47.
Al-Adam, H. (2015). Acoustic Correlates of Emphatic Sounds in Palestinian
Arabic-speaking Persons with Aphasia . Language in Focus Journal, 1:
1-16. DOI:10.1515/lifijsal-2015-0006.
Aldamen, H. A. K. (2013). The Production of Emphasis by Second Language
Learners of Arabic. (MA thesis, University of Kansas).
Al-Deaibes, M. (2016). The Phonetics and Phonology of Assimilation and
Gemination in Rural Jordanian Arabic. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Manitoba).
Alghazo, M. H. (1987). Syncope and Epenthesis in Levantine Arabic: A
NonlinearApproach. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Urbana Champaign).
Algryani, A. (2014). Emphasis Spread in Libyan Arabic. International Journal
on Studies in English Language and Literature, 2: 30-38.
97
Al Malwi, I. (2017). The Effects of Gender and Age on Voice Onset Time by
Abhah Arabic Speakers. (MA thesis, California State University).
Al-Masri, M., & Jongman, A. (2004). Acoustic correlates of emphasis in
Jordanian Arabic: Preliminary results. In Proceedings of the 2003 Texas
Linguistics Society Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project, pp. 96-106.
Al-Masri, M. (2009). The Acoustic and Perceptual Correlates of Emphasis in
Urban Jordanian Arabic. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., and Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects
Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items. Journal
of Memory and Language, 59 (4): 390-412.
Bin-Muqbil, M. S. (2006). Phonetic and Phonological Aspects of Arabic
Emphatics and Gutturals. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison).
Boxberger, L. (1981). Acoustic Characteristics of Pharyngeal and
Pharyngealized Consonants. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 6:
127-152.
Broselow, E. (1976). The Phonology of Egyptian Arabic. (Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Massachusetts).
98
Broselow, E. (1979). Cairene Arabic syllable structure. Linguistic Analysis, 5:
345-382.
Coates, J. (2016). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of
Gender Differences in Language. London ; New York: Routledge.
Daher, J. (1997). Phonological Variation in Syrian Arabic: Correlation with
Gender, Age, and Education. In M. Eid and R. Ratcliffe (eds.),
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics X: Papers from the tenth annual
symposium on Arabic linguistics, pp. 239-272. Cambridge, UK: John
Benjamins.
Davis, S. (1995). Emphasis spread in Arabic and Grounded Phonology.
Linguistic Inquiry, 26: 465-498.
Eddington, D. (2015). Statistics for linguists: A step-by-step guide for novices.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ghazeli, S. (1977). Back Consonants and Backing Coarticulation in Arabic.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin).
Heath, J. (1987). Ablaut and Ambiguity: Phonology o f a Moroccan Arabic
Dialect. Albany, N.Y.: Sunny Press.
Herzallah, R. S. (1990). Aspects of Palestinian Arabic Phonology: A Non-linear
Approach. (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.)
99
Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). London, New
York: Routledge.
Jaber, A., Al-Omari, O., & Al-Jarrah (forthcoming). The Domain of Emphasis
Spread in Arabic: Evidence from Urban Jordanian Arabic. (Sent out for
publication).
Jongman, A., Herd, W., & Al-Masri, M. (2007). Acoustic Correlates of
Emphasis in Arabic. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress
of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 913-916.
Jongman, A., Herd, W., Al-Masri, M., Sereno, J., & Combest, S. (2011).
Acoustics and Perception of Emphasis in Urban Jordanian Arabic.
Journal of Phonetics, 39 (1): 85-95.
Khalafallah, A. (1961). A Descriptive Grammar of Sa'idi Colloquial Egyptian
Arabic. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin).
Khattab, G., Al-Tamimi, F., & Heselwood, B. (2006). Acoustic and Auditory
Differences in the /t/- /T/ Opposition in Male and Female Speakers of
Jordanian Arabic. In Boudelaa, S. (2006). Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics XVI: Papers from the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on
Arabic linguistics, pp. 131-160. Cambridge, UK: John Benjamins.
Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2014). A Course in Phonetics. Sixth Edition.
Cengage Learning.
100
Lehn, W. (1963). Emphasis in Cairo Arabic. Language. 39: 29-39.
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. London, New York:
Routledge.
McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In
Keating, P. A. (1994). Phonological structure and phonetic form. 3:
191-234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norlin, K. (1987). A phonetic study of emphasis and vowels in Egyptian
Arabic.Working papers, Lund University, Department of Linguistics,
General Linguistics, Phonetics, 30.
Pépiot, E. (2013). Voice, Speech and Gender: Male-Female Acoustic
Differences and Cross-language Variation in English and French
Speakers. XVèmes Rencontres Jeunes Chercheurs de l’ED 268, Jun
2012, Paris, France. (à paraître).
Rababa, F. M. (2017). Acoustic Correlates of Emphasis in Rural and Urban
Jordanian Arabic. (MA thesis, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan).
Salem N., (2017). Emphasis in Consonant Cluster: A Sociophonetic Study on
Algerian Arabic. (MA Thesis, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan).
Sha'ban, K. 1977. The Phonology of Omani Arabic. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Texas, Austin).
101
Sayyed, A. A. 1981. The Phonology of Moroccan Arabic: A Generative
Approach. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin).
Watson, J. C. (2002). The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Yeou, M. (1997). Locus Equations and the Degree of Coarticulation of Arabic
Consonants. Phonetica, 54:187—202.
Younes, M. (1982). Problems in the Segmental Phonology of Palestinian
Arabic.(Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin).
Zawaydeh, B. A. (1998). Gradient Uvularization Spread in Ammani-Jordanian
Arabic. In Benmamoun, E.; Eid, M.; Haeri, N. (1998), Perspectives on
Arabic Linguistics XI: Papers from the Eleventh Annual Symposium on
Arabic Linguistics, pp. 117-141.
Zawaydeh, B. A. (1999). The phonetics and phonology of gutturals in Arabic.
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).
Zuraiq, W. & Zhang, J. (2006). Phonological Assimilation in Urban Jordanian
Arabic. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 28: 33-64.
102

Effectsof Ageand Genderon Emphasis Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Effectsof Ageand Genderon Emphasis Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effectsof Ageand Genderon Emphasis Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yarmouk University

Effects of Age and Gender on Emphasis Production in Jordanian

“A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

My Nephews and My Nieces

I am by and large indebted to Allah first and then to my supervisor, Prof.

Rasheed Al-Jarrah, whose constant support, guidance, and patience have

enabled me to acquire a better understanding of the subject. Fully heartily-

fledged, my words stand worthless to express the academic and brotherly

great syntactician, Dr. Osama Omari, who has supported me immensely

quality of this thesis.

My gratitude is also extended to the ever-greatest phonetician and brother on

beginning of my academic journey, providing me with his insightful and

sagacious comments. Without Dr. Majdi's inspiration, I would have never

phonetics course and the BA sociolinguistics course. I would like to heartily

AJA Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic

Almomany, Ibrahim Eshlash Odeh. Effects of Age and Gender on

effects age and gender each had on emphasis production in a sub-dialect of

Rural Jordanian Arabic, namely Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic. Concisely, the

measure the effect(s) of age and gender on emphasis as produced by the

reliable acoustic exponent for emphasis in Ajlouni-Jordanian Arabic in that the

target syllable were only distinguished by raised F1 and F3 and lowered F2 at

the vowel midpoint. However, consonant duration turned out to be a non-

emphasis production as emphatic F3 in non-target syllables turned out to be

and long vowels. However, non-significant findings for pair-wise interactions

findings showed only some significant interaction in terms of F1 and F2 in the

of gender (male), manner (stop), target consonant locus (word-initial), vowel

of F2 in the non-target syllable. To illustrate, emphatic F2 was more raised

‫كان أعلى في الحالة األولى منها في الحالة الثانية‪.‬‬

Being a feature of almost all Semitic languages including Hebrew and

Arabic (Abudalbuh, 2011; Algryani, 2014; Salem, 2017), emphasis is a wide-

spread phenomenon in most Arabic dialects, including Jordanian Arabic, the

dialect under present investigation. According to Herzallah (1990), Zawaydeh

(1998), Jongman, Herd, Al-Masri, Sereno, and Combest (2011), emphasis is

often referred to as 'pharyngealization,' 'dorsalization,' 'velarization,' and

'backing.' Nonetheless, emphasis is, grossly speaking, defined as the co-

articulation of primary and secondary articulation, mainly a constriction in the

dental/alveolar region along with a constriction in the posterior region (Ghazeli,

Jongman et al., 2011; Algryani, 2014; Jaber, Al-Omari and Al-Jarrah

Still, there is little consensus as to the essence of the posterior

to what some researchers (e.g. Herzallah, 1990; Zawaydeh, 1998; Jongman, et

pharynx involved in their production.

phonology makes a distinction between the sound classes of gutturals and

their plain counterparts: [t, d, s, ð].

Another distinction thus laid on the table by some researchers (e.g.

Algryani, 2014) concerns the classification of emphatic consonants. They posit

primary emphatics have contrasting counterpart phonemes (e.g. t, d, s, ð) while

the other set (i.e. secondary emphatics) does not.

never be accounted for only by means of acoustic measurements. Instead,

gender-related effects must be linked to a complex set of factors such as

physiology, philosophy, sociology, and anatomy. Most researchers adhere to the

view that acoustic variation among males (vis-à-vis females) is foremost

not been investigated thoroughly from other perspectives, particularly socio-

emphasis production (Al-Masri and Jongman, 2004), especially in Arabic

dialectology (Abudalbuh, 2011). Emphasis, according to Rababa (2017), has not

age and gender as social variables affecting emphasis production in Ajlouni-

Jordanian Arabic (Henceforth AJA). In a nutshell, the purpose of the current is

therefore twofold: (1) to investigate the effect(s) of age on the production of