Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by mahjoub zirak

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 3. List of stimuli with the target singleton/lexical geminates Table 4. List of stimuli with the target singleton/word-boundary concatenated geminates temporal parameters was also subject to the RMS

Table 3 List of stimuli with the target singleton/lexical geminates Table 4. List of stimuli with the target singleton/word-boundary concatenated geminates temporal parameters was also subject to the RMS

Related Figures (19)

Table1. The representations of singleton and three types of geminate consonants
Table1. The representations of singleton and three types of geminate consonants
Table 2. Phonetic distribution of word internal and word-boundary geminates in Persian. ratios variability and interfere with the production
Table 2. Phonetic distribution of word internal and word-boundary geminates in Persian. ratios variability and interfere with the production
Figure 1: Mean duration (ms) of the singleton and lexical geminate consonant types /l/ with the durations of 63.87ms for singleton The shortest duration were measured for the lateral singletons from geminates in Persian. measured for singleton and geminate respectively. durations of 149.143 ms and 246.351 ms were
Figure 1: Mean duration (ms) of the singleton and lexical geminate consonant types /l/ with the durations of 63.87ms for singleton The shortest duration were measured for the lateral singletons from geminates in Persian. measured for singleton and geminate respectively. durations of 149.143 ms and 246.351 ms were
Figure 2: Effect of gemination on the temporal parameters
Figure 2: Effect of gemination on the temporal parameters
Table 8: Vowels preceding/C onsonant Duration Ratios as a function of singleton/lexical geminate consonants (N=160)
Table 8: Vowels preceding/C onsonant Duration Ratios as a function of singleton/lexical geminate consonants (N=160)
Figure 2: Mean Duration (ms) of the vowels preceding the target consonants
Figure 2: Mean Duration (ms) of the vowels preceding the target consonants
Figure 3: Vowels preceding/C onsonant Duration Ratios as a function of singleton/lexical geminate consonants
Figure 3: Vowels preceding/C onsonant Duration Ratios as a function of singleton/lexical geminate consonants
Figure 4: Scatter plot of consonant duration (ms) vs. preceding vowel duration (ms). The circles are singletons and the triangles are geminates, colored in case of different consonant types (N=160).
Figure 4: Scatter plot of consonant duration (ms) vs. preceding vowel duration (ms). The circles are singletons and the triangles are geminates, colored in case of different consonant types (N=160).
Figure 5: Duration (ms) of the target consonants in the function of word-boundary and lexical geminates
Figure 5: Duration (ms) of the target consonants in the function of word-boundary and lexical geminates
Table 10: Duration (ms) and Standard Deviation of the vowel preceding the target consonants in the function
Table 10: Duration (ms) and Standard Deviation of the vowel preceding the target consonants in the function
Table 11: Mean duration (ms) and Standard Deviation of 4 stop consonants in the context of two different vowel types (Cld =Closure duration, Rld = Release duration of voiced stops, VOT = VOT of voiceless stops) (N=192) Figure 7: Duration (ms) of the word-boundary concatenated geminates following the qualitatively short and long vowels
Table 11: Mean duration (ms) and Standard Deviation of 4 stop consonants in the context of two different vowel types (Cld =Closure duration, Rld = Release duration of voiced stops, VOT = VOT of voiceless stops) (N=192) Figure 7: Duration (ms) of the word-boundary concatenated geminates following the qualitatively short and long vowels
‘igure 8: Duration (ms) of the qualitatively short and long vowels preceding the word-boundary geminate consonants and
‘igure 8: Duration (ms) of the qualitatively short and long vowels preceding the word-boundary geminate consonants and
Figure 9: Mean normalized RMS amplitude for voiced and voiceless stop consonants in lexical and word-boundary geminates (N=63) voiced stops didn’t show any significant differences
Figure 9: Mean normalized RMS amplitude for voiced and voiceless stop consonants in lexical and word-boundary geminates (N=63) voiced stops didn’t show any significant differences
Figure 11: F1-F2 plots of the short /ze/ and long /a/ vowels before singleton and word-boundary geminate stops (where C =/b, d, k, t/)
Figure 11: F1-F2 plots of the short /ze/ and long /a/ vowels before singleton and word-boundary geminate stops (where C =/b, d, k, t/)
Figure 12: F1-F2 plots of the C.C in word-boundary geminates following two vowel types, (where C.C =/b, d, k, t/)
Figure 12: F1-F2 plots of the C.C in word-boundary geminates following two vowel types, (where C.C =/b, d, k, t/)
Figure 14: F1-F2 plots of the CC in word-boundary and lexical geminates following /a/ (where CC =/b, d, k, t/) Figure 13: F1-F2 plots of the short vowel /ze/ preceding word-boundary and lexical geminates (where CC =/b, d, k, t/)
Figure 14: F1-F2 plots of the CC in word-boundary and lexical geminates following /a/ (where CC =/b, d, k, t/) Figure 13: F1-F2 plots of the short vowel /ze/ preceding word-boundary and lexical geminates (where CC =/b, d, k, t/)
than those preceding the word-boundary types; specifically here, the low front vowel /z/ in 2CC (lexical) was produced fronter than that in eC.C (word-boundary).
than those preceding the word-boundary types; specifically here, the low front vowel /z/ in 2CC (lexical) was produced fronter than that in eC.C (word-boundary).
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved