Articulation of English Consonants, Vowels and Diphthongs by Pashto Speakers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the articulation of English consonants, vowels and diphthongs by Pashto Speakers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and explores the problems they face in their English articulation due to the influence of mother tongue. A detailed experiment has been carried out to analyze the articulatory properties of /θ/ /ð/ /ɪ: /, /ɪ/ and /еɪ: / sounds spoken by Pashto speakers in Pakistan. The research reveals that Pashtun speakers of English language have a distinct pronunciation pattern of /θ/ and /ð/ sounds. This research provides a scientific justification to establish Pashto English as an independent deviant variety of RP Standard English Language. Based on the findings of the data collected from the recordings of 50 participants, it was concluded that thickness is low and frequencies of formants are considerably low as compared to RP sounds. In this regard, consonant phonemes of /θ/ and /ð/ sounds articulated by Pashto speakers are dissimilar to their Standard English (RP). They are produced as “Dental Plosives” instead of “Dental Fricatives”. The participants face great difficulty in pronouncing these English dental fricatives /ð/, /ɵ/ sounds, and they also face insurmountable problems in the regular plural forms. In relation to vowels and diphthongs in English language, major problems largely appeared in misunderstanding between /ɪ:/, /ɪ/ and /еɪ:/ sound production. The results of this study shall provide assistance to English language teachers and learners in teaching and learning English Language, especially in teaching and learning English pronunciation. It has been ascertained that special consideration should be given to these problematic consonants, vowels and diphthongs in order to avoid misunderstandings/confusion on the part of the listener.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".