Investigating the emphatic feature in Iraqi Arabic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secondary place of articulation for Arabic emphatic consonants varies across dialects. This study examines two speakers of Iraqi Arabic, using acoustic evidence, and one speaker of Iraqi Arabic, using direct visual articulatory (transnasal laryngoscopic) evidence, to investigate the phonetic nature of the secondary feature and the prosodic effect of an emphatic consonant over multisyllabic words. The acoustic and laryngoscopic evidence suggests that the articulation of emphatics in Iraqi Arabic involves a modification of the shape of the pharynx which could be called pharyngealisation, which differs, however, from the pharyngeal configuration for producing pharyngeal consonants. While laryngeal constriction, with tongue retraction and larynx raising, characterises pharyngeals, larynx height appears to be low in the secondary articulation accompanying emphatics, while the tongue dorsum appears to be raised, giving the pharynx a singularly contrasting, narrowed configuration to that found in pharyngeals. Furthermore, the effect of an emphatic spreads to all syllables, forwards or backwards, regardless of its position in the word, although the effect is modified or blocked in certain phonotactic conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".