Rosenhouse et al.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics

Volume 21, 2014

http://acousticalsociety.org/

167th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America

Providence, Rhode Island
5 - 9 May 2014
Session 4aSC: Speech Communication
4aSC5. Vowel systems of quantity languages compared: Arabic dialects and other
languages
Judith Rosenhouse*, Noam Amir and Ofer Amir
*Corresponding author's address: Linguistics, S WANTECH ltd, 89 Hagalil S t., Haifa, 3268412, Israel, Israel, swantech@013.net
Arabic is a quantity language: it distinguishes short vs. long phonemes. Little literature exists about CA (Collquial Arabic) dialects & CAI (CA in
Israel). Here we discuss F1, F2, and durations of vowels of recorded word lists read within a carrying sentence by 40 adult Muslim speakers of two North
(GD) and Center (MD) rural CAI dialects. The findings are compared with other dialects and languages. The CAI findings reveal: 1. Short vowels' vowel
spaces are smaller and more concentrated than long vowels' spaces. 2. Long vowels are more stable than short vowels. 3. Significant duration differences
exist between short and long vowels (GD & MD). 4. The differences vary by vowels, dialects and genders. Our findings are discussed with relation to
data of some other CA dialects (Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian and Moroccan), quantity (English, French, German, Swedish and Hungarian) and
non-quantity (Hebrew, Spanish) languages.
Published by the Acoustical Society of America through the American Institute of Physics

2014 Acoustical Society of America [DOI: 10.1121/1.4880205]

Received 24 Apr 2014; published 16 May 2014
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)
Page 1
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

INTRODUCTION
Arabic and its dialects
Arabic is a Semitic language with a long history. Currently, it is usually divided into two registers or varieties: Modern
Standard Arabic (MSA), which is the formal, written register, and Colloquial dialects (CA), which are informal and mostly
spoken (though sometimes also written). CAI reflects here colloquial Arabic varieties spoken in Israel. Phonetic systems
of CAI (and most other CA dialects) somewhat differ from MSA. For example, Arabic MSA and CAI have short and long
vowels but in MSA there are three pairs of vowels: / i:, u:, a:, i, u, a/, whereas CAI has five pairs: /i:, e:, u:, o:, a:, i, e,
u, o, a/.1
Since Arabic dialects vary, they are usually classified by the following categories:
Geography: northern, central and southern dialects
Demography: Sedentary (urban vs. rural) and nomadic (Bedouin) dialects
Social classification: by religion, gender, age, etc.
Education (schooling, literacy): affects CAI (Kaye & Rosenhouse, 1997)
This paper aims to study the vowels in two CAI dialects and compares them with other Arabic dialects and with some other
languages.

Objective and research questions

Our primary objective was to examine the vowel system of CAI, through two regional dialects of CAI: the Galilee dialect
(GD) and Muthallath Triangle dialect (MD). The research questions investigate:
1. Acoustic properties (specifically F1, F2 and duration) of CAI vowels, because not much research exists on CAI acoustics,
and practically nothing on CAI inter-dialect acoustic differences.
2. Differences between the vowel systems of the two mentioned dialects
3. Differences between long and short vowels in each dialect
4. Differences between CAI and other CA dialects and other languages

Methodology: Method and Procedures

Participants were young adult Muslims from Kafr Qasem, Kafr Bara and Jalju:lia (MD), and Majd Al-Kuru:m (GD). Per
dialect, there were ten men and ten women, i.e., (20 + 20) 40 speakers speaking two rural dialects. Participants average
ages were for MD 23.1 years and for GD 24.63 years.
The test material included three words x 10 vowels = 30 items (24 CVC words, and 6 CVCVC(C)) words per dialect (C=
consonant, V= vowel). The words were said in this carrier sentence:
/ana b-aqra l-kilme .

el-maktu:be ala l-waraqa/

I am reading the word ... (which is) written

on the page.

( ) ____
Method: The participants were recorded separately in a quiet room after reading the test words, to avoid pronunciation
errors. Then formants, durations and F0 (the latter is not reported here) were analyzed using Praat (Boersma, 2001) and
MATLAB (2010). Formant calculation was based on LPC algorithm (Rabiner & Schafer, 1978) with pre-emphasis at 50
Hz. To eliminate Formant calculation errors (e.g., Escudero et al., 2009), the sound files were down-sampled to 8 kHz prior
to analysis, and then LPC was applied with a user-specified LPC model order. For consistency, formants for each vowel

We do not analyze the front and a back allophones of /a, a:/, as they are not phonemic.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 2
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

were calculated at the highest model order achievable without "formant splitting", i.e., without obtaining two
resonances in the LPC model representing a single formant (Amir et al., submitted).

FINDINGS
CAI results
The CAI results for the MD and GD speakers are shown in Fig. 1 in scatter plots and error ellipses of F1-F2 vowel space
and in Fig. 2 for the schematic vowel trapezes for each group of speakers (men, women, Galilee, Muthallath). Fig. 3
presents the duration features of the two dialects pooled together.

Table 1. Test material: The Three Lists of test words

List A

List B

List C

Arabic word

gloss

Arabic word

gloss

Arabic word

gloss

bi:r

water well

fi:l

elephant

MD ri:

wind

GD: ki:s

bag

MD: fe:n

fan (hair)

GD: we:n

where

na:r

mo:z

tu:t

se:f

sword

ze:t

oil

fire

da:r

house, home

ba:b

door

bananas

MD: bo:t

shoe

mo:t

death

GD: lo:z

almonds

fu:l

broad beans

MD: mu:s

knife

GD: u:t

fish
seeds

strawberries

MD: ridel

Leg

GD: ider

leg

bat(t)

ducks

miter

meter

Bizer

MD: med(d)

stretch

MD: deb

jeep

GD: ed(d)

count!

GD: ed(d)
bes(s)

cat

raf(f)

shelf

Sad(d)

blocked

dob(b)

bear

dob(b)

bear

rod(d)

answer!

sufun

ships

mudon

towns

MD: furun

oven

GD: furon

oven

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 3
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

FIGURE 1. Scatter plots and error ellipses of the F1-F2 vowel space for both dialects and both genders

FIGURE 2. The vowel spaces for each dialect and gender (Left: MD. Right: GD, men: top, women; bottom)

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 4
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

FIGURE 3. Duration and STD of short and long vowels

a: Mean duration and STD of short (/i e a o u/) and long (/i: e: a: o: u:/) vowels. Gray bars = short, white bars = long
vowels; b: Duration ratios and STD of the short/long vowel pairs /i-i:, e-e:, a-a:, o-o:, u-u:/).

These findings reveal Inter-dialect and inter-gender acoustical differences between the two dialects. These findings can
be summarized as follows:
F1 results in MD & GD
F1 of /i/ is equal to /i:/ in MD (but not in GD)
F1 of/e/ is equal to /e:/ in GD (but not in MD)
F1 of /a/ is not equal to /a:/ for both men and women in MD (but not in GD).
F1 of /o/ is equal to /o:/ in GD and MD.
F1 of /u/ is not equal to /u:/ in both dialects
The overall F1 patterns are similar for men and women of the same dialect (see Figures 1, 2 above).
F2 results in MD & GD
The contrast pattern is nearly identical for men and women. For short vowels, three distinct tongue-position categories
emerged as expected: front (/i, e/), mid (/a/), and back (/o, u/). For long vowels, 4 distinct tongue-position categories
emerged: Front (/i:/), mid-front (/e:/), mid-back (/a:/), and back (/o:, u:/).
Vowel duration in MD & GD
Long vowels have longer durations than short vowels. Long to short vowel duration ratio ranges between 1.7 and 2.2.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER ARABIC DIAELCTS

We compared our findings with some other Arabic dialects. Table2 is adapted from from Abou Haidar (1994) (cited in
Newman and Verhoeven, 2002) which gives vowel frequencies (in Hz) of three vowel pairs in eight CA dialects from
different Arab countries. Table 3 compares the findings of Abou Haidar's (1994) data for the three nearest countries to our
CAI findings for men and women. The Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian dialects have like CAI five vowel pairs: /i:, e:, a:,
o:, u:, i, e, a, o, u/, but short and long /e, o/ are not documented in Abou Haidar (1994). Neither does his data provide
separate data for men and women for the other Arab countries. Note that in Table 3, F1 and F2 of /i:, i, u:, u, a:, a/ are
similar, but not identical. Table 4 summarizes the main findings of the comparisons in relation to MD and GD.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 5
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

Table 2. The variety in vowels of eight Arab countries dialects from Abou Haidar (1994) (Cf. Newman and Verhoeven, 2002).
Values in bold are the highest in range, those underscored are the lowest.

_________________________________________________________________
vowel

i:

formant F1
Qatar

i
F2

u:

F1 F2

F1 F2

u
F1 F2

a:

F1 F2

F1

F2

310 1990 500 1400 310 830 490 1005 621 1280 620 1540

Lebanon 280 2010 490 1530 330 795 475 1060 610 1430 640 1390
Saudia

305 2530 540 1830 375 930 540 1190 730 1540 695 1590

Tunisia 315 2275 510 1690 360 830 540 1135 610 1780 650 1590
Syria

330 2465 415 2135 320 620 430 1200 710 1560 700 1680

Sudan

325 2220 420 2000 380 900 455 1040 730 1500 660 1600

UAE

335 2065 460 1720 350 990 475 1075 730 1380 640 1660

Jordan

320 2295 565 1720 260 795 580 1240 770 1521 780 1620

___________________________________________________________________

Table 3. Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian dialects compared to MD and GD

_________________________________________________________________
vowel
formant

i:
F1

i
F2

F1

u:
F2

F1 F2

a:

F1 F2

F1 F2

a
F1 F2

Lebanon1 280 2010 490 1530 330 795 475 1060 610 1430 640 1390
Syria1

330 2465 415 2135 320 620 430 1200 710 1560 700 1680

Jordan1

320 2295 565 1720 260 795 580 1240 770 1521 780 1620

MD men

375 1931 385 1713 391 1023 418 1096 591 1296 551 1360

Md women 456 2345 458 2068 456 1119 498 1335 770 1541 699 1621
Gd men

361 2013 391 1765 382 965 447 1183 597 1270 568 1253

GD women 411 2416 443 2180 444 1086 496 1405 728 1593 697 1523
__________________________________________________________________

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 6
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

Table 4. Summary of Jordanian, Lebanese & Syrian vowel formants compared to MD and GD

Vowel

Description

F1, F2
i:

F1

Syrian CA is nearest CAI

F2

Male CAI values < Lebanese CA (the lowest of the three)

Female CAI values are between Syrian and Jordanian CA

F1

Syrian CA is nearest CAI, though Syrian values are higher

F2

Male CAI values < Jordanian CA; female CAI values almost as Syrian CA values

U: F1
F2

U F1
F2

A: F1
F2

A F1
F2

CAI values > than all three Levant dialects

All CAI values > than all three Levant CA dialects

Male CAI about as high as Syrian CA; female CAI - between Lebanese and Jordanian CA
Male CAI values are between Lebanese and Syrian CA; female CAI values are > all three Levant dialects

Male CAI < the three CA dialects; female CAI values between Syrian and Jordanian CA
Male CAI values are < all Levant values; female CAI values > Syrian CA (the highest of the 3 dialects)

Male CAI < than the three CA dialects; female CAI values almost as Syrian CA
Male CAI values are < all Levant values; female values are between Lebanese and Jordanian CA

We further compared our MD and GD findings with those given in Al-Tamimi (2002), which compared Moroccan (MA)
and Jordanian (JA) vowels. The present comparison reveals that like MD and GD, JA and MA production of male vowels
shows a vowel space which is more centralized than the female vowel space (p<0.0001). In addition, like MD and GD, JA
and MA short vowels are more centralized than long ones. (This is also true for the Palestinian dialect studied by Saadah,
2011). Al-Tamimi (2002) also found that JA (but not MA) speakers produce/ i/ and /e:/ with larger distinction than they
perceive them. This observation for a dialect is similar to our CAI findings. This also suggests that at least the status of
these vowels differs from the status of vowels in more distant CA dialects. In addition, JA production revealed, like CAI,
four tongue positions.2

VOWEL SYSTEMS:
EXMAPLES OF QUANTITY LANGUAGES AND NON-QUANTITY LANGUAGES
As well known, vowel systems vary in different languages. Some languages have parallel short/long vowel pairs; others
do not have symmetrical structures; and a member of a duration category (short/ long) may differ from the other member.

Unlike Al-Tamimi, we did not study vowel perception in CAI, but MD male and female /i, e/ production is very close and comparable
to Al-Tamimi's JA vowel space; cf. illustration 12 in Al-Tamimi (2002), and Figure 1 and 2 above.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 7
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

The figures below show vowel spaces of five quantity languages (English, German, French, Swedish and Hungarian) and
a non-quantity language (Modern Hebrew) which has five vowels, like CAI.3

French (Fougeron & Smith, 1993)

English (Roach 2004) tense lax vowels

Hungarian (Szende 1994)

German (Mangold, 2005)

Swedish (Engstrand 1999)

Hebrew (Amir & al., 2012) Left: men, Right: women; red: stressed, blue: unstressed; black: Most et al. 2000.
FIGURE 4. Vowel spaces of five quantity languages and a non-quantity language

The Spanish vowel trapeze is very similar to the Hebrew one and therefore is not presented here.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 8
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

Dispersion Theory (DT), among other phonological theories, studies vowel arrays (Ferrari-Disner, 1983, Becker-Kristal,
2010 Vaux, 2010). According to this theory, vowel systems can be small or large, symmetric or asymmetric, peripheric or
non-peripheric etc. Small systems have usually less than eight vowels. The larger the system, the more categories it usually
has (short/long, symmetric/ asymmetric, peripheric/non-peripheric, etc.). Small systems of languages such as Hebrew and
Spanish, with five phonological vowels (e.g., /i, e, a, o, u/), can vary in their articulation manner and spectral structure (e.g.,
formants). Such systems with between-vowel contrasts" are "based on a combination of quantity and quality (Becker,
2010:45; see his five-vowel trapeze for Spanish , p. 94, and p. 191 for various languages, including Arabic dialects, Hebrew
and Spanish). Our two CAI dialects reveal that the five long vowels of CAI fit very well into this structure, but more
variation exists in the short vowels as Figure 2 above shows.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our study, which began with a comparison of the vowel systems of MD and GD, has yielded interesting results, some of
which were unexpected. We have seen that these two CAI vowel-systems are similar between themselves as well as similar
to certain Eastern and Western CA systems. This was expected due to their belonging to the same language. However, the
studied acoustic features of CA dialects and CAI, such as F1, F2, and duration, appear to differ and be dialect-specific in
the two CAI and other CA dialects. We also found gender-based differences in our CAI dialects, also like various CA
dialects.
Other studies of CA acoustic features often indicate that short vowels are more centralized than long ones (e.g., Ghazali,
1977, Al-Tamimi, 2002). This feaure has been attested also for our CAI dialects.
The partial overlapping of short /i, e/ (at various rates) in CAI may indicate an undergoing process of vowel shift (or
merging?) which has already been noted (Rosenhouse, 2002) but not researched up to now. A similar trend seems to exist
also in Jordanian Arabic vowels, following Al-Tamimi (2002). This tendency appears in other languages, too (e.g. Bradlow,
1996, Labov, 2010), where the relationship between production and perception has also been suggested. We noted a similar
tendency in MD, GD /o/ and /u/, but in these CAI vowels the (articulatory) space is larger than between /i, e/ (i.e., /o/ - /u/
are less overlapping). Lowering F2 of /u/ towards /o/ and of /i/ towards /e/ usually occurs in many CA (and CAI) dialects
in the adjacency of pharyngeal/uvular consonants. However, since we examined vowels in a non-pharyngealized
environment, that cannot be the cause for the partial overlapping that we found. Moreover, in other languages, such vowel
shifts occur without pharyngealization (cf. e.g., Bradlow, 1996, Labov, 2010).
Since for MD and GD we studied neither pharyngealization effects nor cognitive production/perception differences or
relationship, these points must remain a topic for further research. Interesting research questions in this context are the
following: Has pharyngealization triggered a merging process regarding the pairs /i, e/ and /u, o/, in CA (and CAI) in nonpharyngeal environments? Furthermore, if it has, why is there a difference between /i > e/ and /u > o/?
Dispersion Theory (DT) predicts that the larger the number of vowels in a system, the more space the categories will
occupy. DT also relates to reduction or movement of vowels in dispersion or concentration of the system. These aspects of
the theory may be relevant for CA and CAI dialects, and to the above merger/shift phenomena.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We cordially thank Rizan Rabi, Sadja Hagala-Asi, Saleem Haj and Najla Kassis for their help in data collecting and
analysis of the MD and GD material.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 9
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11

Rosenhouse et al.

REFERENCES
Abou Haidar, L. (1994) "Norme linguistique et variabilit dialectale: analyse formantique du systme vocalique de la langue arabe,"
Revue de Phontique Applique, 110: 1-15.
Al-Tamimi J. (2002) Variabilit phontique en production et en perception de la parole: Le cas de l'arabe jordano-palestinien.
Universit Lyon: Mmoire du DEA en Sciences du Langage.
Amir, N., Amir, O. and Rosenhouse, J. (submitted) "Colloquial Arabic vowels in Israel: A comparative acoustic study of two dialects"
Amir, N., Tzenker, O., Amir, O., Rosenhouse, J. (2012) "Quantifying Vowel Characteristics in Hebrew and Arabic," paper read at
Afeka Conference for Speech processing.
Becker-Kristal, R. (2010) Acoustic typology of vowel inventories and Dispersion Theory: Insights from a large cross-linguistic corpus,
Ph.D dissertation, UCLA. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/research/RBecker_diss.pdf
Boersma P. (2001) "Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer," Glot. International, 5:9/10, 341-345
Bradlow A.R. (1996) "A Perceptual Comparison of the /i//e/ and /u//o/ Contrasts in English and in Spanish: Universal and
Language-Specific Aspects", Phonetica, 53: 5585
Engstrand, Olle (1999) "Swedish", in: Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the usage of the International
Phonetic Alphabet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140
Escudero, P., Boersma, P., Schurt Rauber, A. and Bion R. A. H. (2009) "A cross-dialect acoustic description of vowels: Brazilian and
European Portuguese, " J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(3): 1379-1393.
Ferrari-Disner, S. (1983) Vowel quality, the relation between universal and language-specific factors. UCLA Working Papers in
Phonetics, 58.
Fougeron, C. and Smith, C.L. (1993) "Illustrations of the IPA: French", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 23 (2): 73
76
Ghazali, S. (1977), Back consonants and backing co-articulation in Arabic, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin
Kaye, A.S. and J. Rosenhouse (1997) "Arabic dialects and Maltese" in: R. Hetzron (ed.) The Semitic Languages, London: Routledge
Publishing House, 263-311.
Labov, W. (2010) Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors, Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK.
Mangold, M. (2005) Das Aussprachewrterbuch, Mannheim: Duden
MATLAB (2010a) The Mathworks, Natick MS http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/
Newman, D.L. and J. Verhoeven (2002) "Frequency analysis of Arabic vowels in connected speech," Antwerp Papers in Linguistics,
100: 77-86.
Rabiner, L. R. and R.W. Schafer (1978) Digital Processing of Speech Signals, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Roach, P. (2004), "British English: Received Pronunciation", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 34 (2): 239245
Rosenhouse, J. (2002) "Trends of Colloquial Arabic Dialects in Israel," in W. Arnold and H. Bobzin (eds.) "Sprich doch mit deinen
Knechten aramaeisch, wir verstehen es! 60 Beitraege zur Semitistik. Festschrift fr Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 599-611.
Saadah, E. (2011) The Production of Arabic vowels by English L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers of Arabic, PhD dissertation, the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Szende, Tams (1994), "Illustrations of the IPA: Hungarian", Journal of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 24 (2): 9194

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 21, 060002 (2014)

Page 10
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 82.178.78.187 On: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 18:06:11