Familiar and Common Telugu Trisyllabic Words for Speech Perception Assessment: A Sociolinguistic Perspective
Telugu Trisyllabic Words
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v17i.9831Keywords:
Telugu , Speech Perception Assessment, Content Validity, Familiarity Assessment, Trisyllabic WordsAbstract
The present study aimed to develop a set of familiar, common Telugu trisyllabic words that are socioculturally acceptable and linguistically appropriate, and that also meet the stimulus characteristics regarding acoustic-phonetic parameters for use in speech-perception assessment. A pool consisting of 255 trisyllabic words was gathered from different sources. They were subjected to a familiarity assessment to ensure they are known to and commonly used by native speakers of Telugu. This yielded a total of 195 words, categorised into three groups: most familiar, quite familiar, and fairly familiar. Experts in the relevant fields vetted these words to validate their sociocultural acceptability and linguistic appropriateness. The words that accumulated after validation were categorised into three groups: most appropriate, quite appropriate, and fairly appropriate words. These words were organised in a descending hierarchy based on the familiarity level of each word and its corresponding appropriateness level. Finally, these words were audio-recorded and perceptually evaluated by three experts to identify those that fulfilled the stimulus criteria needed for the intended speech perception measure. As a result, 104 words were identified that fulfilled the stimulus criteria and ultimately served as the foundation for developing speech stimuli for the intended speech perception measure.
Downloads
References
Albin, D. D., & Echols, C. H. (1996). Stressed and word-final syllables in infant-directed speech. Infant Behav and Dev, 19: 401–418. doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90002-8.
ASHA. (1988). Determining threshold level for speech [guidelines]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.
Census. (2011). Abstract of language strength in India: 2011 census. Retrieved from censusindia.gov.in.
Chermak, G. D., Wagner, D. P., & Bende, R. B. (1988). Interlist equivalence of the word intelligibility by the picture identification test administered in broadband noise. Audiology. 1988; 27(6): 324-33. doi: 10.3109/00206098809081603.
Cutler, A., & Foss, D. J, (1977). On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Lang Speech, 20: 1–10. doi.org/10.1177/002383097702000101
Gelfand, S. A. (2016). Essentials of Audiology. 4th ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers.
Gengel, R. W., Miller, L., & Rosenthal, E. (1981). Between and within listener variability in response to CID W-22 presented in noise. Ear Hear. 2(2):78–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.05.015.
Kramer, S. J., & Brown, D. K. (2019). Audiology: Science to Practice. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural Publication.
Krishnamurty, B. (2003). Dravidian Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, S. B. R., & Mohanty, P. (2012). Speech recognition performance by adults: a proposal for a battery for Telugu. Theory Pract Lang Stud. 2(2):193–204. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.2.193-204.
Kumar, S. B. R., Mohanty, P., Ujwane, P. A., & Huzurbazar, Y. R. (2016). Conventional speech identification test in Marathi for adults. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2:205-215. doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20163467.
Kumar, S. B. R., Reddy, M. B., & Kranthi, S. (2016). Development of word lists in Telugu for assessing speech recognition threshold: alternative forms to existing word lists. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2:147-56. doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20162181.
Kumar, S. B. R., Varudhani, S. K., & Ravichandran, A. (2016). Speech Identification Test in Telugu: Considerations for Sloping High-Frequency Hearing Loss. International Journal of Speech & Language Pathology and Audiology. 4:63-73.
Loven, E. C., & Hawkins, D. B. (1983). Interlist equivalency of the CID W-22-word lists presented in quiet and in noise. Ear Hear. 4: 91–7. doi: 10.1097/00003446-198303000-00005.
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognising Spoken Words: The neighbourhood activation model. Ear Hear. 19(1):1–36. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001.
Martin, F., & Clark, J. G. (2019). Introduction to Audiology. 13th ed. Texas: Pearson Publication.
Pandey, P. (2014). Sounds and Their Patterns in Indic Languages (Volume 1). Chennai: Cambridge University Press India Private Limited.
Schiavetti, N., & Metz, D. E. (2002). Evaluating research in communicative disorders. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sreedhar, J. S., Venkatesh, L., Nagaraja, M. N., & Srinivasan, P. (2011). Development and evaluation of paired words for testing of speech recognition threshold in Telugu: a preliminary report. J Ind Speech Hear Assoc. 25(2):128–36.
Ying, G. S., Jamieson, L. H., Chen, R., & Michell, C. D. (1996). Lexical stress detection on stress-minimal word pairs. Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Philadelphia. ISCA Archive http://www.isca-speech.org/archive.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 S. B. Rathna Kumar , Swardi Debendra, N Ramesh, Mendem Bapuji
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in Journal of Advances in Linguistics are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
