A sociophonetic analysis of Farsi vowel systems among heritage speakers and immigrants of Persian ethnicity in Oklahoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the variation of the Farsi vowel formants – F1 and F2 – among Persian-American heritage and immigrant speakers in Oklahoma, a topic which has been under-investigated. The participants were a group of 20 Persian adult immigrants (ten males and ten females) and 20 US-born Persian-American heritage speakers of Farsi (ten males and ten females). Data were gathered in the form of acoustic audio recordings of a 150-word word list carefully pronounced by the participants. A lexicon was created for the purpose of forced alignment, and vowel formants were extracted using DARLA. The vowel plots showed substantial similarity among all participants to the Farsi monolingual speakers’ in Iran regarding the back vowels /u/, /o/ and /ɒ/. However, the front /i/ and /e/ sounds were a bit more back than that of the monolinguals. In regard to /æ/, both groups of female Persian immigrants and female Persian heritage speakers showed similarity to that of the monolinguals; however, male Persian immigrants and male Persian heritage speakers had a relatively raised /æ/.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".