Phonetic

A subdialect is defined as “small branches based on pronunciation differences
found in a dialect, diversified speeches in terms of pronunciation
in a district or city of a country. Literary language of a state bases necessarily
on a subdialect. The subdialect, which has become the literary language,
borrows elements form other subdialects, and this cause its flourishment.
In order for a literary language to have a clear expression quality, the other
subdialects to which the literary language is related should be analyzed in
details.
The most studied and analyzed subdialects are Erzurum, Elazığ, Kayseri,
Malayta, Sivas, Trabzon and Gaziantep subdialects. Apart from specific
ones, most of the studies as to the Gaziantep subdialect are dissertations
fulfilled in Turkish Language and Literature Departments.
In this presentation, the position of Gaziantep subdialect in the subdialects
of Turkey Turkish and the studies on it are classified and evaluated
with the main lines. Based on this, the characteristic elements of Gaziantep
subdialect in terms of morphology, apart from phonetics and vocabulary,
are referred. Moreover, the classifications and evaluations of scientists such
as A. Caferoğlu, T. Banguoğlu, L. Karahan as to Gaziantep subdialect are
also included in the study.

توخمەکانی زاری کرمانجیی ناوەڕاستە تێئاخنراو و لکاوە کە بە شێوەیەکی سەرەکیی مۆڕفێمە ناسەربەخۆ و مۆڕفێمە لە وشە‌ـ‌چووەکانن، ئەوجا ئەوانەی وشە فرە‌ـ‌چەشنەکان لە دروستە جۆراوجۆرەکاندا. ئەمە و تێکەڵ‌بوونی پێکهاتەکانی ڕێزمانەکەی هەبوونی ڕستەی بە وشە و فرێزی تەواوە و کرداری ئاڵۆز و پێکهاتووی ئاڵۆزی تری لە جۆری جیاواز مسۆگەر کردووە. لەگەڵ ئەوەیشدا ئەو دوو پێکهاتەیەی مۆڕفۆلۆژیی و سینتاکسی تێکەڵ بە یەکتر بوون، بنەما و ڕێساکان هێشتا هەر جیاوازیی لە دروستە، توخم و پێکهاتووەکانیاندا دەکەن. لەم جیاکارییە دایە کە ڕێسای دابەشبوونی تەواوکەرانە و ڕێسای هەمبەریی (بەرامبەر بەیەک ‌وەستانەوە) تەحەکوم بە دەربڕینی فۆنێمەکان (بڕگەییەکانی سەرەوە و نابڕگەییە دەنگدار و کپەکان)ەوە دەکات. نووسینی ستاندارد فۆنێمییە، بەڵام دەرکردەی پێواژۆ فۆنۆلۆژییەکان و دیاردە فرە‌ـ‌چەشنەکانیش بۆ نووسین وەردەگیردرێن. لەبەر ئەم ڕاستیانە و هۆکاری تریشە، کە ئۆرسۆگرافیی ستانداری کوردی وێنەدانەوەی ڕێزمانەکەیەتی. واتا، ئەو کەسەی دەیەوێت بە ستانداردی کوردی بنووسێت، پێویستە لە مۆدێلی زمانەکەی بگات و شارەزای ڕێزمانەکەی بێت.

This thesis explores using phonological principles in Khmer to build a model which can automatically transduce orthographic native Khmer words into a phonemic transcription and a close phonetic transcription. The approach chosen for this research involves two processes: (1) converting the orthographic words into phonemic transcription which represents careful speech, and (2) converting the phonemic transcription to the phonetic transcription which represents casual speech.

Three datasets are created to manually train the model as well as test it, and two Thrax grammars were written to fulfill the two processes. Dataset 01 is a list of manually selected 140 words which covers most spelling and pronunciation cases in native Khmer words. Dataset 02 and Dataset 03 serve as testing dataset. Dataset 02 is a list of 7,654 words drawn from the official Khmer monolingual dictionary published in 1967. Phonemic and phonetic transcriptions of each word in Datasets 01 and 02 are manually created based on existing phonological principles/regularities postulated by previous scholars. Dataset 03 is a list of 6,492 words drawn from the CambodianEnglish dictionary together with their phonemic transcription done by Robert Headley
published in 1997. Ruby was used to do the data preparation for Dataset 02 and Dataset 03 because it is easier and quicker to manipulate the data using simple syntax and regular expression.

The first Thrax grammar was written and validated to successfully convert the orthographic native words into phonemic transcription. This process involves mapping a Khmer character to an IPA character, determining syllable parsing, and implementing phonological regularities. The second Thrax grammar was written to convert the phonemic transcription into phonetic transcription by implementing some known phonological regularities such as: schwa and aspiration transition in the initial consonant clusters, pre-syllable reduction in disyllabic words, and others.

The results show that the error generated by the first Thrax grammar is reduced from 97.86% (using simple grapheme to phoneme mapping) to 2.14% (using the mapping and phonological regularities) on Dataset 01. On Datasets 02 and 03 the average error rates are 0.89% and 2.87% respectively. Most transcriptions errors stem from exceptional and irregular cases where the orthographic words are pronounced differently from their spelling. All error cases are fully documented.

Most previous studies, that have examined the effect of explicit pronunciation instruction on foreign language speech, have focused on the short term effect of explicit pronunciation instruction, usually measured immediately after instruction. For this reason, it is not yet clear whether the attested benefit from pronunciation instruction can be sustained for a long time after instruction. The current study attempted to explore the long term effect of phonetic instruction on the production of the English bilabial voiceless stop /p/ by Arab learners of English as foreign language (EFL, henceforth). Nine Arab EFL learners were assigned to two groups, control and experimental. The experimental group received phonetic instruction on how to produce the English sound /p/, whereas the control group did not. The production of the English sound /p/ was elicited from all the learners in both groups, once before the instruction and once after 11 weeks of the instruction. Two experienced native English instructors were asked to judge whether the students produced /p/ or /b/. The results generally showed no benefit from the phonetic instruction on the delayed production of /p/ by the EFL Arab learners. Although the results do not seem encouraging for pronunciation instruction, it is difficult to reach a conclusion with regard to pronunciation instruction due to the small sample size used in the current exploratory study, and to the difficulty to generalize the results on /p/ to all other sounds. Future studies may use larger sample sizes and include more sounds in their instruction methods.

Tatar Turkish, one of the important branches of Kipchak dialects
of Turkish, is regarded as been separated into three branches: 1. Middle
dialect, 2. Western (Misher) dialect, 3. Eastern (West Siberia) dialect. Siberian Tatars, known as Western Siberian Tatars, today, is scattered
around Tumen, Baraba, Omsk region with their 300.000 population.
Siberian Tatar dialects can also be considered as been separated into
there branches: 1. Tobol-Irtish Region dialects (Tumen, Tobol, Saz
region, Tevriz and Tara), 2. Baraba dialect, 3. Tom dialect.
Siberian Tatar Turkish and Oguz Turkish have shown similarities
in terms of vocabulary, phonetic and morphology. Scientists who has
studied on Siberian Tatars such as D. G. Tumaşeva, D. M. Nasilov,
Abdulkadir Inan and Mustafa Oner, have emphasised that besides
Kipchak, Karluk, Uigur Turkish, Oguz Turkish also has some impacts
on formation of Siberian Tatar dialects.
In this study, the focus is Oguz Turkish (speically Turkey Turkish
and its dialects) elements, seen in Siberian Tatar Turkish in terms of
phonetic, morphology and vocabulary. A number of words in Sberian
Tatar Turkish such as arı ‘bee’, inek ‘cow’, bura/pura ‘here’, quça
‘husband’, nene ‘grandmother’, tete ‘grandfather’ is given. Their place in
Turkey Turkish dialects has been analysed and evaluations have been
conducted regarding the topic

KILMÎYE Kurdkî çend hebî alfabeyan reyde yena nuştene. Her alfabe de mojnayena taye vengan yena îhmal kerdene. Taye vengî ke erja frekansê xo kemî yê alfabe de nêyenê mojnayene. Nê vengan ra yew zî vengê /ğ/ yo. No veng heme mintiqayanê kirmancan de bi heman şeklî ya îfade nêbeno. Nê nuşteyî de pirsgirêka vengê "/ğ/" yî ameya analîz kerdene. Hîrê hebî ziwannasê ke kurdki ser o xebitîyênê, erja frekansê nê vengî ser o taye doneyê îstatîstîkî tesbît kerdê. Mîyanê na meqale de nê hîrê analîzî û grafîkê vengî ameyê îzah kerdene. Alfabeyê ke seba kirmanckînusî yenê şuxulnayene tedqîq bîyê û alfabe de cagirewtişê na herfe analîz bîyo.

Tatar Turkish, one of the important branches of Kipchak dialects
of Turkish, is regarded as been separated into three branches: 1. Middle
dialect, 2. Western (Misher) dialect, 3. Eastern (West Siberia) dialect. Siberian Tatars, known as Western Siberian Tatars, today, is scattered
around Tumen, Baraba, Omsk region with their 300.000 population.
Siberian Tatar dialects can also be considered as been separated into
there branches: 1. Tobol-Irtish Region dialects (Tumen, Tobol, Saz
region, Tevriz and Tara), 2. Baraba dialect, 3. Tom dialect.
Siberian Tatar Turkish and Oguz Turkish have shown similarities
in terms of vocabulary, phonetic and morphology. Scientists who has
studied on Siberian Tatars such as D. G. Tumaşeva, D. M. Nasilov,
Abdulkadir Inan and Mustafa Oner, have emphasised that besides
Kipchak, Karluk, Uigur Turkish, Oguz Turkish also has some impacts
on formation of Siberian Tatar dialects.
In this study, the focus is Oguz Turkish (speically Turkey Turkish
and its dialects) elements, seen in Siberian Tatar Turkish in terms of
phonetic, morphology and vocabulary. A number of words in Sberian
Tatar Turkish such as arı ‘bee’, inek ‘cow’, bura/pura ‘here’, quça
‘husband’, nene ‘grandmother’, tete ‘grandfather’ is given. Their place in
Turkey Turkish dialects has been analysed and evaluations have been
conducted regarding the topic. Siberian Tatars, known as Western Siberian Tatars, today, is scattered
around Tumen, Baraba, Omsk region with their 300.000 population.
Siberian Tatar dialects can also be considered as been separated into
there branches: 1. Tobol-Irtish Region dialects (Tumen, Tobol, Saz
region, Tevriz and Tara), 2. Baraba dialect, 3. Tom dialect.
Siberian Tatar Turkish and Oguz Turkish have shown similarities
in terms of vocabulary, phonetic and morphology. Scientists who has
studied on Siberian Tatars such as D. G. Tumaşeva, D. M. Nasilov,
Abdulkadir Inan and Mustafa Oner, have emphasised that besides
Kipchak, Karluk, Uigur Turkish, Oguz Turkish also has some impacts
on formation of Siberian Tatar dialects.

Quantitative clinical voice analysis is discussed with special reference to four factors: 1) measurement criteria that are based on well established auditory parameters; 2) voice material that is modelled on the connected speech of ordinary spoken communication rather than sustained vowels; 3) direct monitoring so as to provide both acoustic and vocal fold contact signals; and 4) phonetic structural similarities across what are ordinarily regarded as highly dissimilar languages. These factors have motivated the development and clinical application of physical analyses that provide measurements related both to vocal fold function and to the perceptual attributes of pitch, loudness, and an important aspect of voice quality.