Ultrasound Study of Emphatics, Uvulars, Pharyngeals and Laryngeals in Three Arabic Dialects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ifferent studies show different and to some extent inconsistent mechanisms for the articulation of Arabic uvular, pharyngeal and laryngeal sounds, i.e. gutturals, and emphatic sounds. The current study uses ultrasound imaging of the tongue to examine the articulations involved in guttural and emphatic sounds in three Arabic dialects, Egyptian, Saudi and Palestinian. This investigation attempts to answer the question: what are the tongue shapes during the production of both inherently retracted /ʕ, ħ, ʁ, χ, q/ and secondarily retracted /ðˤ, sˤ, tˤ, dˤ/ sounds. Articulatory results indicate that these sounds are produced with different tongue root and tongue dorsum retraction mechanisms. Pharyngeals are articulated with tongue root retraction and statistically do not involve significant tongue dorsum retraction. Uvulars and emphatics show tongue root and tongue dorsum retraction with inconsistent tongue root retraction. Laryngeals do not show any significant tongue retraction. Keywords: ultrasound, Arabic dialects, emphatics, uvulars, pharyngeals, laryngeals
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".