pattern of pronunciation and writing in developing somali braille

Transcription

PATTERN OF PRONUNCIATION AND WRITING IN
DEVELOPING SOMALI BRAILLE, THIKA, KENYA.
BY
HAJIR A. A. SHERIF
E55/7200/2002
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF EDUCATION (SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION)
IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF KENYATTA
UNIVERSITY
NOVEMBER 2013
i
DECLARATION
Student: This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for the award of a degree in
any other university.
………………….
Hajir A. A. Sherif
Date…………………………………………..
E55/7200/2002
Supervisors: This thesis has been submitted for review with our approval as University
supervisors.
…………………..
Dr . Chomba Wamunyi
Date…………………………..
Special Needs Education Department
…………………….
Dr. Ruth W. Ndung’u
Department of English and Linguistics
Date………………………….
ii
DEDICATION
To my family, visually impaired Somali persons and Braille readers, who are interested in Somali
Braille code.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Acknowledgement is made to the following people without whom this study would not have
assumed its present scope and shape.
First and foremost, I must express my gratitude to my two supervisors, Dr. Chomba Wamunyi and
Dr. Ruth Ndung’u, for their personal interest in my work. From the proposal level to the end, they
were critical and thorough. Their readiness and willingness to be consulted at all times, their prompt
reading of my drafts, their criticisms and encouragements not only became a source of inspiration,
but all along helped in maintaining a steady pace of work and improved the quality of the study.
I am also very grateful to the staff of Special Needs Education Department, Kenyatta University,
especially Professor Karugu, Dr. Runo, Dr. Njoroge, Dr. Wamocho and Dr. Bunyasi for their wise
advice and encouragement. I also owe my deepest gratitude to my retired lecturer Dr. Latimoure
Mwangi for her encouragement and moral support.
Finally, I wish to thank all others who contributed directly or indirectly towards this research work.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION …………………………....……………………………………..……………...i
DEDICATION
…………………………………….………………………………..……………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
…………………………………………….…...…………………..iii
………………………………………………………………...……..iv
…………………………………………………………...………….………v
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS
ABSTRACT
…………………………...………................................v
………………………………………….…………………………..………….iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
Background to the Study …………………...……………………………………...……..1
Statement of the Problem ……………………...……………….…………………..….....5
Purpose and Objectives of the Study ……………………………...………..……………..6
Hypothesis ……………………………………….…….………………….......…………..6
Significance of the Study ………………………………..…………………………..…...7
Limitation and Delimitation of the Study ………………….…………………………......7
Assumptions ………………………………………….…….…....…....………...……......8
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ………….…………….……………..…………9
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………..……………………..10
Summary …..………………………………………………………..……………………..11
CHAPTER 11: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
Introduction ………………………………………………………..……........................12
2.1
Early Scripts for Teaching the Blind ……………………………………………..…......12
2.2
History of Braille Script …………………….…………………………..………………14
2.3
Phonetic Structure of Standard English Braille …………………….………..……….....15
2.4
Phonetic Structure of Standard Kiswahili Braille ………………………...…….………21
2.5
Phonetic Structure of Standard Arabic Braille ………………………….…………..…..24
2.6
Phonetic Structure of Standard Somali Print Script …………………………….............27
2.7
Summary ……..……………………………….…………………...……………...…......29
CHAPTER 111: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0
Introduction ……………………………………………………......................................30
3.1
Research Design ………………………………………..............……………..…….…...30
3.1.1 Variables …………………………………………………………...…………..….…….31
3.2
Location of the Study ………………………………..………………………….………32
v
3.3
Target Population
……………………………………..……….…………………….....32
3.4
Sampling Techniques and Sampe Size ……………..……....………………………………33
3.4.1 Sampling Techniques ……………………………….………………..………….……...33
3.4.2 Sample Size …………………………………………………….…………………….....34
3.5
Consruction of Research Instruments ………………….……..……...…………….……34
3.5.1 Structured Questionnaire …………..……………………………….……………….….....35
3.5.2 Data Collection Procedure …………….. ……………………...………………………..36
3.6
Pilot study ……………………………………...……………………..…...……….……38
3.6.1 Validity ……………………………………………………………….…………………41
3.6.2 Reliability …………………………………………………………….…………………41
3.7
Data Analysis
.……………………………………………………….…………………42
3.7.1 Questionnaires Errors and Omissions
…………………………………….…...…………42
3.7.2 Coding Data ……………………………………………………………..………………42
3.7.3 Classification of Data ……………………………………….……………..……………43
3.7.4 Tabulation of Data
………………………………………………………...…………...43
3.7.5 Statistical Tests ………………………………………………………..………..……….....44
3.8
Logistic and Ethical Considerations …………………………………………….………45
3.8.1 Logistic Issues ……………………………………………………….………….………45
3.8.2 Ethical Consideration and Human Relations ………………………………………..……45
3.8.3 Legal Issues …………………………………………………………………….….……46
3.8.4 Summary ………………………………………………………………………….……46
CHAPTER 1V: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………….…………………..…...47
4.1 Similarities and differences between four languages ……………………...........................47
4.1.1 Similarities and Differences of Speech Sound of English/Somali ...……………..……...48
4.1.2 Similarities and Differences of Speech Sound of Kiswahili/Somali ...……...………..52
4.1.3 Similarities and Differences of Speech Sound of Arabic/Somali
…………...………….56
4.2 Speech sounds, graphic symbols and Braille letters ………………………………............60
4.2.1 Similarities among the speech sounds of Eng, Kis, Arab & Som ………..…….….............61
4.2.2 Similarities among the Grapheme symbols of Eng, Kis, Arab & Som ………..…..............63
4.2.3 Similarities among the Braille letters of English, Kiswahili, Arabic & Somali …… ………65
4.2.4 Relationship between Braille code and Somali print …………..………….……….……….68
4.3 Implication of Findings ………………………...….…………………………….……….....69
4.4 Summary
………………………………….…………………………………………......79
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0
Introduction …………………………………………..….…………….………….….......80
5.1
Summary ………………………………………………..……………………………......80
5.2
Conclusions ………………………………….......…………………………….…………82
5.3
Recommendations ……………………..…...……………………………….....…………82
vi
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………...………….…..……..……………..……….85
APPENDICES
………………………………....…………………….…………………..…….87
Letters of Alphabet ………………………………………………...….………………....……....87
Phonetics Chart …………………………………………………………………………….….....90
Questionnaire …………….…………………………………………….……………...…....……95
Analysis Chart …………………………………………………………..………………….....…98
Population Chart ……………………………………………………...…......................................99
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
A 3x2 Factorial Design
…………………………………………………………….30
Table 3.2
Variables by Category
……………………………………………………………..31
Table 3.3
Target Population Used in Experiment by Category
Table 3.4
Sample Size Used in Experiment by Category
Table 3.5
Speech Sound Used in Questionnaire by Language
Table 3.6
Experiment/Control Groups by Members
Table 3.7
Target Population Used in Pilot Study
Table 3.8
Sample Size Used in Pilot Study
Table 3.9
Contingency Table by Braille Code and Somali Print
Table 4.1
Distribution of Consonants Speech Sounds of English and Somali ………….……..50
Table 4.2
Distribution of Vowel Speech Sounds of English and Somali ………........…..……..51
Table 4.3
Distribution of Consonant Speech Sounds of Kiswahili and Somali
Table 4.4
Distribution of Vowel Speech Sounds of Kiswahili and Somali ………………........55
Table 4.5
Distribution of Consonant Speech Sounds of Arabic and Somali
Table 4.6
Distribution of Vowel Speech Sounds of Arabic and Somali
Table 4.7
Distribution of Speech Sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali
Table 4.8
Distribution of Grapheme Symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali ….…64
Table 4.9
Distribution of Braille Letters and Somali Print
…………………...………….33
……………………………...…….34
…………………………...…..36
………………….………………. ..…..37
……………………………………………..39
…………………………........…………………...40
……………………………..44
…………..….54
……….………...58
……………...…….60
..…….….61
…………………………….….…66
Table 4.10 Distribution of Mean Score of Braille Code and Somali Print
………..………...…68
Table 4.11 Distribution of Consonant of Braille Code and Somali print ………………………...75
Table 4.12 Distribution of Vowel of Braille Code and Somali Print …………………..………..78
viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
DHF:
Doses of Hope Foundation
IPASC:
International Phonetic Alphabet Braille Code
IPA:
International Phonetic Alphabets
KIE:
Kenya Institute of Education
RNIB:
Royal National Institute for the Blind
ix
ABSTRACT
This study was intended to establish the patterns of pronunciation and writing for Somali Braille
because a Standard Somali Braille does not exist. It examined, identified and hypothesized the
similarity of speech sounds, grapheme symbols and Braille codes, based on experiment and a 3x2
factorial design. The independent variables were Braille codes and Somali print, while the
dependent variable was Somali Braille. The population were students, who were blind (112) and
low vision (147), totalling to 259 and a sample size of 90 participants was used. The instrument was
a questionnaire with questions consisting of the following speech sounds- English 26, Kiswahili 35,
Arabic 30 and Somali 31. Somali sounds were produced by the instructor during the experiment.
Each question had two options: A) Pronounced and written same way and B) Pronounced and
written differently. For primary analysis, Yule’s correlation coefficient was used to interpret data
involving HO1, HO2 and HO3 about the significant relationship of the speech sounds, grapheme
symbols and Braille codes in English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali print. HO4 was tested using
the chi-square test. Validity was tested by chi-square and reliability was tested by instruments used
to measure the consistency of results. The result obtained was a total score of 1815 (63%) for
similarity and 1065 (37%) for difference against a total score of 2880 (100%). That means 58
(64.4%) and 32 (35.6%) of participants agreed and disagreed respectively. Using Yule’s coefficient
of association value between Braille codes and Somali print was found to be +1. That means the
class frequency of Braille code and Somali print was greater than the expectation of Somali Braille.
In testing the null hypothesis, the table value of χ² was 5.991 and calculated value of χ² was 1.777
for 2 degrees of freedom at 5 per cent level of significance. That means the calculated table is much
lower than this table value and hence the result of the experiment supports the null hypothesis and
proves that the Braille code and Somali print are independent variables. The research findings
indicate there is a positive and significant similarity among the speech sounds of English,
Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages. This implies that the existing Braille codes for English,
Kiswahili and Arabic can be used to develop Somali Braille. The recommendations include the
development of Somali Braille contractions; establishment of Somali Braille centres; the
governments, international community and well wishers to make efforts to come up with a strategy
of developing Somali Braille letters and modifying the existing Braille code that is acceptable to
Braille users.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background to the Study
In the philosophy of language, a natural language is any language which arises as a result of human intellect
and is used for communication in spoken, signed or written form. Lang (2008), states that in understanding a
natural language one needs to know how language works in terms of physical production, acoustic
transmission, perception of the sounds of speech and the way sounds function within a given language or
across languages to encode meaning in a speech community
Usually sounds are represented by an alphabet which is a small set of symbols, each of which represents a
phoneme of the language. The researcher noted that as languages evolve, their writing systems have been
borrowed from other languages. Duan and Cruz (2011), state that the degree to which letters of alphabet
correspond to phonemes of a language varies greatly from one language to another and even within a single
language. For example, in most of the writing systems of the Middle East, it is usually only the consonants of
a word that are written, although vowels may be indicated by the addition of various diacritical marks. Such
systems are called abjad's, derived from the Arabic word for "alphabet". In most of the alphabets of India and
Southeast Asia, vowels are indicated through diacritics or modification of the shape of the consonant. These
are called abugidas or "syllabics". Although the phoneticians accept abugidas and abjads as alphabets, Greek
is considered to be the first alphabet because the system separates letters for consonant and vowels.
Today, various languages differ in pronunciation and the meaning of words given to the pronunciation of
sounds. In print scripts, some letters are written and pronounced in the same way and others are written and
pronounced differently. For example, in languages like English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali, the grapheme
 is written alike and pronounced in the same way. In Kiswahili and Arabic, the grapheme <x> does not
2
exist but in Somali print script it does and it is pronounced as /ħ/. In English the grapheme <x> is pronounced
as /eks/. That means the grapheme <x> is pronounced differently but written in the same way in both English
and Somali. The difference in pronunciation of the grapheme <x> may confuse the Somali person with
blindness who has acquired the English pronunciation of this grapheme. He/she may find it difficult to
pronounce the letter when reading and writing in Somali.
According to Doses of Hope (2010), it has been established, through empirical studies that currently, there is
no Standard Somali Braille. Yet, it is believed that the existing Somali print scripts read by Somali people,
can be used to develop a Somali Braille. That means the existing Somali print script can be used to develop
Somali Braille. In support of developing Braille letters from print scripts, Sullivan (2008), argues that all
letters, digits and symbols of the print must be portrayed in Braille using only the 63 possible configurations
of dots. These configurations may be the combination of two or more cells to function as a single unit,
multiple uses of a cell and special composition signs. For example, the word „father‟ is formed by two Braille
cells, dots 5 as one Braille cell and dots 1 2 4 as another Braille cell. As for multiple uses of a cell, the Braille
lower sign dots 2 3, can be used for the punctuation mark; (semicolon), group sign for <BB> and word
sign for <BE>. As for special composition signs the Braille Latin capital sign for letter <A> is dot 6 and dot 1.
That means a combination of Braille cells.
The Standard Braille are adapted in various foreign languages, such as English, Kiswahili and Arabic. That
means the existing Braille codes for other languages can be used to enhance the development of a Somali
Braille. In support of this argument Mellor (2006), confirms that UNESCO adapted the Braille system for all
languages in 1950. Mellor explains how Braille can be coded into foreign languages. For instance, in the
German word Jahr (year), only the letters of the alphabet are shown but the word Jäger (hunter), the umlaut
<ä> is shown by a special sign, occupying only one cell. In addition Pierce (2006), emphasizes that the basic
alphabetical characteristic of a language depends on how one can read or write a foreign language. For
3
example, some languages such as Swedish, have alphabets with more than 26 letters. In coding Braille one
needs to introduce the alphabet, accent marks and related symbols. The coding of Braille into foreign
languages depends on pronunciation and sound coding of the letters. For example, in English Braille, the
grapheme <x> is written as dots 1 3 4 6 but the same dots in Kiswahili Braille stand for the sound /mb/ and in
Arabic Braille for the sound /kh/. The acquisition of different pronunciations of grapheme <x> in different
languages may confuse the Somali person who is blind and that may lead to pronouncing and writing wrongly
in Somali.
To date, the visually impaired persons use Braille dots in their system of reading and writing. In highlighting
the current method of reading style of the person who is blind, Pierce (2006), describes how a person with
visually impairment reads. The instructor says that the Braille code consists of shapes made of combination of
six dots. The shapes formed by these combinations represent each, a letter of alphabet. Each letter is large
enough to be clearly felt by the Braille reader. The reader uses the touch system in reading using the index
and middle fingers of both hands. The reading finger feels only one shape or letter at a time. The finger is
pressed lightly and moved smoothly over the Braille dots from left to right with the help of the second finger
at the edge to keep the reading finger on the line. The reading finger feels the bumps clearly so that the nerves
in the finger tips can pick up the dots from the friction between the skin and the surface of the paper. As the
finger moves across the bump, two forces act on it. One sheer force acts parallel to the surface of the paper
and drags the finger across the surface. The second normal force acts at a right angle to the paper‟s surface as
the finger presses down on it. It is this second force which is used to detect the Braille dots. With a sheer force
reduced through a light touch, the brain receives undistorted information about the dots, their relative
positions and so is able to gain the clearest image of the cell. That means the reader scans along the word with
one finger. To enable the Braille reader to scan effectively, the reader should acquire all the skills of reading,
blending, memorizing, using syntax, sequencing of letters and attaching meaning to the symbols.
4
To enable the person with visually impairment to read and write Braille, one has to acquire skills and
knowledge in Braille. In view of this point Mellor (2006) states that the proficient Braille reader of English
must be familiar with the 26 letters of the alphabets, 189 contractions and short form words and 31
punctuation marks for a total of 246 basic elements. In the same way, the Somali person with visual
impairment needs to be familiar with pronunciation and writing of the Somali Braille alphabet, which consist
of 21 consonants, 5 short vowels and 5 long vowels. This special skill of reading and writing in Somali Braille
will enable the Somalis who are visually impaired to get knowledge of the realities around them, confidence
to cope with these realities and the feeling that they are recognised and accepted as individuals in their own
right.
In addition, we note that the task of developing a language depends on the culture of the people and their
environment. For example, the current educated Somali youth in Kenya are developing „sheng‟ language, a
mixture of Somali, Kiswahili, Arabic and English language due to the influence of secular and koranic
schools. The traditions and culture of the non-Somali society who live with the Somali community have a
major influence or role to play in developing Somali, especially in music and borrowing terms applied in daily
business transactions.
In light of the above, this study undertook to address the lack of Somali Braille as one of the key factors
contributing to the illiteracy of the Somalis who are visually impaired. Therefore, this research intended to
establish the patterns of pronunciation and writing for Somali Braille. A Braille that could take into account
the Somali sounds to be used in developmental, social and cultural literacy in communicating meaning
through written Somali.
5
1.2
Statement of the Problem
The Somali language is considered language of communication between the Somali people. There is a
population of between 10 to 16 million Somalis in the world. The major challenges facing Somalis are the
education for the persons with visual impairment when the medium of instruction is Somali. There are no
schools and rehabilitation centres for the persons with visual impairment using Somali as a medium of
instruction. In revealing the unfortunate situation of the Somali persons with visual impairment, Doses of
Hope Foundation, observed that the Somali persons who are blind were left out from schools because they
cannot read and write Somali print. It has been established through empirical studies that currently, a Standard
Somali Braille does not exist. In confirming the reality on ground the DHF (2010), revealed and documented
that lack of a Standard Somali Braille has led to lack of Somali Braille products in schools and rehabilitation
centres in Somaliland.
According to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2009), the population of the Kenyan Somalis is
2,385,572. Among them 14,304 are visually impaired and 2498 benefited from the current 8-4-4 educational
system but these lucky Somalis find difficult in reading and writing Somali because they learnt Braille in
foreign languages, like English and Kiswahili. The absence of this Braille code with accompanying skills
have made Somali people who are blind to remain illiterate since they cannot read and write their own
language, when Somali language is used as the medium of instruction. Yet, we believe that the existing
Somali print scripts read by Somali people, can be used to develop a Somali Braille.
In accessibility to Braille, DHF (2010), suggests that there is need for the development of a training manual
for the visually impaired on the Somali Braille Alphabet. Since a Standard Somali Braille is an area of
concern for the Somali persons who are blind, this study seeks to address it. This research intends to
determine the crucial factors for developing a Braille code for the Somali language on the basis of the three
existing Braille codes. Especially, it intends to establish pattern formation of letters and their pronunciation by
6
analysing the phonetic structure of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali in developing the Somali Braille
code.
1.3
Purpose and Objectives of the Study
1.3.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the Braille letters used in English, Kiswahili and Arabic and the
phonological structures of the existing English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali print scripts to determine a
Braille code.
1.3.2 Objectives
The study objectives are:
1. To identify the similarities of speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages.
2. To identify the similarities of grapheme symbols used in English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali
languages.
3. To identify the similarities of the Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic.
4. To determine crucial factors for developing a Braille code for Somali language on the basis of the
three existing Braille codes.
1.4 Hypothesis
The following hypothesis would be addressed in the study:
HO1
There are significant similarities among the speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali
languages.
HO2
There are significant similarities among the grapheme symbols used in English, Kiswahili, Arabic and
Somali languages.
HO3
There are significant similarities among the Braille codes of English, Kiswahili and Arabic.
7
HO4
The three existing Braille codes of English, Kiswahili and Arabic can be used to determine the
development of a Somali Braille code.
1.5
Significance of the Study
According to DHF (2010), the population of the persons with visual impairment increases and the majority of
them remain illiterate due to lack of a Somali Braille. If there is a Somali Braille as the medium of instruction;
individuals with blindness would be literate in reading and writing. They would read the Holy Koran when
translated into Somali Braille. Children would read and write their lessons in schools, alongside their sighted
peers. Given the Somali Braille, the Somalis who are blind would access the information they need in order to
adjust to their educational and social problems. Furthermore, the established schools and rehabilitation centres
can cater for the education and training programmes for the persons with visual impairment with the provision
of a Somali Braille. Also, the support or welfare system can be established to cater for the interest of the
persons with visual impairment. Education of children with visual impairment, using the Somali Braille can
also change the negative attitude of the sighted towards blindness and help the persons who are blind to
overcome social barriers that prevent the access to the various systems that are available to others. Thus,
Somali Braille can elevate the persons with visual impairment from isolation, poverty and unemployment
because they would be able to compete in the competitive job market.
1.6
Limitation and Delimitation of the Study
1.6.1 Limitation of the Study
The study was confined to English, Kiswahili and Arabic. This is because the researcher has the knowledge of
these three languages and the languages are spoken by a large segment of the world population, including
Kenyans. Arabic shares 80% of speech sounds with the Somali language. That means, there are some specific
sounds that exist in Arabic and Somali that do not exist in English and Kiswahili. For example, the speech
sound for grapheme <‫ >ع‬in Arabic is pronounced as /ain/ in both Arabic and Somali. Kiswahili is the second
8
language of the researcher; hence both languages share speech sounds that the researcher has mastery of.
Since the major part of the research would be based on experiment, the researcher preferred Kenya because
there are more than 14,000 Somali visually impaired persons living in Kenya who require Somali Braille to
enable them read and write Somali. Kenya has established institutions of visually impaired with enough
facilities and students to carry out the research on. Other countries like Somalia might fail to provide the
necessary facilities due to lack of institutions that provide special education programs for the visually
impaired. According to educational statistic, currently, there are nine schools for the visually impaired in
Kenya but none in North Eastern Kenya. However, the researcher considered two schools only, namely Thika
High School for the Blind and Thika Primary School for the blind because of their accessibility and proximity
to the researcher. Also these schools are national schools and accommodate Somali students.
1.6.2
Delimitation of the Study
Orodho (2005), defines delimitation as the boundary limitation. In this research, the study was confined to
visually impaired persons in Thika High School for the Blind and Thika Primary School for the Visually
Impaired. The participants were categorised into blind and low vision students who are conversant with
Braille script and speech sounds of various languages. Sighted students and teachers were not included in the
study to avoid error factors. The study focused on Braille dots and speech sound factors only.
1.7
Assumptions of the study
This research was taken on the following assumptions:
1. That the illiteracy rate of persons with blindness in the Somali Community will continue to increase so
long as a Standard Somali Braille code does not exist.
2. That the number of people who are visually impaired would continue rising in the Somali community
and that the learning resources to educate them will not be available.
9
3. That the findings of the study would be acceptable to the Somali community and educators.
1.8
1.8.1
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Framework
Using the theory of linguistic analysis written by Blevin (2006), the researcher develops a conceptual frame
work for Somali Braille. This theory illustrates the analysis and recording of speech sounds. According to the
theory, the speech sounds are divided into sections and each section is subdivided into groups of sounds. The
main speech sounds are plosive or stops, fricatives, resonants, flaps and trills. The plosives consist of simple
plosives, aspirated, glottalized, affricated, laterally affricated, prenasalized plosives and implosive. The
fricative contains slit, groove and lateral. The resonants consist of lateral, nasal and median. The flaps and
trills are not subdivided into subclasses by the phoneticians, hence they remain on their own. In analysing
each speech sound, the phonetician describes the speech organs used in the articulation of each speech sound,
namely labial (lips), labio-dental (lips and teeth), pre-dental (teeth), post-dental (alveolar), palato-alveolar
(palate and alveolar), palatal (palate), velar (velum) and glottal. The vowels are classified into pure vowels,
diphthongs, triphthongs and nasal vowels.
Having in mind the theory of linguistic analysis, the researcher examines the speech sounds of Braille
notation for each language- English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relation to Somali print symbols. In analysing
the Braille notations of English, Kiswahili and Arabic, the researcher finds
the phonetic alphabet used to
write down the pronunciation of individual words based on a “one letter per phoneme” principle. Each
phoneme has a symbol which represents a sound. Then the sounds were coded into Standard Somali Braille.
The Standard Somali Braille code can be used as a means and ready way of writing and communicating
meaning through written Standard Somali. It can be applied in developmental literacy in all stages in the
continuum of development. The need to communicate meaningful and knowledge based information for
10
everyone, shows how important it is for the individuals with blindness to be able to read and write using a
Standard Somali Braille.
1.8.2
Conceptual Framework of Somali Braille
English Braille: Speech soundsconsonants and vowels.
Kiswahili Braille: Speech soundsconsonants and vowels.
Somali Braille: Speech soundconsonants and vowels.
Arabic Braille: Speech soundsconsonants and vowels.
Somali print symbols: Speech
soundsconsonants and vowels.
This conceptual framework shows how Somali Braille could be developed from the existing Braille codes of
English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali print symbols. It is the researcher‟s own adaptation design.
1.9
Operational Definition of Terms
Blind: A person whose visual acuity is 20/200 or less in the better eye with proper correction (Elaine, 2007).
Braille: A code of raised dots that can be touched and used in reading and writing (Pierce, 2006).
Grapheme: The symbol used in writing, e.g. <s> is a grapheme in „sure‟ (Mitani et al, 2006)
Low Vision Learner: A learner whose visual acuity is between 20/70 and 20/200 in the better eye after
maximum correction (Renolds and Elaine, 2007).
Phoneme: The speech sound e.g /ʃ/ as in Sure (Mitani et al, 2006).
Script: A type of symbol used in communication in print (Duan and Cruz, 2011).
Somali: A member of one of the Hemitic tribes in the Horn of Africa. It also refers to the language used by
Somali people (Orwin, 2006)
11
1.10
Summary
This chapter presents the background to the study which explains the reasons as to why the researcher
undertook this research work. That Standard Somali Braille does not exist and yet, a Somali Braille can be
developed from the existing Braille codes and Somali print script. That there are no schools and rehabilitation
centres for the visually impaired using Somali Braille as a medium of instruction. This is followed by the
statement of the problem showing the major challenges faced by Somalis who are blind. The lack of a
Standard Somali Braille with accompanying skills have made Somalis who are visually impaired remain
illiterate because they cannot read and write in their own language. The chapter then proceeds to look at the
purpose, objectives and the hypothesis of the study to determine the crucial factors for developing a Braille
code for the Somali language on the basis of the three existing Braille codes. Then significance, limitations,
assumption and theoretical framework of the study are discussed.
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0
Introduction
This section presents the literature review used in this research study. It includes the early scripts for teaching
the Blind, including block letters, cut out letters, embossed letters and Roman letters; the history of Braille
scripts and its development by Louis Braille; and the phonetic structure of Braille letters of Standard English,
Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali print.
2.1
Early Scripts for Teaching the Blind
The foundation of script literacy for the blind in the early civilization started during the Roman Empire. Block
letters were introduced to teach the visually impaired person to read and write. To confirm this early script,
Reynolds and Elaine (2007), state that Didymus, Professor of Philosophy and theology at the University of
Alexandria, used block letters to teach his blind students by touch. During the Eighteenth Century, cut out
letters were introduced as the literacy medium for teaching persons who were visually impaired in France.
The writer describes how these letters were used by Diderot, a philosopher and editor of the Monumental
L‟Encyclopedie in 1760. He used cut out letters for teaching reading and for writing, by pricking letters onto a
piece of paper held in place on a frame. Diderot taught a visually impaired woman, Melane de Salignac to
read and write using this method and later wrote a letter describing the accomplishments of his student. This
document highlighted the idea that people who were blind were capable of being educated despite their loss or
lack of vision.
The discovery of embossed letters improved the pattern of pronouncing and writing for the blind. The early
historian of braille translators and embossers, Sullivan (2008), explains that Italic forms of the Roman letters,
were invented by Valentine Hauy in 1784. The script was composed of raised letters, which were read by
13
touch. It was written backward with a steel pen on thick paper, so as to emboss it on the reverse side. The type
was legible to both eyes and fingers. Hauy tutored his first pupil, Francois Lesueur and that led to the
establishment of the first school for the visually impaired in 1784, with 14 pupils, L‟Institute Nationale des
Jeunes Avengles in Paris. Some embossed letters were modified to suit foreign languages especially English.
For example, Mellor (2006) explains that certain letters of the alphabet were modified by Hauy, by putting
either a line above the letter or a dot below it. Using this type, Rev. William taught Charles Lowther to read
the reversed embossed letter type. In 1823, Lowther wrote parts of the bible with his own hand using the
reversed embossed letters. Some educators for the blind modified Hauy‟s type to simplify the script. In view
of this, Sullivan (2008) highlights how Hauy‟s type was modified into an alphabet of Roman capitals by Dr.
Fry of London in 1832. Many did not approve Fry‟s type because the Roman characters were not sufficiently
distinct to touch. Fry‟s type was modified by James Gall in 1833 as he introduced a new character, founded
upon ordinary Roman capitals with angles instead of curves. He failed to get support for his type because
many of his letters were divorced from the original Roman script. In addition, Mellor (2006) describes an
embossed letter type, the Boston Line Type, which is an angular modification of Roman letters, produced by
Samuel Gridley Howe in 1853. Books in this type were printed at Perkins and remained dominant in the
United States until 1900.
When symbols were introduced, the period of arbitrary systems began in Britain. To confirm the period of
arbitrary systems, Sullivan (2008), reveals that a shorthand system based on line, curve and dot was
developed by Thomas Locus in 1838. His work was propagated by the Society for Teaching Blind to Read in
London. It published books in this type and opened several schools. Another inventor, William Moon
developed a script composed of Roman letters in their original form with slight modification in 1847. He
published many books and this script still exists.
14
2.2
History of Braille Script
Louis Braille a Frenchman developed the embossed dots as a literacy medium for the visually impaired in
1829. In their encyclopedia of Special Education, Reynold and Elaine (2007), explain that Louis Braille,
modified Charles Barbier‟s code based on a 12 dot cell (six vertical dots in two rows), into six. The six dots
are arranged in a cell, two dots wide and three dots high. The dots are numbered 1 2 3 down on the left and 4
5 6 down on the right. The letters of the alphabet, punctuation marks and contractions were represented by the
omission of one or more dots from the basic form. For example, for the first ten letters of the alphabets the
two lower dots were omitted altogether, and the letters were formed by the two upper parts or by some further
omission from these.
Louis Braille arranged his original dots into 63 configurations plus one space. Mellor explains that Louis
Braille arranged his original dots into 25 letters of alphabets, 15 accent marks, 19 punctuation marks, 10
mathematical signs, 2 special signs (composition) and one additional letter sign <w>. The letter <w> does not
exist in French language. He also developed musical notation by 1834. It became officially accepted at the
French school in 1854, two years after Braille‟s death.
In most cases, some institutions adapted and modified the Braille code. For example, New York Institute for
the Blind developed the New York Point in 1869. In his book, how braille began, Kimbrough (2005),
explains that the New York Point used vertical dots which extend horizontally to a maximum of four dots.
The letters symbols were assigned so that the more frequently occurring letters had the least number. The
American Braille kept the Braille cell but assigned its combinations of dots on the basis of the frequency of a
letter‟s occurrence. It provided for capitalization by an easily legible dot prefix.
During the 19th Century, the battle of the dots began when the Braille system was found not to have letter
frequency. The letter frequency existed in New York Point and American Braille. For further explanation,
15
Reynold and Elaine (2007), argued that the codes differed from one another with respect to the number of
dots per cell, the original orientation of the dots (horizontal versus vertical), and the meaning assigned to the
various cells. The British Braille kept the alphabet characters that Louis Braille had assigned, but developed
many short forms or abbreviation, that increased the speed with which Braille could be read. Modified
American Braille kept the six-dot (two wide and three high) and took into account the frequency of
occurrence of English letters, which are the mostly frequently used letters. New York Point used cells that
were two dots high but expandable horizontally to four dots wide. The capital signs were also developed.
When Standard English Braille was developed in Britain and America, the battle of contractions arose
because the Americans and the British had worked out different grades of Braille. Mellor (2006) states that
American Braille consisted of Grade 1 fully spelled out, Grade 1½ with a limited number of contractions,
Grade 2 moderately contracted, and Grade 3 highly contracted. British Braille consisted of Grade 1 fully
spelled out and Grade 2 contracted. Sullivan (2008), states that Grade 1½ was an American invention based
on the assumption that the more contracted Grade 2 was too difficult to learn and needed an intermediate
form. Finally, after a long struggle the British Braille Grade 2 (Standard English Braille) prevailed. The
current Braille system was adopted and coded, after the conflict was settled. One uniform type was adopted to
improve the literacy medium for the visually impaired. UNESCO (2009) clarifies that the Treaty of London
was signed in 1932 by representatives of the English-speaking countries, to make revised British Braille,
grade 2, the medium of reading and writing for the visually impaired. Since, then Standard English Braille,
grade 2 has become the standard literacy code for the English-speaking countries.
2.3
Phonetic Structure of Standard English Braille
The Royal National Institute for the Blind (2006) established the phonetic structure of Standard Braille, which
may be adopted by any foreign language as per the London treaty of 1932. The Braille institute adopted the
phonetic transcription analyzed as standard pronunciation by the English phoneticians. An English
16
phonetician, Ladefoged (2006) states that the analysis and recording of speech sounds is based on the alphabet
principle of „one letter per phoneme‟. Each phoneme has a symbol which represents a sound with a clear and
distinct speech sound. The phonetician explains that groups of speech sounds consist of consonants and
vowels with similarities and differences in the pronunciations. The researcher noted that the speech sounds are
produced by different speech organs, including vocal cords, soft palate, tongue, lips, teeth, teeth ridge, uvula,
nasal passage, pharynx, epiglottis, windpipe, gullet and larynx. The consonant sound was defined as a sound
accompanied or unaccompanied by voice, in which there is either a complete or partial obstruction which
prevents the air from flowing freely from the mouth. The consonant sounds are classified into various sounds.
Maddieson (2008) describes a plosive consonant sound as the sound made by the stoppage of the air passage
at one point. In Braille the plosive consonants are classified into the plosive bi-labial voiceless dots 1 2
3 4 and voiced dots 1 2; the plosive alveolar or postalveolar voiceless <t> dots 2 3 4 5 and voiced <d>
dots 1 4 5, plosive retroflex voiceless sound /ʈ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 2 3 4 5 and voiced /ɖ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 1 4 5;
plosive palatal voiceless /c/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 4 and voiced sound /ɟ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 2 4 5; plosive velar of
voiceless <k> dots 1 3 and voiced <g> dots 1 2 4 5; plosive uvular of voiceless <q> dots 1 2 3 4 5 and voiced
sound /G/ dots 3 5, dots 1 2 4 5; and plosive glottal /ʡ/ dots 2 3. The plosive aspirated consonants are sounds
formed by the release of stop. In Braille the plosive aspirated consonant is referred to as an ejective sound.
The ejective bilabial voiceless /p‟/ dots 1 2 3 4, dot 6 and dot 3; ejective alveolar or post alveolar voiceless /t‟/
dots 2 3 4 5, dot 6 and dot 3; and ejective velar voiceless /k‟/ dots 1 3, dot 6 and dot 3. The researcher noted
that plosives are oral stops with a pulmonic egresive airstream mechanism. The term is also used to describe
oral (non-nasal) stops.
The fricatives are consonants produced by forcing air through a narrow channel made by placing two
articulators close together. For instant the lower lip against the upper teeth and this turbulent airflow is
17
referred as frication. In defining the fricatives, Mitani et al (2006), describe the fricative consonants as sound
formed by narrowing the mouth passage at some points, so that the air forcing its way through makes rubbing
sounds. The fricative classified as slit consonants sound with Braille signs are fricative bilabial voiceless
sound /ɸ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 2 3 4 and voiced /ß/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 2; fricative labio-dental voiceless <f> dots 1
2 4 and voiced <v> dots 1 2 3 6; fricative inter-dental voiceless sound <th> or /θ/ dots 1 4 5 6 and voiced
<the> or /ð/ dots 1 2 4 5 6. The fricative classified as groove alveolar or post alveolar consist of voiceless <s>
dots 2 3 4 and voiced <z> 1 3 5 6; fricative retroflex voiceless sound /ʂ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 2 3 4 and voiced /ʐ/
dots 2 5 6, dots 1 3 5 6; fricative palatal alveolar voiceless <sh> or /ʃ/ dots 1 5 6 and voiced <sion> or /ʒ/
dots 2 3 4 6; fricative palatal voiceless /ç/ dots 1 4 and voiced <j> dots 2 4 5; fricative velar voiceless <x>
dots 1 3 4 6 and voiced <gh> or /ɣ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 2 4 5; fricative ovular voiceless <kh> or /ϰ/ dots 3 5,
dots 1 3 4 6 and voiced /ʁ/ dots 3 5, dots 3 4 5 6; fricative labial velar /ʍ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 2 4 5 6; fricative
pharyngeal voiceless /ħ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 2 5 and voiced <ʿ> or /ʕ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 2 3; and fricative glottal
voiceless <h> dots 1 2 5 and voiced /ɦ/ dots 2 3 6 and dots 1 2 5.
In defining resonants, the English phonetician Ladefoged (2006) explains that the resonant consonant sounds
are formed by the vibration of the air particles stopped in the centre in regular and repetitive patterns by the
tip of the tongue against the teeth ridge. In English Braille the resonant sound is referred to as a lateral
fricative. The lateral fricative sound with Braille signs are lateral alveolar or post alveolar as voiceless /ɬ/ dots
3 5, dots 1 2 3 and voiced /ɮ/ dots 2 3 6, dots 1 2 3. For lateral approximant alveolar or post alveolar <l> dots
4 5 6; lateral approximant retroflex /ɭ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 1 2 3; and lateral approximant palatal /ʎ/ dots 1 2 3 4 6.
The researcher noted that word resonant is sometimes used for non-turbulent sounds. Maddieson (2008)
18
describes the nasal as the sounds being formed by closing the mouth passage at some points and at the same
time lowering the velum (soft palate) for the air to escape through the nose. The nasal consonant sounds with
Braille sign consist of nasal bi-labial voiced <m> dots 1 3 4; nasal labio-dental voiced /ɱ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 3
4; nasal alveolar or post alveolar voiced <n> dots 1 3 4 5; nasal retroflex voiced /ɳ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 1 3 4 5;
nasal palatal voiced /ɲ/ dots 1 2 3 4 5 6; nasal velar voiced /ŋ/ or <ng> dots 1 2 4 6; and nasal uvular voiced
/N/ dots 3 5, dots 1 3 4 5. The researcher observed that nasal consonant is produced with a lowered velum in
the mouth, allowing air to escape freely through the nose. The oral cavity still acts as a resonance chamber for
the sound, but the air does not escape through the mouth as it is blocked by the lips or tongue.
Ladefoged (2006) states that the median are the sounds formed by the back of the tongue which is raised
towards the u position with round lips. In Braille median is referred to as the median approximants. According
to International Council on English Braille (2008), the median approximant with Braille signs are median
approximant labio-dental /ʋ/ dots 2 3 6, dots 1 2 3 6; median approximant alveolar or post alveolar /ɹ/ dots 3 4
5 6; median approximant palatal <j> dots 2 4 5; median approximant labial palatal /ɥ/dots 2 3 4 5 6; and
median approximant labial-velar <w> dots 2 4 5 6. The researcher identified that approximants are speech
sounds that fall between fricatives, which do produce a turbulent airstream, and vowels, which produce no
turbulence.
Maddieson (2008) describes the trill as a rapid alternation of two homorganic sounds, one being more open
than the other. In Braille the trill consonant sound consist of trill alveolar or post alveolar voiced <r> dots 1 2
3 5 and trill uvular voiced /R/ dots 3 5, dots 1 2 3 5. The phonetician explained that the tap or flap is produced
by a very rapid motion of the articulator. Often it is comparable to a single vibration of trill and described as
short stop. In Braille the flap consonant sound consist of flap alveolar or post alveolar voiced /ɾ/ dots 2 3 5,
dots 1 2 3 5, and flap retroflex voiced /ɽ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 1 2 3 5. The phonetician described that implosive
19
stops are made by drawing air into the pharynx by closing the cords and pulling the larynx downwards, thus
producing slight vacuum above it. When the stop is released there is a very slight movement of air inward.
The Braille implosive sounds include; implosive bilabial /б/ dots 2 3 6, dots 1 2; and implosive alveolar or
post alveolar /ɗ/ dots 2 3 6, dots 1 4 5. The researcher observed that the trill, flap and implosive sounds are
produced by the vibration of some flexible organ (lips, tongue, uvula), but the vibration is too slow to have an
identifiable pitch.
The vowel sound is a voiced sound in the pronunciation of which the air passes through the mouth in a
continuous stream, there being no obstruction and no narrowing such as would produce audible friction.
According to the International Council of English Braille (2008), the vowels are divided into rounded vowels
and unrounded vowels. In classifying vowels, the difference in quality between one vowel and another is
caused by the movement of the tongue and lips, which alter the shape of the resonance chamber of the mouth,
depending on the position of the tongue. The unrounded front vowel sound dots 2 4, is produced by the
front of tongue raised towards hard palate, tongue raised to half position and lips spread to neutral. The
organization explains unrounded front vowel sound /I/ dots 3 4, is produced by the front part of the tongue
raised toward hard palate and lips somewhat spread. Crystal (2005) explains that unrounded front sound <e>
dots 1 5, is made by the front of the tongue raised half open and lips spread. The phonetician explains that
unrounded front sound <E> or /ɛ/ dots 3 4 5, is produced by the front of the tongue raised to half open and
lips neutral to spread. The unrounded front sound <A> or /æ/ dots 1 4 6, is produced by the front part of the
tongue raised to half open and lips neutral to spread. The researcher agrees that the unrounded front sound
<a> dot 1, is made by the front of the tongue in low position, open vowel and lips are neutrally open.
According to Maddieson (2008) the unrounded central vowel sound or /ɨ/ dots 3 5 6, dots 2 4, is produced
by the central part of the tongue raised high and lips neutral. The phonetician observes that the unrounded
20
central vowel sound /ǝ/ dots 2 6, is produced by the central part of the tongue raised half open and lips
neutral. The unrounded central vowel sound <E> or /ɛ/ dots 2 3 5 6, dots 3 4 5 is produced by the central part
of the tongue lowered in the mouth and lips half open. The phonetician explains the unrounded central vowel
sound /ɐ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1, is produced by the central part of the tongue lowered in the mouth and lips open.
Crystal (2005), identifies that the unrounded back open vowels sound /ɑ/ dots 1 6 is produced by the back of
the tongue lowered in the mouth and lips neutrally opened. The phonetician explains that the unrounded back
half open vowel sound or /Λ/ dots 3 4 6, as produced by the back of the tongue slightly raised and lips
neutral. The unrounded back vowel sound <gh> or /ɣ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 3 5 is produced by the back of the
tongue raised in medium position and lips neutrally open. The writer observed that unrounded back vowel
sound /ɯ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 3 6, is produced by the back of the tongue raised to close position and lips close
rounded.
The International Council of English Braille (2008) adopts the rounded front vowel sound <y> dots 1 3 4 5 6,
produced by front of the tongue raised with round lips. The organization also adopted the rounded front vowel
sound /Y/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 3 4 5 6, produced by the front of the tongue with slightly closed round lips. The
organization also adopted the rounded front vowel sound /Ø/ dots 1 2 5 6, produced by the front of the tongue,
with the tongue raised at middle position and lips slightly rounded. The rounded front vowel sound /œ/ dots 2
4 6 are produced by the front of the tongue, half open and lips considerably round. According to Maddieson
(2008), the rounded central vowel sound /ʉ/ dots 3 5 6, dots 1 3 6 is produced by middle of the tongue raised
with round lips. The central rounded vowel sound /Ɵ/ dots 3 5 6, dots 1 3 5 was produced by middle of the
tongue with round lips.
21
Ladefoged (2006) describes the rounded back sound <o> or /ɒ/ dots 2 3 5, dots 1 6 as an open rounded back
vowel, produced by back of the tongue raised slightly with an open lips rounding. The phonetician explains
the rounded back sound /ɔ/ dots 1 2 6, is a half open rounded back vowel, produced by the back of the tongue
raised with lips considerably rounded. The rounded back vowel sound <o> dots 1 3 5 produced by the tongue
raised at middle position and lips rounded. The phonetician describes the rounded back vowel sound dots
1 3 6, as a rounded back vowel, made by the back of the tongue raised to close position and lips close
rounded. The ICEB (2008) adopts the rounded back vowel sound /ɷ/ dots 1 2 3 5 6, produced by the back of
the tongue with closed round lips.
According to UNESCO (2009), a few signs and rules changes have been added to the code since Standard
English Braille was adopted in 1932. The current English Braille configurations are assigned as follows:
Alphabet letters 26, accent mark 1, punctuation marks 20, mathematical signs 10, special composition signs
10, whole-word one-cell 43, whole-word two-cell 33, part-word signs one-cell 23, part-word signs two-cells
14 and short-form words 76.
2.4
Phonetic Structure of Standard Kiswahili Braille:
Kiswahili is a Bantu language spoken by various ethnic groups in Eastern Africa. The Kiswahili Braille
started in 1950s. The Kenya Institute of Education (1997) explains that Kiswahili Braille was started by
students who are visually impaired and their instructors in 1950. Using the standard pronunciation for
Kiswahli language, the KIE (1997) improved the Kiswahili Braille by applying the Braille code approved by
United Nation for foreign languages in 1932. In his book, Swahili Holnneybusch (2010) refers to consonant
sounds as „konsonanti‟. Some of the Kiswahili „konsonanti‟ sounds are pronounced and written in the same
way as English Braille codes. The phonetician states that plosive (vipasuo) consonant sounds are the sounds
made by the stoppage of the air passage at one point. These plosive sounds are referred as tenuis stops. These
22
sounds include tenuis stop bilabial dots 1 2 3 4 and the implosive stop bilabial plosive referred to as
/b/ dots 1 2; tenuis stop alveolar <t> dots 2 3 4 5, implosive stop alveolar <d> dots 1 4 5; tenuis stop
postalveolar <ch> referred as /tʃ/ dots 1 6 and implosive palatal stop <j> referred to as /dz/ dots 2 4 5; tenuis
stop velar as voiceless sound <k> dots 1 3 and implosive stop velar as voiced sound <g> dots 1 2 4 5.
In analyzing the consonant fricative sounds, KIE (1997) adopted the fricative sounds which are referred as
“vikwamizo” consonants in Kiswaili. The “vikwamizo” sounds are sounds being formed by narrowing the
mouth passage at some point, so that the air forcing its way through makes rubbing sounds. The “vikwamizo”
sounds include fricative voiceless labiodental <f> dots 1 2 4; voiced labiodentals fricative <v> dots 1 2 3 6;
fricative voiceless dental <th> referred to as /θ/ dots 1 4 5 6; voiceless alveolar fricative <s> dots 2 3 4;
voiced alveolar fricative <z> dots 1 3 5 6; voiceless postalveolar fricative <sh> referred to as /ʃ/ dots 1 4 6;
voiced velar fricative <gh> referred to as /ɣ/ dots 1 2 6; and voiceless glottal fricative <h> referred to as /h/
dots 1 2 5.
In Kiswahili the nasal sound is referred as “nazali” consonant sounds. In defining “nazali” Walla (2003) states
that “nazali” sounds are formed by closing the mouth passage at some points and at the same time lowering
the velum (soft palate) for the air to escape through the nose. These “nazali” sounds include bilabial nasal stop
<m> dots 1 3 4; alveolar nasal stop <n> dots 1 3 4 5; and the velar nasal stop /ŋ/ is written as <ng‟> dots 3 4
6. In Kiswahili lateral is referred to as “vitambaza” consonant sound. The researcher observed that
“vitambaza” sounds are pronounced with an occlusion made somewhere along the axis of the tongue, while
air from the lungs escapes at one side or both sides of the tongue. “Vitambaza” sounds include alveolar
lateral <l> dots 1 2 3 and alveolar trill <r> as dots 1 2 3 5. Wallah (2003) defines the sonant sounds as “nusu
irabu” meaning semi vowel. “Nusu irabu” sounds include velarized approximant <w> as dots 2 3 4 5; and
23
palatal approximant <y> as dots 1 3 4 5 6. The researcher observed that the voiceless postalveolar affricate
<c> dots 1 4, does not exist as a speech sound in Kiswahili but is used as a wordsign to represent the word
„chai‟ (tea).
Using the ICEB Braille codes, Kiswahili Braille adopted some special signs. These special signs include,
voiced dental fricative <dh> referred to as /ð/ dots 2 3 4 6; the voiceless velar fricative <x> that does not exist
in Kiswahili but is used in Kiswahili Braille the letter <x> dots 1 3 4 6 to represent the presanalized bilabial
stop sound /mb/; the presanalized alveolar stop <nd> dots 1 4 6; and palatal nasal stop /ɲ/ is written as <ny>
dots 1 2 4 5 6; and the prenasalized alveolar fricative <nz> dots 2 3 4 5 6. The voiceless velar fricative <kh>
and presanalized labiodental fricative <mv> exists as Kiswahili sounds but has no Braille dots signs. The
researcher noted that the Kiswahili Braille adopted clustered sounds that are commonly used in Kiswahili.
Some of these clustered sounds are <END> dots 1 2 3 4 6; <KW> dots 1 2 3 4 5; <MW> dots 1 2 3 4 5 6;
<ST> dots 3 4; <SW> dots 1 2 3 5 6 and <TW> 1 5 6.
According to Kiswahili phoneticians, the Kiswahili vowel sounds are divided into short and long vowels.
Holnneybusch (2010), describes the segmental Kiswahili vowel dots 2 4 as tense high unrounded front
vowel, while double <ii> dots 3 5 as lax high unrounded vowel. The vowel dots 1 3 6 was regarded as
tense high rounded back vowel, while double <uu> dots 1 2 5 6, as lax high rounded back vowel. Wallah
(2003) explains that the vowel <e> dots 1 5, assumes mid high unrounded front position, while the double
vowel <ee> dots 2 6, mid unrounded front. The writer describes the vowel <o> dots 1 3 5 as mid high
rounded back vowel, while double <oo> dots 2 4 6, as mid rounded back vowel. The vowel <a> dots 1
assumes low front vowel, while double <aa> dots 3 4 5 as low back vowel.
24
In recent years, Kiswahili Braille users have raised complains regarding the insufficient use of the Braille in
language and in the workplace. In 1993, the Kiswahili Braille committee was formed and it made some
changes on the Kiswahili Braille Primer to suit the current need of the users. A few signs and rules changes
have been added to the Kiswahili Braille code. The current Braille configurations are assigned as follows: 30
alphabet letters, 12 punctuation marks, 8 mathematical signs, 4 special composition signs, 35 whole-word one
cell, 36 whole-word two cells, 21 part-word signs one-cell and 152 short form-words.
2.5
Phonetic Structure of Standard Arabic Braille:
Arabic is a Semitic language widely spoken in Middle East and North Africa. In his book, Arabic Braille,
Murchie (2006), states that Arabic Braille started in 1950s to enable the blind community to read the Arabic
script in Saudi Arabia. In 1965, the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia adopted Arabic Braille to write the Holy
Koran and later this spread to Egypt, Tunisia, Malaysia and Indonesia. The Arabic alphabet (hija) consisting
of 29 consonant sounds, including “hamza” <ʾ> referred to as the sound /ȁ/ dot 1 as a separate sound letter.
Arabic has consonants traditionally termed "emphatic" <tˁ, dˁ, sˁ, ðˁ> exhibit simultaneous pharyngealization
/tˁ, dˁ, sˁ, ðˁ/ as well as varying degrees of velarization [tˠ, dˠ, sˠ, ðˠ]. This simultaneous articulation is
described as "Retracted Tongue Root" by phonologists. In some transcription systems, emphasis is shown by
capitalizing the letter, for example, /dˁ/ is written as <D>; in others the letter is underlined or has a dot below
it, for example, [ḍ]. The researcher noted that vowels and consonants can be phonologically short or long.
Long (geminate) consonants are normally written doubled in Latin transcription <bb, dd, etc.>, reflecting the
presence of the Arabic diacritic mark shaddah, which indicates doubled consonants.
Bateson (2003) identifies the consonant sounds are pronounced and written like their English equivalent in
Braille. These consonants include nasal consonant sounds such as voiced labial nasal <m> dots 1 3 4; voiced
25
dental nasal <n> dots 1 3 4 5; voiceless dental nasal sound /t̪/ dots 2 3 4 5; and voiceless velar nasal <k> dots
1 3. The plosive sounds include voiced labial stop sound dots 1 2; voiceless labial stop <f> dots 1 2 4 ;
voiceless interdental stop <th> referred to as /θ/, dots 1 4 5 6; voiced dental stop <d̪> dot 1 4 5; voiceless
dental stop <s> dots 2 3 4; voiced palatal stop <j> or /ʤ/ as dots 2 4 5; voiceless palatal stop <sh> referred to
as /ʃ/ as dots 1 4 6; and voiceless glottal stop <h> dots 1 2 5. In fricative consonants, the sound that is
pronounced and written like English is voiced dental fricative <z> dots 1 3 5 6. The researcher observed that
the approximant consonant sound include lateral dental approximant <l> as dots 1 2 3; and dental trill sound
<r> dots 1 2 3 5. The semi vowel sounds include palatal approximant <y> dots 2 3 4 5 6 and velar
approximant <w> dots 2 4 5 6.
According to Thelwall (2003), the voiced interdental fricative <ḏ> or /ð/ dots 2 3 4 6 has a glottal stop in its
pronunciation. In the same note, the voiceless pharyngeal stop <ḥ> or /ħ/ dots 1 5 6 is produced by a strong
expulsion of air from the chest. According to Arabic phoneticians, voiceless velar stop <kh> referred to as /x/
dots 1 3 4 6 is the guttural [ch] as in the Scottish “loch‟. The voiceless alveolar stop – emphatic <ṣ> or /sˤ/ as
dots 1 2 3 4 6; voiced alveolar stop emphatic <ḍ> or /dˤ/ dots 1 2 4 6; voiceless alveolar nasal <ṭ> or /t̪ˁ/ dots 2
3 4 5 6; and voiced interdental fricative - emphatic <ẓ> or /ðˤ/ dots 1 2 3 4 5 6 form a group of emphatic
sounds and produced when the tongue is pressed against the edge of the upper teeth and then withdrawn
forcefully. The voiceless pharyngeal fricative <ʿ> or /ʕ/ or [ain] dots 1 2 3 5 6 is produced by compression of
the throat and expulsion of breath. The voiced velar fricative <ġ> or /ɣ/ or [gh] dots 1 2 6 is the sound made in
26
gargling with a little more of <g> in it. The speakers who learnt Arabic as their second language use <g>
sound to replace the voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ or <gh>, because this sound does not exist in their vernacular
language. The researcher noted that the sound<g> is adopted by African Arabic speakers and widely used in
Northern Africa. In Egypt and Yemen <j> or /dʒ/ is pronounced as <g> by some speakers. Bateson (2003)
states that the voiceless uvular nasal <q> dots 1 2 3 4 5 is produced from the back of the throat. In most
Arabic speakers retain the sound <q> in its original pronunciation. The researcher observed that the sound
<q> is pronounced as glottal stop /ʔ/ in several Arabic dialects. For example in Iraqi and Egypt, the sound
<q> is pronounced as a voiced velar stop /ɡ/. It is also pronounced as a voiced uvular constrictive [ʁ] in
Sudanese Arabic.
In relation to vowel sounds, Watson (2002), says that there are 3 short vowels, 3 long vowels and two
diphthongs in Arabic. The short vowels include dhamma sounds dots 1 3 6; fatha sound <a> dot 2; and
kasra sound dots 1 5. The long vowels consist of dhammatain sound <ü>. dots 2 6; fathatain sound <ä>
dots 2 3; and kasratain sound <ï> dots 3 5. In Arabic Braille some additional vowel sounds were introduced,
for example sukuun <o> dots 2 5; hamza <‫ >ﺀ‬dot 3; and shaddah <‫ > ﱠ‬dot 6. The diphthongs include waaw
hamza <‫ >ۇ‬referred to as /au/ dots 1 2 5 6; and yaa hamza <‫ >ﺉ‬referred to as /ay/ dots 1 3 4 5 6. The Arabic
Braille adopted the following diphthong sounds; for example laam alif <‫ >ﻻ‬dots 1 2 3 6; alif maqsura <‫>ﺊ‬
dots 1 3 5; taa marbutah <‫ >ﺓ‬dots 1 6; dots 4 5 6; alif hamza <‫ >ﺃ‬dots 3 4; and alif madda <‫ >ﭐ‬dots 3 4 5.
Murchie (2006), concludes that the current Arabic Braille configurations consist of 32 alphabets letters, 12
punctuation marks, 8 mathematical signs and 7 special composition signs.
27
2.6
Phonetic Structure of Standard Somali print script
Somali is a Cushitic language spoken in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya, and Sudan. According to
Orwin (2006), the history of Somali print script started in the 18th Century. The pioneer, Kenedid Ahmed
introduced Somali script called Al-asmeni which is composed of Arabic alphabetical letters. In the same
century, another script was developed by Gababoursi which was known as Gababoursi script in the Northern
Region of Somalia. Gababoursi script consisted of Arabic and Amharic script. Gababoursi learnt both Arabic
and Amharic script, so he decided to develop the Somali script using the combination of both scripts. Both
men started home based schools to teach their scripts and many students learnt from them.
Saeed (1999) developed the phonetic structure of Somali language using the standard pronunciation. The
phonetician identified that the orthographic is as voiced bilabial stop or
bilabial plosive /ḅ/; the
orthographic <t> was described as dental plosive /t̪/; the orthographic <d> was described as a voiced denti-
alveolar stop referred to as dental plosive /d̪/; the orthographic <dh> represent a voiced apico-postalveolar
retroflex implosive referred to as retroflex plosive /ɖ/; the orthographic <g> represent a voiced dorso-velar
fricative /ɣ/ which is referred to as uvulo-epiglottal plosive [ɡ]; the orthographic <k> represent an aspirated
dorso-velar oral stop /'kʰ/ referred to as velar plosive <k>; the orthographic <q> represents a voiceless dorso-
uvular stop /qʡ/ and referred to as uvula- epiglottal plosive; the orthographic <j> represents a voiceless
aspirated palato-alveolar affricative /'tʃʰ/ referred to as palatal approximant; the orthographic <sh> represent a
voiceless palato–alvelar wide grooved fricative [ʃ] referred to as palate alveolar fricative; the orthographic <s>
represents a voiceless lamino-alveolar narrow grooved fricative /s/ referred to as alveolar fricative; the
28
orthographic <f> represents a voiceless labio dental fricative /f/ referred to as labio-dental fricative; the
orthographic <kh> represents a voiceless dorso-ovular fricative /x/ referred to as velar fricative; the
orthographic <h> is a voiceless glottal fricative /h/ referred to as glottal fricative; the orthographic <c> is a
voiceless epiglottal stop /ʡ/ referred to as glottal plosive; the orthographic <x> represents a voiceless
epiglottal fricative with trilling at the terminal surface of the epiglottis /H/ referred to as pharyngeal fricative
/ħ/; the orthographic <m> represents voiced bilabial nasalized fricative /β/ referred to as bilabial nasal <m>;
the orthographic <n> represent a long voiced apico-alveolar nasal with or without an off glide, especially after
short vowels /'n/ referred to as alveolar nasal <n>; the orthographic <l> is a short and with less strength of
articulation /'l/ referred to as alveolar approximant <l>; the orthographic <r> represents a partially voiced
apico-alveolar trill /r/ referred to as alveolar trill; the orthographic <w> represents a voiced labio-velar
approximant /w/ referred to as velar approximant; the orthographic <y> represents a fronto-palatal
approximant /'j/ referred to as palatal approximant.
Saeed (1999) states that Somali vowels are divided into two sets; front and back sets, all of which occur in
both long and short forms. The phonetician states that Somali vowels such as the orthographic <a> represents
two vowel sounds, a low back unrounded vowel when it is long /a:/, and the centralized or a low central
unrounded vowel when it is short <a>. The orthographic <e> represents two vowels sounds, an open mid
front unrounded vowel /ɛ/ that can be long or short and an open mid unrounded vowel that is slightly raised
and fronted <e> that can be long or short. The orthographic represents two vowel sounds, a close front
unrounded vowel /i/ in the both long and short variants and a close front unrounded vowel that is slightly
raised and fronted in long and short variant. The long and short are similar acoustically. The
orthographic <o> represents two vowel sounds, a mid open rounded back vowel /ɔ/ or an open mid rounded
back vowel <o> that is raised and slightly centralized. The orthographic represents two vowel sounds, a
29
close back rounded vowel /ṵ/ and a close back rounded vowel that is raised and centralized . The long and
short are similar in quality. In 1972, the Somali language was officially scripted and introduced at all levels of
government, as the official medium of communication. The letters of the alphabet consist of 21 consonants
(Shibanayaasha); vowels (Shaqalo) 5 short and 5 long; 12 punctuation marks and 8 mathematical signs.
2.7
Summary
Having analysed the phonetic and phonological structure of English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relationship to
Somali print, the researcher noted that the plosive sounds including; bilabial /b/ dots 1 2; dental voiced /t/
dots; dental voiceless /d/ dots 1 4 5; velar voiced /k/ dots 1 3; velar voiceless /g/ dots and ovular /q/ dots are
shared with Somali. The post alveolar plosive <dh> or /ɖ/ does not exist in English and Kiswahili. The Arabic
share the same speech sound with Somali but written differently. The palatal alveolar affricate <j>; the nasal
sounds, bilabial <m> dots and alveolar <n> dots; the lateral alveolar /l/ dots and rolled alveolar /r/ dots are
shared with Somali. The analysis shows that the fricative sounds including; labio-dental /f/; palatal alveolar
/sh/; alveolar /s/ and glottal /h/ are shared with Somali but the velar /kh/; the pharyngeal voiced <x> or /ħ/ and
voiceless <c> or <ʿ> or /ʕ/ or [ain] are not shared with English and Kiswahili. These fricative sounds have the
same speech sounds with the Arabic but written differently. In glide vowels including bilabial /w/ dots and
palatal /y/ dots can be shared with Somali. In vowel sounds; the short vowels /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/ of English
and Kiswahili are shared with Somali but the short vowels /e/ and /o/ do not exist in Arabic. The Kiswahili
shares the long vowel sounds /aa/ dots, /ee/ dots, /ii/ dots and /uu/ dots with Somali but Arabic does not have
the long vowel sounds of /ee/ and /oo/ and long vowels do not exist in English.
30
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This section presented the methods employed in this research. It included the research design, variables,
location of the study, target population, sampling techniques, sample size, construction of research
instruments, pilot study, validity, reliability, data collection techniques, data analysis and logistical and ethical
considerations.
3.1 Research Design
This research study was conducted to determine the development of Somali Braille on the basis of the three
existing Braille code and Somali print. The study employed an experimental design with a 3x2 factorial
design. The design used two independent variables, namely Braille code and Somali print. The dependent
variable was Somali Braille. In this design the experimental variable was the Braille code and the controlled
variable was the Somali print. The Braille factor was studied at three levels; English, Kiswahili and Arabic.
Somali print was studied at two levels; „sameness‟ and „difference‟ in speech sound. The researcher studied
the main effect of Braille code and Somali print on Somali Braille. The researcher chose experimental design
because it has the principle of replication, randomization and local control to get concrete and reliable result
to determine Somali Braille using Braille code and Somali print. The layout of the experimental factorial
design is shown below.
Table 3.1. A 3x2 Factorial Design.
Control Variable
(Somali Print)
Same
Different
Experimental Variable (Braille Code)
English
Kiswahili
Arabic
Eng/Som Kisw/Som Arabic/Som
Engl/Som Kisw/Som Arabic/Som
Braille Letters
Somali Print
Somali Braille
31
3.1.1 Variables
The researcher used two independent variables, namely Braille code and Somali print. The Braille code (B)
was studied at three levels. First level was English Braille (B1). The English Braille (B1) represented the
letters that was shared with the Somali print to develop a Standard Somali Braille. The second level was
Kiswahili Braille (B2). The Kiswahili Braille (B2)
represented the letters that was shared with the Somali
print to develop a Standard Somali Braille. And the third level was Arabic Braille (B3). The Arabic Braille
(B3) represented the letters that was shared with the Somali print to develop a Standard Somali Braille. The
second independent variable was Somali print. The Somali print was studied at two levels: The first level was
Same (S1). The “Same” (S1) represented the similar Somali print identified with Braille letters to develop a
Standard Somali Braille. The second level was Different (S2). The “Different” (S2) represented the non
Somali print used as Braille letters to develop a Standard Somali Braille. The dependent variable was the
Somali Braille (BS). The table below shows the layout of variables.
Table 3.2: Variables by category
English (B1)
Somali print
(S)
Same (S1)
Different (S2)
Column mean
B1S1
B1S2
B1S
Braille Letters (B)
Kiswahili
(B2)
B2S1
B2S2
B2S
Row mean
Arabic (B3)
B3S1
B3S2
B3S
BS1
BS2
BS
The total number of similar speech sounds for English and Somali was represented by B1S1 and the different
speech sounds was represented by B1S2. Similar speech sound of Kiswahili and Somali was represented by
B2S1 and difference was represented by B2S2. Similar speech sound for Arabic and Somali was represented
by B3S1 and the difference was represented by B3S2. The average score for Braille letters which shared
similar sound with Somali print was represented by BS1 and the average score for Braille letters which did
not share sound with Somali print was represented by BS2. The mean score of English Braille letters was
represented by B1S, mean score for Kiswahili Braille letters was represented by B2S and mean score for
32
Arabic Braille letters was represented by B3S. The final result of Somali Braille letters which was the
dependent variable was represented by BS.
3.2 Location of the Study
The study was carried out at Thika High School for the Blind in Thika District, Kiambu County in Kenya.
The researcher preferred Kenya because it has established institutions with enough facilities, while other
countries like Somalia might fail to provide the necessary facilities due to lack of institutions that provide
special education programs for the persons with visual impairment. According to the Kenya National Bureau
of Statistics (2009), a total population of 2498 of Kenyan Somalis who are visually impaired benefited from
the current 8-4-4 educational system with no provision of Somali Braille. That means this Kenyan Education
System provides Braille in foreign languages like English and Kiswahili. Currently, there are nine schools for
the visually impaired in the Kenya but none in North Eastern part of Kenya. The researcher selected Thika
High School for the Blind a total of because it is an old school with a high population. The school has two
hundred and fifty nine (259) students who are blind and low vision, both boys and girls compared to other
schools. It is a national school that accommodates students from all over the country, including Somali
students from North Eastern province of Kenya. It has the necessary facilities for the research, including
Braillers and Braille papers.
3.3 Target Population
This study covered a population of two hundred and fifty nine (259) students in Thika High School for the
Blind. The population consisted of students who are blind and those with low vision. The students who are
blind were seventy four (74) boys and thirty eight (38) girls, totalling to one hundred and twelve (112)
students. The low vision population consisted of ninety three (93) boys and fifty four (54) girls, totalling to
one hundred and forty seven (147) students, (see Appendix E1). The table below shows the distribution of the
target population.
33
Table 3.3: Target population used in the Experiment by category
Visually Impaired
Category
Target Population
Total
Boys
Girls
Totally Blind
74
38
Low vision
93
54
Total
167
92
112
147
259
3.4 Sampling Techniques and sample size
3.4.1 Sampling Techniques
Using stratified sampling, the researcher got representatives for each group of students in proportion to their
number in the population. The researcher used the proportional allocation method to calculate the number that
each group contributed to the sample that was proportional to its size in the population. In calculating the
number, the researcher used the sampling fraction technique. For example, the population of Thika High
School was 259 and the researcher required a sample size of 90 across the four groups. The four groups
included two groups of boys and two groups of girls who were blind and those with low vision. To get the
actual figure in regard to the population of each category, the researcher calculated the sampling fraction. The
sample fraction was defined by dividing sample size by number of the population. Thus 90 divided by 259; 90
was the sample size used in the research and 259 was the total number of the study population. The result was
a fraction of 0.3474903. The sampling fraction (f) equals the probability of any member of the population
being selected for the sample. Therefore, each category of the population has to be multiplied by this figure
0.3474903 to obtain the corresponding category of the sample.
To get the final sample size for each category, the researcher multiplied sample fraction (0.3474903) by total
number for each category of students. For example, boys who are blind (74x0.3474903=26), girls who are
blind (38x0.3474903=13), boys who are low vision (93x0.3474903=32) and girls who are low vision
34
(54x0.3474903=19). Then the sub-samples were added together to give the final sample size, total ninety (90)
participants.
3.4.2 Sample Size
This study experimented on a total of 90 participants who were visually impaired. The sample size for each
category was boys who are blind boys (26), girls who are blind (13), totalling to 39 (43.3%). The boys who
are low vision (32) and girls who are low vision (19), totalling to 51 (56.7%). The total of sample size was 90
(100%) participants. The selected sample size 90 participants represented 35% of the population. The sample
included the Somali students who were randomly selected from the population. The table below shows the
sample size used in the Experiment.
Table 3.4: Sample size used in the Experiment by category
Boys
Visually Impaired
Category
Totally Blind
Low vision
Total
Sample Size
Girls
26
32
58
Total
13
19
32
39
51
90
This distribution emphasises that the learners who are blind are disadvantaged due to lack of the necessary
facilities for their education. Moreover the girls who are blind are more disadvantaged than the boys who are
blind. The distribution shows that there were 13 blind girls against 26 blind boys. This proves correct the
report of Progressio (2010), analysing the disadvantages faced by blind girls.
3.5
Construction of Research Instruments
The research employed questionnaire with objective questions. The participants identified the similarities and
differences in speech sound and Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relation to Somali print.
The primary data used were obtained from the questionnaire.
35
3.5.1 Structured Questionnaire
The type of research instrument used in this study was a structured questionnaire. In developing the
questionnaire, the tools used were Braille letters, (see Appendix C) and Somali prints, (See appendix D). The
Braille consisted of three Braille codes.
i) Standard English Braille by Royal Institute for the Blind (2006), (see Appendix CA). This tool is a revised
edition of the English Braille letters. It was produced and published by the Royal Institute for the Blind in
London. This publisher is the authority in Braille in Britain. The tool consisted of 26 items of English speech
sound to be compared with Somali speech sounds.
ii) Kiswahili Braille by Kenya Institute of Education (1997), (see Appendix CB). This tool is the revised
edition of Kiswahili Braille letters. It was produced and published by Kenya Institute of Education. The
publisher is an authority in curriculum development in Kenya. The tool consisted of 35 items of Kiswahili
speech sounds compared with Somali speech sounds.
iii) Arabic Braille by Murchie (2006), (see Appendix CC). This tool is the current Arabic Braille produced
and published by the Institute of Madrassa An-Noor. It is a prominent Islamic Institute in South Africa. The
instrument consisted of 33 items of Arabic speech sounds compared with Somali sounds.
iv) Somali Print Script by Saeed (1999), (see Appendix D). This tool is the current research work done by
Saeed, John Ibrahim in Amsterdam in 1999. It is based on the phonetic structure of the Somali language. The
instrument consisted of 31 items of Somali speech sounds to be compared with the other three languages
(English, Kiswahili and Arabic). The researcher preferred a structured questionnaire because it gives definite,
concrete and predetermined questions. To ensure an effective and quality questionnaire, the researcher paid
attention to the questions wordings, clarity, simplicity, concreteness and that they were easy to understand.
The questionnaire was written in Braille and print.
36
Objective questions with two options, same or different were used in data collection. The questions for
English speech sound consisted of 21 consonant sounds and five vowel sounds. A total of 26 items of English
speech sounds were compared with Somali speech sounds. The questions for Kiswahili speech sounds
consisted of 18 consonant sounds, seven diphthongs sounds, five short vowels and five long vowel sounds, a
total of 35 sound items. The questions for Arabic speech sound was 17 consonant sounds, 10 diphthongs
sounds, three short vowels and three long vowel sounds, a total of 33 items. The Somali speech sounds
consisted of 17 consonant sounds, four diphthongs sounds, five short vowels and five long vowel sounds, a
total of 31 items were used to compared with English, Kiswahili and Arabic speech sounds to get the
similarities and differences. The questions had multiple choices for ease of handling, simple to answer, quick
and relatively inexpensive to analyse. The questions were presented with exactly the same wordings and in
the same order to all participants to ensure that all participants reply to the same set of questions. The
researcher was careful about question construction because the manner in which a question is formulated
could also result in inaccurate responses. The question errors were minimized to avoid wrongly worded or
misleading questions. All the question items were designed by the researcher. The table below shows the
layout of the speech sounds used in the research.
Table 3.5 Speech sounds used in the questionnaire in language.
English
Speech sound
3.5.2
Consonant
Vowel
Total
Letters of Alphabet
Kiswahili
Arabic
21
25
05
10
26
35
27
06
33
73
21
94
Data Collection Procedure
Using random selection, the 90 sample respondents were divided into two equal groups, experimental and
control group. The experimental group consisted of 45 members and the control group had 45 members to
carry out the research experiment. The participants were randomly subdivided further into language groups
37
for experimental and control purpose. The experimental group was divided into three equal groups, consisting
of group A for English, group C for Kiswahili and group E for Arabic. Similarly, the control group was
divided into three equal groups, consisting of group B for English, D for Kiswahili and group F for Arabic.
The total groups was six, thus two groups (experimental and control group) for each language under study.
Each of the six final groups had 15 members to carry out the research experiment. For each three languages
(English, Kiswahili and Arabic), there were 30 participants to compare their sounds with Somali sounds. The
total number of the participants was 90 members. The attendance was 100%. This distribution was meant to
provide correct data for analysis, (see Kothari, 2008). The table below shows the number of each group used
in the experiment by language.
Table 3.6: Experimental/control groups by members
Sample
Size
Language Group
English
Kiswahili
Arabic
Total
Experimental Group A
Group C
Group E
Group A+C+E
group
15
15
15
45
Control group Group B
Group D
Group F
Group B+D+F
15
15
15
45
Group
A+B
Group
C+D
Group
E+F
Group
Total
30
30
30
A+B+C+D+E+F 90
The researcher prepared two classes, the experimental groups (A,C,E) were placed in one class and control
groups (B,D,F) were in another class. The experimental group (A,C,E) was taught Somali speech sounds for
one week after evening classes. The control group (B,D,F) was not taught Somali speech sound. Both group E
and F were taught Arabic speech sounds, since the participants were not familiar with Arabic speech sounds.
For Arabic group, both the experimental and control group formed another class for teaching purposes, but
joined the rest for the testing purpose.
The experiment and control groups were placed in two different classes to avoid occurrence of result errors
during the experiment. The researcher confirmed the presence of all participants (blind and low vision) and
38
checked whether each participant who is blind was having Braille machine. Finally, the researcher distributed
brailled schedule questionnaires to the participants who are blind and printed questionnaires for low vision
respondents. Also blank Braille and ordinary papers were provided to enable participants to write their
responses.
The researcher gave instructions as per the requirement of the questionnaire. The participants were instructed
to listen attentively to the sounds produced by the researcher. The researcher pronounced each Somali letter of
the alphabet, consonants (17), vowels (10) and diphthongs (4) sounds. Each speech sound was pronounced
three times at a time for clarity and accuracy. Then the participants searched for the sound in the list of letters
in their schedule questionnaires. In case, the participants found the answer to be the “same” sound and written
alike, they wrote the serial number given and the letter representing the particular sound on the blank paper
given. In case, the participants found the sound different, letter missing or were in doubt, then the serial
number is written but left blank. For example if the instructor pronounces letter /a/, then the participants have
to find out whether the Somali grapheme <a> is written alike and pronounced in the same way in Braille and
print scripts in English, Kiswahili and Arabic. In case the letter /a/ has the same pronunciation and is written
in the same way, then the serial number and the letter /a/ is written on the blank paper given. For different,
missing or in doubt letters, serial numbers were written and spaces for the letters were left blank. Any
participant, who failed to read and understand the question, was assisted, until everybody was familiar with
the questions.
3.6
Pilot Study
The pilot study was carried out at Thika primary school for the Blind to establish the validity of the
instrument. The school has both students who are blind and others of low vision. The total population of the
school was two hundred and thirty two (232) students. The population of students who are blind consisted of
ninety two (92) boys and sixty nine (69) girls, totalling to one hundred and sixty one (161) students. The
39
population of students with low vision consisted of forty (40) boys and thirty one (31) girls, totalling to
seventy one (71) students, (see Appendix E2). Among the population, twenty eight (28) were in kindergarten,
special unit were six (6) and pre-unit were fourteen (14). The table below shows the target population used in
the pilot study.
Table 3.7 Target population used in the pilot study
Visual Impairment
Category
Target Population
Total
Boys
Girls
Blind
92
69
161
Low vision
40
31
71
Total
132
100
232
Using stratified sampling, the researcher got the final sample size for each category by calculating the
sampling fraction. Thus, 90 divided by 232; 90 was the sample size to be used in the research and 232 was the
total number of the population. The result was a fraction of 0.387931. Therefore, the researcher multiplied
sample fraction (0.387931) by total number for each category of pupils. For example, boys who are blind
(92x0.387931=36), girls who are blind (69x0.387931=27), boys who are low vision (40x0.387931=15) and
girls who are low vision (31x0.387931)=12). That means the sample size for each category was boys who
are blind (36), girls who are blind (27), boys who are of low vision (15) and girls who are of low vision (12).
Then the sub-samples were added together to give the final sample size, total ninety (90) respondents. The
selected sample size represented 38.8% of the population. The sample was selected from four classes from the
upper classes. The criteria for selecting a class depended on its ability to read and write using Braille letters.
Using probability sampling, half of the class members were selected from the class list. Each group member
was randomly selected from a population consisting of students who are blind and those of low vision. A total
of 90 respondents were selected for the research work. The table below shows the sample size used in the
pilot study.
40
Table 3.8 Sample size used in the pilot study
Visual Impairment
Category
Sample Size
Boys
Girls
Blind
36
Low vision
15
Total
58
27
12
32
Total
63
27
90
The selected members were divided into six equal groups, three groups for experimental and three groups
control. Each group had 15 members for research work. All experimental groups were taught Somali sounds.
The group for Arabic speech sounds were taught Arabic sounds whether in the experimental or control group.
The participants were placed in two classes. The first class was for Experimental group and the second class
for the control group. The researcher confirmed the presence of all participants (blind and low vision). The
researcher gave instruction as per the requirement of the questionnaire. The questionnaire written in Braille
was given to the respondents who are blind and print to respondents who are low vision. The participants
were instructed to listen attentively to the sounds produced by the researcher. Each speech sound was
pronounced three times for clarity and accuracy. Then the participants searched for the sound in the list of
letters in their questionnaires. The recognized same letters were recorded by writing the serial numbers and
the letters representing the sounds. For different, missing or in doubt letters, serial numbers were written and
spaces for the letter were left blank. After the completion of the questionnaires, the researcher collected the
responses for analysis.
The samples (for pilot and main study) were students who were blind and those with low vision. They were
boys and girls who were conversant with English and Kiswahili Braille letters and prints. They were able to
identify the speech sounds, grapheme symbols and Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille and
Somali print. Therefore, the pilot study done with primary school students is relevant and valid for secondary
students because the standard level of the students was not factored as a variable in the study. The variables
factored were Braille letters and Somali print. Therefore, the sample characteristics (for pilot and main study)
were the same.
41
3.6.1
Validity
To determine the Somali Braille using the Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali print,
the researcher used the concept of content validity. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (1999), the content
validity is a measure to which data collected using a particular instrument represents a specific domain of
indicators or content of a particular concept. In designing an instrument that yields the concept of Somali
Braille, the researcher developed test items based on similarities of speech sounds, grapheme symbols and
Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arab in relation to Somali print. The test items were English,
Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali consonants and vowels. To find out the degree to which the Braille letters of
English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali print can contribute towards the development of Somali Braille, the
researcher randomly selected a sample of students from Thika High School for the Blind and administered the
instrument to the participants. The researcher observed the characteristic of participants. The participants were
blind or with low vision and were able to read and write Braille letters. They were able to identify the
similarities of speech sounds, grapheme symbols and Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic in
relation to Somali print. The result obtained was a score of Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic
that are shared with Somali print. That obtained score of similar Braille code and Somali print determines the
Somali Braille which is enough evidence to support the content validity of data obtained using the instrument.
3.6.2
Reliability
According to Mugenda and Mugenda (1999), reliability is a measure of the degree to which a research
instrument yields consistent results or data after repeated trials. To determine the Somali Braille, the
researcher used the Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali print. To find out the
effectiveness of the instrument, the researcher randomly selected 90 participants from Thika High School for
the Blind and randomly assigned them to six groups. The groups were assigned to three languages of English,
Kiswahili and Arabic to compare the similarities of speech sounds, grapheme symbols and Braille letters in
relation to Somali print. Each language had two groups, experiment and control group. Each group had 15
42
respondents to determine the similarities of the Braille code and Somali print. To establish the reliability of
the instrument, the researcher obtained the score for each group assigned to the three languages and used
Yule‟s coefficient of association to find out whether the attributes was associated with each other or not. To
measure the degree to which the Braille code and Somali print develop Somali Braille, the researcher
compared the results of the pilot and the main study as repeated measurement to test the consistency of the
results.
3.7
Data Analysis
Kothari (2008), states that analysis refers to the computation of certain measures along with searching for
patterns of relationship that exist among data-group.
3.7.1
Data Errors and Omissions
In this study, the completed questionnaires were examined and scrutinised to detect errors and omissions. The
obvious errors were corrected, especially entry in the wrong place and missing replies. In most cases, the
proper answers were determined by reviewing the other information in the questionnaire or contacting the
participants for clarification or dropping the obvious wrong replies. The correction ensured that the data were
accurate, consistent with the facts gathered, uniformly entered and well arranged to facilitate coding and
tabulation.
3.7.2
Coding the Data
In coding, a nominal scale was used to assign numbers to answers, so that responses could be put into a
limited number of homogeneous categories, thus English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relationship to Somali
speech sounds. For each structured question, there were two optional responses to be coded. For example; A)
Pronounced and written in the same way B) Pronounced and written in a different way. The nominal scale
43
provided a convenient way of keeping track of responses and easy counting of responses in each group. The
coding errors were minimized to avoid coding responses wrongly.
3.7.3 Classification of Data
The classification of raw data was done according to attribute. The attribute consisted of speech sounds of
English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relationship to Somali sounds. Each attribute was divided into “sameness”
and “differences” in relation to Braille letters and Somali print. To consider these attributes simultaneously,
the data were divided into a number of groups. The total number of the groups of final order was given by 2ⁿ,
when n = number of attributes considered. That means the figure “2” represented the “sameness” and
“differences” in speech sound and the “n” consisted of the three speech sound of English, Kiswahili and
Arabic. Hence the total number of groups for the research work was six. The reason behind the classification
of attributes was to reduce the possibility of any doubt or ambiguity in speech sounds.
3.7.4
Tabulation of Data
In tabulation, the data was arranged in columns and rows for concise and logical order. The summarized raw
data was displayed in a compact form for further analysis. The codes used involved “sameness” and
“differences” in speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali. A contingency table was created to
classify the Braille letters into three subclasses and Somali print into two subclasses and form 3x2
contingency table. The study used a contingency table for easy calculation of the mean score obtained from
each group. The mean scores for different cells were obtained along with the mean scores for different rows
and columns. Mean scores of different cells represented the mean scores for Somali Braille, the column means
were the main effect for Braille codes with regard to Somali print and the row mean scores were the main
effect of Somali print without regard to Braille code. The table below shows the layout of the contingency
table used in the research.
44
Table 3.9 Contingency table by Braille letters and Somali print
Somali print
3.7.5
Same
Different
Total
English
Eng/Som
Eng/Som
Eng-Braille
Braille Letters
Kiswahili
Kis/Som
Kis/Som
Kis-Braille
Arabic
Arab/Som
Arab/Som
Arab-Braille
Total
Som
Som
Som-Braille
Statistical Tests
To measure the variables of Braille codes and Somali print, this study applied the concept of null hypothesis. The
hypothesis determined whether there was a significant relationship between Braille codes and Somali print in
developing Somali Braille. To test this hypothesis, this study used Chi-square test of hypothesis. Chi-square
symbolically written as χ², is a statistical measure used in the context of sampling analysis for comparing a variance to a
theoretical variance. The Chi-square was used to test the significance of association between the Braille codes and
Somali print in developing Somali Braille. In this case, the Braille codes and Somali print were the independent
variables. To get the expected frequency of Braille codes and Somali print, the researcher compared the average score
of each group of Braille codes (English, Kiswahili, Arabic) in relation to Somali print. For example, the researcher
compared the mean scores of those participants who identified the sameness of Braille code and Somali print and got
their final mean score. At the same time, the researcher compared the mean scores of those participants who identified
the differences of Braille code and Somali print and also got their final mean score. Then the researcher compared the
difference of the two mean score of sameness and differences of Braille codes in relation to Somali print to get the
degree at which the Braille code and Somali print form Somali Braille code. Then the value of χ², degree of freedom
and percentage of level of significance was calculated and finally compared with table value of χ². In case, the
calculated value of χ² was much higher than the table value of χ², the result of the experiment would not support the
hypothesis. Hence, we would conclude that the existing Braille codes of English, Kiswahili and Arabic would not
determine the development of Somali Braille. In case, the calculated value of χ² was much lower than the table value of
χ², the result of the experiment would support the hypothesis. Hence, we would conclude that the existing Braille codes
of English, Kiswahili and Arabic would determine the development of Somali Braille.
The formula for Chi-square used was;- χ² =
45
Where
O𝓲𝓳 = observed frequency of the cell in 𝓲th row and 𝓳th column.
E𝓲𝓳 = expected frequency of the cell in 𝓲th row and 𝓳th column.
The extraneous variables were controlled. For example, the subject variables including the participants‟ sex,
age, intelligence, attitude, fatigue, boredom, anxiety and form level remained the same. The environmental
variables including the questionnaires, measuring instruments and classroom situations remained the same.
The study applied the criterion-related validity which was expressed as coefficient of correlation between the
test scores of Braille codes and Somali print.
3.8
Logistic and Ethical considerations.
3.8.1 Logistic issues
The researcher received an introductory letter from the Graduate School, Kenyatta University. He received an
authority letter from the National Council for Science and Technology to enable him carry out research in the
institutions. The researcher took the permission letter to the head teacher of Thika High School for the Blind
and the Thika Municipality Education officer. The head teacher was consulted to enable the researcher carry
out his research work effectively. The teachers and students were well informed about the researcher‟s
activities so that the children would not get scared. The school administration set the dates, days and time for
the researcher to undertake the task.
3.8.2
Ethical considerations and Human Relations
The researcher avoided digressing and getting involved in issues that were not relevant to the study. The
researcher observed punctuality in appointments and used clear and simple language in discussions. The
researcher obtained informed consent from all participants used in the study and ensured that all participants
participated voluntarily. The researcher sent an advance letter to the sample participants, explaining the
general nature, purpose and intention of the study. Information concerned the voluntary nature of the study
46
and how answers were to be used. The researcher had various ways of probing, especially when the
participants tended to give false answers to particular questions. The researcher handled himself
professionally. He kept secrets of the respondents. He did not harass, abuse or punish respondents. He did not
force or induce respondents to answer questions. The researcher portrayed friendliness. The researcher
acknowledged certain psychological factors, such as fear or low self-esteem that induced incorrect responses.
Great care was taken when designing the study to minimize the effect of these factors. The researcher took all
reasonable measures to protect participants physically and psychologically. The researcher protected the
confidentiality of information collected from the respondents and ensured that the means used in data
collection were adequate to protect confidentiality to the extent pledged or intended.
3.8.3
Legal Issues
The researcher collected only the data needed for the purpose of the study. The researcher was responsible for
his own work and for his contribution to the whole study. The researcher accepts individual responsibility for
the conduct of the research and, as far as foreseeable, the consequence of that research. The research work
was based on individual initiative and effort and not plagiary. The researcher ensured that processing and use
of data conform to the pledges made and that appropriate care was taken with directly identifying information.
For example, using such steps as destroying a certain type of information or removing it from the file when it
was no longer needed for the inquiry. The legal issues concerning participants‟ safety, informed consent and
confidentiality were observed.
3.7.5
Summary
The methods described in this chapter were used to collect the data that are presented, analysed and discussed
in chapter four.
47
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.0
Introduction.
This chapter presents the key findings based on the primary data collected in Thika High School for the Blind.
The data was based on the total score for similarities and differences of sounds of English, Kiswahili and
Arabic in relationship to Somali. To get the ratio of similarities and differences of speech sound of English,
Kiswahili and Arabic in relationship to Somali, the obtained scores for similarity and difference were divided
against the total score. To get the number of participants who agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score
obtained was multiplied by the total number of participants. That means the participants who agreed that
English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relationship to Somali speech sounds are similar in pronunciation and in
writing; while those who disagreed responded that they are different. For the analysis and recording of speech
sounds of English, Kiswahili and Arabic in relationship to Somali, the measure of central tendency,
contingency table and percentage was applied.
4.1
Similarities and differences between the four languages
To find out the similarities and differences between the four languages, the speech sounds, grapheme symbols
and Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic were compared with Somali. The speech sounds were
divided into sections and each section was subdivided into groups of sounds. The main speech sounds are
plosive or stops, fricatives, resonants, flaps and trills. The plosives consisted of simple plosives, aspirated,
glottalized, affricated, laterally affricated, prenasalized plosives and implosive. The fricative contains slit,
groove and lateral. The resonants consisted of lateral, nasal and median. The flaps and trills were not
subdivided into subclasses. The result obtained was to determine the pattern of pronunciation and writing in
developing Somali Braille,
48
4.1.1
Similarities and differences between speech sounds of English and Somali language.
To find out the similarity and difference of speech sounds of English and Somali language, 26 speech sounds
of English and 31 speech sounds of Somali were compared by 30 participants. In the effort of analyzing the
similarities and differences of speech sounds of English and Somali, the researcher classified the speech
sounds according to Somali phonetic structure. For example; in plosive bilabial, 27 (90%) participants agreed
that the grapheme dots 1 2 is pronounced and written in the same way in English and Somali. In plosive
dental, voiceless <t> dots 1 2 3 4 and voiced <d> dots 1 4 5, both 22 (73.3%) participants agreed to be
pronounced and written in the same way in English and Somali. In plosive post-alveolar, the grapheme <dh>
or /ɖ/ did not exist in English, hence 30 (100%) of the participants agreed on the difference in pronunciation
and in writing. In plosive velar, the grapheme voiceless <k> dots 1 3 and voiced <g> dots 1 2 4 5, 23 (76.7%)
and 19 (63.3%) respectively, the participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and in writing in both
English and Somali. In plosive ovular, the grapheme <q> dots 1 2 3 4 5, 25 (83.3%) of participants disagreed
in pronunciation but <q> was written in the same format. In affricate plato-alveolar, the grapheme <j> dots 2
4 5, 25 (83.3%) of participants agreed on sameness in pronunciation and the written form.
For the nasal bilabial, the grapheme <m> dots 1 3 4 and alveolar <n> dots 1 3 4 5, both 27 (90%) of
participants agreed sameness in pronunciation and in writing English and Somali. The lateral alveolar,
grapheme <l> dots 1 2 3, 25 (83.3%) and the rolled alveolar, grapheme <r> dots 1 2 3 5, 24 (80%) of
participants agreed on the sameness in pronunciation and in writing. In fricative labio-dental, grapheme <f>
dots 1 2 4, 24 (80%) and alveolar <s> dots 2 3 4, 25 (83.3%) of participants agreed on sameness in
pronunciation and in writing. In English The palato-alveolar <sh> dots 1 4 6, 25 (83.3%) of participants
agreed on difference because the sound <sh> exists in English phonetic as fricative postalveolar voiceless but
does not appear in English letters of alphabet. Thus, the reason as to why 05 (16.7%) of participants identified
the sound as the same. It is also used as among the five upper groupings (with H) which is used in any part of
49
a word for the letters it represent. For the fricative velar /kh/, 28 (93.3%) of participants agreed on the
difference because in English phonetic, the sound <kh> is pronounced as /kʰ/. The sound /kʰ/ is categorized as
an aspirated velar stop, which is different from the fricative velar as in Somali. The English Braille for the
diphthong sound /kʰ/ has not been identified. The fricative pharyngeal voiceless <x> dots 1 3 4 6, 25 (83.3%)
of participants agreed on difference because in English the grapheme <x> is pronounced as /esk/ while in
Somali it‟s pronounced as [ha‟a]. The fricative pharyngeal voiced <c> or /cayn/ dots 1 4, 30 (100%) of the
participants agreed on difference in pronunciation but written in the same way. The fricative glottal, grapheme
<h> dots 1 2 3, the agreement of participants on similarity and difference was half. The participants who
agreed were 14 (46.7%) and those who disagreed were 16 (53.3%). The vowel glide bilabial <w> dots 2 4 5,
26 (86.7%) and palatal <y> dots 1 3 4 5 6, 24 (80%) of participants agreed on similarity in the pronunciation
and written form in English and Somali.
The result obtained for consonant sounds was a total score of 371 for similarities in sounds and 259 for
differences in sounds against a total score of 630. To get the ratio of similarities and differences of speech
sounds of English and Somali, the obtained scores for similarity (371) and difference (259) were divided
against the total scores (630). The ratios obtained were 0.59 for similarities and 0.41 for differences in sounds.
To get the number of participants who agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by
the total number of participants. Thus similar sounds, 0.59 x 30 = 18 and different sounds, 0.41 x 30 = 12.
That means 18 (60%) participants agreed that English and Somali speech sounds are similar in pronunciation
and in writing; while 12 (40%) responded that they are different. The table below shows the distribution of the
consonants speech sounds of English and Somali.
50
Table 4.1
Distribution of the Consonants Speech Sounds of English and Somali
Ba
Ta
[b]
[t]
Consonant Speech Sound
Total
IPA Symbol
Same Different
/b/
27
03
30
22
08
30
/ṱ/
Deel
[d]
/ḓ/
22
08
30
Post-Alveolar
Dha
30
30
23
19
05
25
27
27
25
24
24
25
05
07
11
25
05
03
03
05
06
06
05
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Velar
Kaaf
Ga
Qaaf
Ja
Miin
Nun
Laan
Ra
Fa
Sa
SHii
n
KHa
/ḍ/
/k/
/g/
/q/
/Ĵ/
/m/
/n/
/l/
/r/
/f/
/s/
/š/
00
Velar
[ɖ]
[k]
[g]
[q]
[j]
[m]
[n]
[l]
[r]
[f]
[s]
/x/
02
28
30
Pharyngeal
Xa
[ϰ]
[ħ]
/ɦ/
05
25
30
[ʿ]
[h]
[w]
[y]
/ʢ/
/h/
/w/
/y/
00
30
30
14
26
24
371
18
16
04
06
259
12
30
30
30
630
30
Bilabial
Dental
Plosive
Affricate
Nasal
Somali
Speech
Sound
Lateral
Rolled
Fricative
Ovular
Palato-Alveolar
Bilabial
Alveolar
Alveolar
Alveolar
Labio-Dental
Alveolar
Palato-Alveolar
Cayn
Vowel
Glide
Total
Mean
Glottal
Bilabial
Palatal
Ha
Wa
Ya
[ʃ]
That means 60% of Somali consonant sounds are shared with English. To get the consonants sounds shared
by English and Somali, we need to divide 60 by 100 and multiplied by 21. We used the number 21 because
there are 21 consonants in Somali. The obtained result is 12.6 which is approximately thirteen. Therefore,
thirteen (13) consonant English Braille letters can be used to develop Somali Braille.
For the central low vowel, the grapheme <a> dots 1, 25 (83.3%) participants agreed on similarity in
pronunciation and written in English and Somali. In front mid vowel, the grapheme <e> dots 1 5, 26 (86.7%)
of participants agreed on similarity. In front high vowel, the grapheme dots 2 4, 22 (73.3%) of the
participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and written. In back mid vowel, the grapheme <o> dots 1 3
51
5, 29 (96.7%) participants agreed that its pronounced and written in the same way in English and Somali. In
back high vowel, the grapheme dots 1 3 6, 24 (80%) participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation
and written form in English and Somali. The long vowels the grapheme <aa>, <ee>, <ii>, <oo> and <uu>, for
all sounds 30 (100%) participants agreed on difference in pronunciation and written form in English and
Somali. The English Braille for this long vowel has not been identified. The table below shows the
distribution of the vowel speech sounds of English and Somali.
Table 4.2
Somali
Distribution of the Vowel Speech Sounds of English and Somali
Short
Vowel
Speech
Sound
Total
Mean
Long
Vowel
A
E
I
O
U
AA
EE
II
OO
UU
[a]
[e]
[i]
[o]
[u]
[aa]
[ee]
[ii]
[oo]
[uu]
Vowel Speech Sound
IPA
Same
Symbol
25
/ɑ/
26
/ɛ/
/i/
22
29
/ɔ/
/u/
24
/a:/
00
/e:/
00
/i:/
00
/o:/
00
/u:/
00
126
13
Different Total
05
04
08
01
06
30
30
30
30
30
174
17
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
300
30
The result obtained for vowel sounds was a total score of 126 for similarities in sounds and 174 for
differences in sounds against a total score of 300. To get the ratio of similarities and differences of speech
sounds of English and Somali, the obtained scores for similarity (126) and difference (174) were divided
against the total scores (300). The ratios obtained were 0.42 for similarities and 0.58 for differences in sounds.
To get the number of participants who agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by
the total number of participants. Thus similar sounds, 0.42 x 30 = 13 and different sounds, 0.58 x 30 = 17.
That means 13 (43.3%) participants agreed that English and Somali speech sounds are similar in
pronunciation and in writing; while 17 (56.7%) responded that they are different.
52
That means 43.3% of Somali vowels sounds are shared with English. To get the vowel sounds shared by
English and Somali, we need to divide 43 by 100 and multiplied by 10. We used the number 10 because there
are 10 vowel sounds in Somali. The obtained result is 4.3 which is approximately four. Therefore, four (04)
vowel English Braille letters can be used to develop Somali Braille.
Having identified the thirteen (13) consonants and four (04) vowels, a total of seventeen (17) English Braille
letters can determine the development of Somali Braille.
4.1.2 Similarities and differences between speech sound of Kiswahili and Somali language.
In sorting out the information about the similarity and difference of speech sounds of Kiswahili and Somali
language, 35 speech sounds of Kiswahili and 31 speech sounds of Somali were compared by 30 participants.
The study revealed that in plosive bilabial, 30 (100%) participants agreed that the grapheme dots 1 2 is
pronounced and written in the same way in Kiswahili and Somali. In plosive dental, voiceless <t> dots 2 3 4
5, 26 (86.7%) and voiced <d> dots 1 4 5, 22 (73.3%), participants agreed to be pronounced and written in the
same way. In plosive post-alveolar, the grapheme <dh> or /ɖ/, 15 (50%) of participants agreed and half did
not because in Kiswahili the sound <dh> is pronounced as the fricative dental voiced. That means the sound
<dh> is pronounced differently compared to Somali but written in the same way. In Kiswahili Braille the
<dh> is written dots 2 3 4 6. In plosive velar, the grapheme voiceless <k> dots 1 3, 24 (80%) and voiced <g>
dots 1 2 4 5, 23 (76.7%) of participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and in writing in both Kiswahili
and Somali. In plosive ovular, the grapheme <q>, 26 (86.7%) of participants disagreed in pronunciation and
in writing. The reason being grapheme <q> does not exist in Kiswahili. In affricate plato-alveolar, the
grapheme <j> dots 2 4 5, 25 (83.3%) of participants agreed on sameness.
In nasal bilabial, the grapheme <m> dots 1 3 4 and alveolar <n> dots 1 3 4 5, both 28 (93.3%) of participants
agreed on sameness in pronunciation and in writing in Kiswahili and Somali. The lateral alveolar, grapheme
53
<l> dots 1 2 3, 26 (86.7%) and the rolled alveolar, grapheme <r> dots 1 2 3 5, 28 (93.3%) of participants
agreed on the sameness in pronunciation and in writing. In fricative labio-dental, grapheme <f> dots 1 2 4, 30
(100%) and alveolar <s> dots 2 3 4, 26 (86.7%) of participants agreeing on the sameness in pronunciation and
in writing. The palato-alveolar <sh> dots 1 4 6, 27 (90%), participants agreed on sameness. The velar <kh>,
29 (96.7%) and pharyngeal voiceless <x>, 30 (100%) and voiced <c>, 24 (80%) the participants agreed on
difference in pronunciation and written in Kiswahili and Somali. The diphthong <kh>, grapheme <x> and <c>
or <ʿ> do not exist in Kiswahili. In Kiswahili Braille the grapheme <x> exists as sound /mb/ and is written as
dots 1 3 4 6 in Braille. The sound for grapheme <c> does not exist in Kiswahili but exists as word sign [chai]
in Kiswahili Braille and written dots 1 4. The fricative glottal, grapheme <h> dots 1 2 5, 21 (70%) of
participants agreed on similarity and written. The vowel glide bilabial <w> dots 2 4 5 6, 28 (93.3%) and
palatal <y>. dots 1 3 4 5 6, 25 (83.3%) of participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and in writing in
Kiswahili and Somali.
The result obtained was a total score of 445 for similar sounds and 185 for different sounds against a total
score of 630. To get the ratio of similarity and difference of speech sound of Kiswahili and Somali, the
obtained scores for similarity (445) and difference (185) were divided against the total score (630). The ratios
obtained were 0.7063492 for similar sounds and 0.2936508 for different sounds. To get the number of
participants who agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by the total number of
participants. Thus similar sounds, 0.7063492 x 30 = 21 and different sounds, 0.2936508 x 30 = 09. That
means 21 (70%) participants agreed that Kiswahili and Somali speech sounds are similar in pronunciation and
in writing; while 09 (30%) responded that they are different.
That means 70% of Somali consonant sounds are shared with Kiswahili. To get the consonants sounds shared
by Kiswahili and Somali, we need to divide 70 by 100 and multiplied by 21. We used the number 21 because
54
there are 21 consonants in Somali. The obtained is 14.7 which is approximately fifteen. Therefore, fifteen (15)
consonant Kiswahili Braille letters can be used to develop Somali Braille. The table below shows the
distribution of the consonants speech sounds of Kiswahili and Somali
Table 4.3
Distribution of the Consonants Speech Sounds of Kiswahili and Somali
Plosive
Affricate
Nasal
Somali
Speech
Sound
Lateral
Rolled
Fricative
Vowel
Glide
Consonants Speech Sound
Total
IPA
Same
Different
Symbol
30
00
30
/ɓ/
Bilabial
Ba
[b]
Dental
Ta
Deel
[t]
[d]
Post-Alveolar
DHa
Velar
Kaaf
Ga
[ɖ]
[k]
[g]
Ovular
Palato-Alveolar
Qaaf
Ja
[q]
[j]
Bilabial
Alveolar
Alveolar
Alveolar
Labio-Dental
Alveolar
Palato-Alveolar
Miin
Nun
Laan
Ra
Fa
Sa
SHiin
[m]
[n]
[l]
[r]
[f]
[s]
/ʄ/
/m/
/n/
/l/
/r/
/f/
/s/
[ʃ]
Velar
KHa
Pharyngeal
Xa
Cayn
[ϰ]
[ħ]
Glottal
Bilabial
Palatal
Ha
Wa
Ya
[ʢ]
[h]
[w]
[y]
/t/
26
22
04
08
30
30
15
15
30
24
23
06
07
30
30
04
27
26
03
30
30
/ʃ/
28
28
26
28
30
26
27
02
02
04
02
00
04
03
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
/x/
01
29
30
-
00
06
30
24
30
30
21
28
25
445
21
09
02
05
185
09
30
30
30
630
30
/ɗ/
/k/
/ɠ/
-
/h/
/w/
/j/
Total
Mean
For the central low vowel, the grapheme <a> dot 1, 24 (80%) of participants agreed on similarity in
pronunciation and in writing in Kiswahili and Somali. In front mid vowel, the grapheme <e> dots 1 5, 27
(90%) of participants agreed on similarity. In front high vowel, the grapheme dots 2 4, 24 (80%) of the
participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and in writing. In back mid vowel, the grapheme <o> dots 1
55
3 5, 28 (93.3%) participants agreed that its pronounced and written in the same way in Kiswahili and Somali.
In back high vowel, the grapheme dots 1 3 6, 26 (86.7%) participants agreed to be pronounced and
written in the same way in Kiswahili and Somali. The long vowels the grapheme <aa> dots 3 4 5, 23 (76.7%)
of participants agreed on similarity. The grapheme <ee> dots 2 6, 25 (83.3%) of participants agreed on
similarity in pronunciation and in writing. The grapheme <ii> dots 3 5, 24 (80%) of participants agreed on
similarity. The grapheme <oo> dots 2 4 6, 26 (86.7%) of participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation
and in writing. The grapheme <uu> dots 1 2 5 6, 27 (90%) of participants agreed on similarity in
pronunciation and in writing in Kiswahili and Somali. The table below shows the distribution of the vowel
speech sounds of Kiswahili and Somali.
Table 4.4
Somali
Distribution of the Vowel Speech Sounds of Kiswahili and Somali
Short
Vowel
Speech
Sound
Total
Mean
Long
Vowel
A
E
I
O
U
AA
EE
II
OO
UU
[a]
[E]
[i]
[o]
[u]
[aa]
[ee]
[ii]
[oo]
[uu]
IPA
Symbols
/a/
/e/
/i/
/o/
/u/
/a:/
/e:/
/i:/
/o:/
/u:/
Vowel Speech Sounds
Same
Different
24
06
27
03
24
06
28
02
26
04
23
07
25
05
24
06
26
04
27
03
254
46
25
05
Total
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
300
30
The result obtained was a total score of 254 for similar sounds and 46 for different sounds against a total score
of 300. To get the ratio of similarity and difference of speech sound of Kiswahili and Somali, the obtained
scores for similarity (254) and difference (46) were divided against the total score (300). The ratios obtained
were 0.8466667 for similar sounds and 0.1533333 for different sounds. To get the number of participants who
agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by the total number of participants. Thus
similar sounds, 0.8466667x30 = 25 and different sounds, 0.1533333x30 = 05. That means 25 (83.3%)
56
participants agreed that Kiswahili and Somali speech sounds are similar in pronunciation and in writing; while
05 (16.7%) responded that they are different.
That means 83.3% of Somali vowels sounds are shared with Kiswahili. To get the vowel sounds shared by
Kiswahili and Somali, we need to divide 83 by 100 and multiplied by 10. We used the number 10 because
there are 10 vowel sounds in Somali. The obtained is 8.3 which is approximately eight. Therefore, eight (08)
vowel Kiswahili Braille letters can be used to develop Somali Braille. Having identified the thirteen (15)
consonants and eight (08) vowels, a total of seventeen (23) Kiswahili Braille letters can determine the
development of Somali Braille.
4.1.3 Similarities and differences between speech sounds of Arabic and Somali language.
To find out the similarity and difference of speech sounds of Arabic and Somali language, 33 speech sounds
of Arabic and 31 speech sounds of Somali were compared by 30 participants. The responses obtained as
follows: In plosive bilabial, grapheme dots 1 2, 30 (100%) of participants agreed on sameness in
pronunciation and written in Arabic and Somali. In Plosive dental, voiceless <t> dots 2 3 4 5, 29 (96.7%) and
voiced <d> dots 1 4 5, 25 (83.3%) participants agreed to be pronounced and written in the same way in
Arabic and Somali. In plosive post-alveolar, the grapheme <dh> or /ɖ/ 21(70%) agreed on difference in
writing. In Arabic the grapheme <dh> is pronounced as a nasal alveolar emphatic voiceless /t̪ˁ/. In
pronunciation the sound of the grapheme <dh> is similar in Somali and Arabic but written differently. Thus
the reason as to why 09 (30%) of participants agreed on similarity. In Arabic Braille <t̪ˁ> is written dots 2 3 4
5 6. In plosive velar, the grapheme voiceless <k> dots 1 3, 26 (86.7%) agreed on sameness. In plosive velar
voiced <g>, 20 (66.7%) of participants agreed on difference in pronunciation and in writing in both Arabic
and Somali. In North Africa, especially Sudan the grapheme <g> is used in spoken Arabic language. Thus the
reason as to why 10 (33.3%) of participants agreed on similarity. In Arabic Braille the grapheme <g> does not
57
exist. In plosive ovular, the grapheme <q> dots 1 2 3 4 5, 17 (56.7%) of participants agreed on similarity. The
affricate palato-alveolar, the grapheme <j> dots 2 4 5, 25 (83.3%) of participants agreed on sameness in
pronunciation and written.
In nasal bilabial, the grapheme <m> dots 1 3 4, 28 (93.3%) and alveolar <n> dots 1 3 4 5, 27 (90%) of
participants agreed on similarity on pronunciation and writing in Arabic and Somali. The lateral alveolar,
grapheme <l> dots 1 2 3, 28 (93.3%) and the rolled alveolar, grapheme <r> dots 1 2 3 5, 30 (100%) of
participants agreed on the sameness in pronunciation and writing in Arabic and Somali. In fricative labiodental, grapheme <f> 1 2 4, 26 (86.7%) and alveolar <s> dots 2 3 4, 27(90%) of participants agreed on the
similarity in pronunciation and in writing. The palato-alveolar <sh> dots 1 4 6, 26 (86.7%) and velar <kh>, 16
(53.3%) of participants agreed on similarity but the sound <kh> is written differently in Arabic as /x/ dots 1 3
4 6. The fricative pharyngeal voiceless <x>, 21(70%) and voiced <c>, 24 (80%) of the participants agreed on
difference in writing in Arabic and Somali. The grapheme <x> and <c> are pronounced the same in Arabic
and Somali but written differently. In Arabic the grapheme <x> is written as /kh/ or [‫ ]ﺥ‬while <c> is written
as /ˁ/ or [‫ ]ع‬which is totally different from Somali writing. In Somali the grapheme <x> is pronounced as
/ha‟a/, the same as <‫ <ﺡ‬or / ḥ / in Arabic. Also the grapheme <c> is pronounced as /ain/ as in Arabic /ˁ/ or [‫]ع‬.
Therefore, in Arabic Braille the grapheme < ‫ <ﺡ‬or / ḥ / is written dots 1 5 6 and <ˁ> or [‫ ]ع‬is dots 1 2 3 5 6.
The fricative glottal, grapheme <h> dots 1 2 5, 23 (76.7%) of participants agreed on similarity. The vowel
glide bilabial <w> dots 2 4 5 6, 26 (86.7%) and palatal <y> dots 2 4, 27 (90%) of participants agreed on
similarity in pronunciation and in writing in Arabic and Somali.
The results obtained were a total score of 472 for similar sounds and 158 for different sounds against a total
score of 630. To get the ratio of similarities and differences of speech sounds of Arabic and Somali, the
obtained scores for similarity (472) and difference (158) were divided against the total scores (630). The ratio
58
obtained were 0.7492063 for similarity and 0.2507937 for different sounds. To get the number of participants
who agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by the total number of participants.
Thus similar sounds, 0.7492063x30 = 22 and different sounds, 0.2507937x30 = 08. That means 22 (73.3%)
participants agreed that Arabic and Somali speech sounds are similar in pronunciation and written; while 08
(26.7%) responded that they are different. The table below shows the distribution of the consonant speech
sounds of Arabic and Somali.
Table 4.5
Distribution of the Consonant Speech Sounds of Arabic and Somali
Ba
Ta
[b]
[t]
Arabic Speech Sound
Total
/Mean
IPA
Same
Different
Symbol
/b/
30
00
30
29
01
30
/t̪/
Deel
[d]
/d̪/
25
05
30
Post-Alveolar
Dha
21
30
Ovular
Palato-Alveolar
Kaaf
Ga
Qaaf
Ja
/t̪ˁ/
/k/
/q/
09
Velar
[ɖ]
[k]
[g]
[q]
[j]
26
11
17
25
04
19
13
05
30
30
30
30
Bilabial
Alveolar
Alveolar
Alveolar
Labio-Dental
Alveolar
Palato-Alveolar
Miin
Nun
Laan
Ra
Fa
Sa
SHiin
[m]
[n]
[l]
[r]
[f]
[s]
28
27
28
30
26
27
26
02
03
02
00
04
03
04
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Velar
KHa
/x/
16
14
30
Pharyngeal
Xa
[ϰ]
[ħ]
/ɦ/
10
20
30
[ʿ]
[h]
[w]
[y]
/ʕ/
/h/
/w/
/y/
06
24
30
23
26
27
472
22
07
04
03
158
08
30
30
30
630
30
Bilabial
Dental
Plosive
Affricate
Nasal
Somali
Speech
Sound
Lateral
Rolled
Fricative
Cayn
Vowel
Glide
Total
Mean
Glottal
Bilabial
Palatal
Ha
Wa
Ya
[ʃ]
/dʒ/
/m/
/n/
/l/
/r/
/f/
/s/
/š/
That means 73% of Somali consonant sounds are shared with Arabic. To get the consonants sounds shared by
Arabic and Somali, we need to divide 73 by 100 and multiplied by 21. We used the number 21 because there
59
are 21 consonants in Somali. The obtained result is 15.3 which is approximately fifteen (15). Therefore,
fifteen (15) consonant Arabic Braille letters can be used to develop Somali Braille.
For the central low vowel, the grapheme <a> dot 1, 22 (73.3%) of participants agreed on similarity in
pronunciation and in writing in Arabic and Somali. In front mid vowel, the grapheme <e>, 30 (100%) of
participants agreed on difference. The grapheme <e> does not exist in Arabic but exists in Somali. In front
high vowel, the grapheme dots 2 4, 22 (73.3%) of the participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation
and in writing. In back mid vowel, the grapheme <o>, 30 (100%) participants agreed on difference in
pronunciation and in writing in Arabic and Somali. The grapheme <o> does not exist in Arabic but exists in
Somali. In back high vowel, the grapheme dots 1 3 5, 24 (80%) of participants agreed on similarity. The
long vowels the grapheme <aa> dots 2 3, 18 (60%) of participants agreed on similarity on Arabic and Somali.
The grapheme <ee>, 30 (100%) of participants agreed on difference in pronunciation and writing. The
grapheme <ee> does not exist in Arabic. The grapheme <ii>, dots 3 5, 17 (56.7%) of participants agreed on
similarity. The grapheme <oo>, 30 (100%) of participants agreed on difference in pronunciation and in
writing in Arabic and Somali. The grapheme <oo> does not exist in Arabic but exists in Somali. The
grapheme <uu> dots 2 3 6, 14 (46.7%) of participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and written in
Arabic and Somali. In Arabic long vowels are referred as „nunain‟.
The results obtained were a total score of 117 for similar sounds and 183 for different sounds against a total
score of 300. To get the ratio of similarities and differences of speech sounds of Arabic and Somali, the
obtained scores for similarity (117) and difference (183) were divided against the total scores (300). The ratio
obtained were 0.39 for similarity and 0.61 for different sounds. To get the number of participants who agreed
and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by the total number of participants. Thus similar
sounds, 0.39 x 10 = 04 and different sounds, 0.61x10 = 06. That means 04 (40%) participants agreed that
60
Arabic and Somali speech sounds are similar in pronunciation and written; while 06 (60%) responded that
they are different. The table below shows the distribution of the vowel speech sounds of Arabic and Somali.
Table 4.6
Distribution of the Vowel Speech Sounds of Arabic and Somali
IPA Symbol
Somali
Short
Vowel
Speech
Sounds
Long
Vowel
A
E
I
O
U
AA
EE
II
OO
UU
[a]
[e]
[i]
[o]
[u]
[aa]
[ee]
[ii]
[oo]
[uu]
/a/
/i/
/u/
/a:/
/i/
/u:/
Total
Mean
Vowel speech Sounds
Same
Different
22
08
00
30
22
08
00
30
24
06
18
12
00
30
17
13
00
30
14
16
117
183
12
18
Total
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
300
30
That means 40% of Somali vowel sounds are shared with Arabic. To get the consonants sounds shared by
Arabic and Somali, we need to divide 40 by 100 and multiplied by 10. We used the number 10 because there
are 10 consonants in Somali. The obtained result is 04 which is approximately four (04). Therefore, four (04)
vowel Arabic Braille letters can be used to develop Somali Braille.
Having identified the fifteen (15) consonants and four (04) vowels, a total of nineteen (19) Arabic Braille
letters can determine the development of Somali Braille.
4.2
Speech sounds, grapheme symbols and Braille letters
To find out the positive and significant similarities among the speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic
and Somali Languages, the theory of null hypothesis was applied. To test this hypothesis, the study used chisquare χ² at 5 per cent level of significance. On the basis of this hypothesis, the expected frequency
corresponding to the number of participants who agreed and disagreed in speech sounds, grapheme symbols
61
and Braille letters would be: Expectation of (AB) = (A) x (B).
N
To find out whether the speech sound, grapheme symbols and Braille letters supports the hypothesis, the final mean
scores of the sameness and differences was compared to get the degree at which the speech sounds, grapheme symbols
and Braille letters and Somali print form Somali Braille letters. Then the value of χ², degree of freedom and percentage
of level of significance was calculated and finally compared with table value of χ².
4.2.1
Similarities between the speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Languages.
The result obtained was a total score of English 497, Kiswahili 699 and Arabic 589 for similarity in sounds
and English 433, Kiswahili 231 and Arabic 341 for difference against a grand total score of 2790. To get the
ratio of similarities and differences of speech sounds of English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali; the
obtained scores for similarity, English 497, Kiswahili 699 and Arabic 589 and scores for difference, English
433, Kiswahili 231 and Arabic 341 were divided against the total scores 2790. The ratio obtained were
English 0.1781362, Kiswahili 0.2505376 and Arabic 0.2111111 for similarity and English 0.1551971,
Kiswahili 0.0827957 and Arabic 0.1222222 for difference. To get the number of participants who agreed and
disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by the total number of participants. Thus similar,
English 0.1781362 x 90 = 16, Kiswahili 0.2505376 x 90 = 23 and Arabic 0.2111111 x 90 = 19 and different
Speech Sounds. The table below shows the distribution of speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and
Somali Languages.
Table 4.7
Distribution of Speech Sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Languages
English
Somali
Total
Same
Different
Other languages
Total
Kiswahili
Arabic
16
23
19
14
07
11
30
30
30
58
32
90
The research hypothesis states that there are positive and significant similarities among the speech sounds of
English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Languages. To test this hypothesis, the researcher used chi-square χ² at
62
5 per cent level of significance. On the basis of this hypothesis, the expected frequency corresponding to the
number of participants who agreed and disagreed in speech sounds would be: Expectation of (AB) = (A) x (B)
N
Similar speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (A).
(i) English and Somali group = 58 x 30 = 19
90
(ii) English and Somali group = 58 x 30 = 19
90
(iii)English and Somali group = 58 x 30 = 19
90
Different speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (B).
(iv) English and Somali group = 32 x 30 = 11
90
(v) English and Somali group = 32 x 30 = 11
90
(vi) English and Somali group = 32 x 30 = 11
90
Group
𝓳
Observed Frequency
O𝓲𝓳
Expected Frequency (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳) (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳)² (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳)²/ E𝓲𝓳
E𝓲𝓳
Eng/Som
16
19
-3
9
Kis/Som
22
19
3
9
Arab/Som
19
19
0
0
Different speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (B).
Eng/Som
14
11
3
9
Kis/Som
08
11
-3
9
Arab/Som
11
11
0
0
9/19 = 0.474
9/19 = 0.474
0/19 = 0.000
9/11 = 0.818
9/11 = 0.818
0/19 = 0.000
63
The calculated values was χ² =
∵
= 0.474 + 0.474 + 0.0 + 0.818 + 0.818 + 0.0 = 2.584.
Degree of freedom in this case = (c – 1) (r – 1) = (3-1) (2-1) = 2
d.f = 2.
Table value of χ² for 2 degrees of freedom at 5 per cent level of significance is 5.991. The result shows that
the calculated value of χ² is much lower than the table and hence the experiment supports the null hypothesis.
These findings supports the view held by Blevins (2006), that in linguistic analysis, the main speech sounds
are plosive or stops, fricative, resonants, flaps and trills. Therefore, the research concludes that the experiment
supports the null hypothesis and the hypothesis confirms that there are positive and significant similarities
among the speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali.
4.2.2 Similarities between the Grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages.
The result obtained was a total score of English 690, Kiswahili 810 and Arabic 720 for similarity in
grapheme symbols and English 240, Kiswahili 120 and Arabic 210 for difference against a grand total score
of 2790. To get the ratio of similarities and differences of grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili and Arabic
and Somali; the obtained scores for similarity, English 690, Kiswahili 810 and Arabic 720 and scores for
difference, English 240, Kiswahili 120 and Arabic 210 were divided against the total scores 2790. The ratio
obtained were English 0.2473119, Kiswahili 0.2903226 and Arabic 0.2580645 for similarity and English
0.0860215, Kiswahili 0.0430108 and Arabic 0.0752688 for difference. To get the number of participants who
agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained was multiplied by the total number of participants. Thus
similar, English 0.2473119 x 90 = 22, Kiswahili 0.2903226 x 90 = 26 and Arabic 0.2580645 x 90 = 23 for
similarity and English 0.0860215 x 90 = 08, Kiswahili 0.0430108 x 90 = 04 and Arabic 0.0752688 x 90 = 07.
That means English 22 (24.4%), Kiswahili 26 (28.9%) and Arabic 23 (25.6%) of the participants agreed on
similarity, while English 08 (8.9%), Kiswahili 04 (4.4%) and Arabic 07 (7.8%) disagreed on grapheme
symbols of other languages and Somali.
64
These findings supports the view held by Blevins (2006), that in linguistic analysis, the main speech sounds
are plosive or stops, fricative, resonants, flaps and trills. The table below shows the result of the grapheme
symbols of English and Somali by similarities and differences.
Table 4.8
Distribution of Grapheme Symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali
English
Somali
Total
Same
Different
Other languages
Kiswahili
Arabic
22
26
08
04
30
30
Total
23
07
30
71
19
90
The research hypothesis states that there are positive and significant similarities among the grapheme symbols
of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Languages. To test this hypothesis, the researcher used chi-square χ²
at 5 per cent level of significance. On the basis of this hypothesis, the expected frequency corresponding to
the number of participants who agreed and disagreed in grapheme symbols would be:
Expectation of (AB) = (A) x (B)
N
Similar grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (A).
90
(ii) English and Somali group = 71 x 30 = 24
90
(iii)English and Somali group = 71 x 30 = 24
90
Different grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (B).
90
65
90
90
Group Observed Frequency Expected Frequency (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳) (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳)² (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳)²/ E𝓲𝓳
𝓳
O𝓲𝓳
E𝓲𝓳
Similar grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (A).
Eng/Som
22
24
-2
4
4/24 = 0.167
Kis/Som
26
24
2
4
4/24 = 0.167
Arab/Som
23
24
-1
1
1/24 = 0.042
Different grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages (B).
Eng/Som
08
06
2
4
4/06 = 0.667
Kis/Som
04
06
-2
4
4/06 = 0.667
Arab/Som
07
06
1
1
1/06 = 0.167
= 0.167 + 0.167 + (0.0 + 0.818 + 0.818 + 0.0) not done) =
2.584.
∵
d.f = 2.
Table value of χ² for 2 degrees of freedom at 5 per cent level of significance is 5.991. The calculated value of
χ² is much lower than the table and hence the experiment supports the null hypothesis. Therefore, the result
concludes that the experiment supports the null hypothesis and the hypothesis confirms that there are positive
and significant similarities among the grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali.
4.2.3 Similarities between the Braille letters of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Print.
The result obtained was a total score of English 720, Kiswahili 810 and Arabic 720 for similarity in Braille
letters and English 210, Kiswahili 120 and Arabic 210 for difference against a grand total score of 2790. To
get the ratio of similarities and differences of Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic and Somali
66
print; the obtained scores for similarity, English 720, Kiswahili 810 and Arabic 720 and scores for difference,
English 210, Kiswahili 120 and Arabic 210 were divided against the total scores 2790. The ratio obtained
were English 0.2580645, Kiswahili 0.2903226 and Arabic 0.2580645 for similarity and English 0.0752688,
Kiswahili 0.0430108 and Arabic 0.0752688 for difference. To get the number of participants who agreed and
English 0.2580645 x 90 = 23, Kiswahili 0.2903226 x 90 = 26 and Arabic 0.2580645 x 90 = 23 for similarity
and English 0.0752688 x 90 = 7, Kiswahili 0.0430108 x 90 = 4 and Arabic 0.0752688 x 90 = 7. That means
English 23 (25.6%), Kiswahili 26 (28.9%) and Arabic 23 (25.6%) of the participants agreed on similarity,
while English 07 (7.8%), Kiswahili 04 (4.4%) and Arabic 07 (7.8%) disagreed on Braille letters of other
languages and Somali print. The table below shows the result of the Braille letters of English and Somali print
by similarities and differences.
Table 4.9 Distribution of Braille letters and Somali print.
English
Somali
Same
Different
Total
Other languages
Kiswahili
Arabic
23
26
07
04
30
30
Total
23
07
30
72
18
90
The research hypothesis states that there are positive and significant similarities among the Braille letters of
English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Languages. To test this hypothesis, the researcher used chi-square χ² at
5 per cent level of significance. On the basis of this hypothesis, the expected frequency corresponding to the
number of participants who agreed and disagreed in Braille letters sounds would be:
Expectation of (AB) = (A) x (B)
N
90
67
(ii) Kiswahili and Somali group = 72 x 30 = 24
90
(iii) Arabic and Somali group = 72 x 30 = 24
90
Different braille letters of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali print (B).
90
90
90
Group
𝓳
Observed Frequency
O𝓲𝓳
Expected Frequency (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳) (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳)² (O𝓲𝓳 – E𝓲𝓳)²/ E𝓲𝓳
E𝓲𝓳
Similar Braille letters of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Print (A).
Eng/Som
23
24
-1
1
Kis/Som
26
24
2
4
Arab/Som
23
24
-1
1
Different Braille letters of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali Print (B).
Eng/Som
07
06
1
1
Kis/Som
04
06
-2
4
Arab/Som
07
06
1
1
∵
1/24 = 0.042
4/24 = 0.167
1/24 = 0.042
1/6 = 0.167
4/6 = 0.667
1/6 = 0.167
= 0.042 + 0.167 + 0.042 + 0.167 + 0.667 + 0.167 = 1.252
d.f = 2.
Table value of χ² for 2 degrees of freedom at 5 per cent level of significance is 5.991. The calculated value of
χ² is much lower than the table and hence the experiment supports the null hypothesis. Therefore, the result
concludes that the experiment supports the null hypothesis and the hypothesis confirms that there are positive
and significant similarities among the Braille letters of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali print. These
68
finding supports the view of Pierce (2006), who emphasized that the basic alphabetical characteristic of a
language depends on how one can read or write a foreign language.
4.2.4
Relationship between Braille Code and Somali print in developing Somali Braille.
In interpreting the data and measuring the relationship of Braille codes and Somali print, Yule‟s coefficient of
association was used to find out whether the attributes were associated with each other or not. For easy
calculation, the contingency table was reduced to 2x2 by combining some groups. For example, the mean
score for English Braille/Somali print (B1S1) and Kiswahili Braille/Somali print (B2S1) were added together
to form one group of “sameness” of Braille code and Somali print (B). The mean score for similar Arabic
Braille/Somali print (B3S1) to form second group of “sameness” of Braille code and Somali print (b).
Similarly, the mean score for differences of English Braille/Somali print (B1S2) and Kiswahili Braille/Somali
print (B2S2) were added to form one class of “difference” of Braille code and Somali print(S). Then the mean
score of Arabic Braille/Somali print (B3S2) to form second group of “difference” of Braille code and Somali
print (s). The letters showing “B&b” refer to “sameness” in Braille code/Somali print and the letters showing
“S&s” refer to “difference” in Braille code/Somali print. The table below shows the distribution of the
obtained mean scores of Braille code and Somali print.
Table 4.10
Distribution of Combined Mean Scores of Braille Code and Somali print.
B
Somali (S)
S
s
Total (mean)
Braille (B)
b
38
22
60
Total (mean)
19
11
30
57
33
90
In order to find out the degree or intensity of association between the Braille code (B) and Somali print (S),
Yule‟s coefficient of association formula was applied:
Qbs = (BS) (bs) – (Bs) (bS) = 38x11 – 22x19 = 418 – 418 = 0 = 0
(BS) (bs) – (Bs) (bS) = 38x11 – 22x19 = 418 – 418 = 0
69
Where,
Qbs = Yule‟s coefficient of association between attributes Braille code and Somali
Print = 01
(BS) = Frequency of class BS (Somali Braille) in which both Braille code and
Somali Print were present = 38
(Bs) = Frequency of class Bs (Somali Braille) in which Braille code was present
And Somali print was absent = 22
(bS) = Frequency of class bS (Somali Braille) in which Braille code was absent
and Somali print was present = 19
(bs) = Frequency of class bs (Somali Braille) in which both Braille code and Somali
print were Absent = 11
In this study, the value of this coefficient of association between Braille codes (B) and Somali print (S) was 0.
That means the class frequency of Braille codes (B) and Somali print (S) were greater than the expectation of
Somali Braille (BS). That indicates that the Braille code and Somali print were completely associated with
each other. Therefore, the two attributes had perfect positive relationship or association with each other.
Hence, this finding supports the view of Kothari (2008) that Yule‟s coefficient of association helps to find out
whether the attributes are associated with each other or not.
4.3
Implications of the findings for the Development of a Somali Braille.
In finding out the similarity and difference of speech sounds of English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille in
relation to Somali print; the following results were obtained. In plosive bilabial, English 29 (32.2%),
Kiswahili 30 (33.3%) and Arabic 30 (33.3%) participants agreed that the grapheme is pronounced and
written in the same way. A total of 89 (98.9%) of participants agreed on the similarity and 01 (1.1%)
disagreed. This fact supports RNIB (2006), that the Braille plosive bi-labial voiced is dots 1 2. That
means the phonetic structure of Standard Braille in English, Kiswahili and Arabic adopted the same Braille
70
dots for the Braille letter . That confirms the Somali print and Braille code for the speech sound of plosive
bi-labial is the same letter. In plosive dental, voiceless <t>, English 26 (28.9%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%)
and Arabic 29 (32.2%), a total of 83 (92.2%) of participants agreed on similarity and difference 07 (7.8%).
This fact supports Murchie (2006) who stated that the voiceless dental nasal sound /t̪/, is dots 2 3 4 5. The
English and Kiswahili phoneticians describe it as the plosive alveolar or tenuis stop alveolar <t> dots 2 3 4 5.
The fact that the pattern of pronunciation is different as per the point of articulation, the written aspect can be
the same.
For the plosive dental voiced <d>, English 26 (28.9%), Kiswahili 26 (28.9%) and Arabic 28 (31.1%); total 80
(88.9%) of participants agreed to be pronounced and written in the same way in English, Kiswahili, Arabic
and Somali. The number of participants disagreed were 10 (11.1%). The researcher noted that the Somali
orthographic <d> which is described as dental plosive /d̪/, is shared with Arabic as voiced dental stop <d̪>,
dot 1 4 5. The English and Kiswahili phoneticians describe it as the plosive alveolar or implosive stop
alveolar <d> dots 1 4 5. That means that the same Braille letter can be used by all languages. In plosive postalveolar, the grapheme <dh> or /ɖ/, English 30 (33.3%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) and Arabic 18 (20%); total 76
(84.4%) agreed on difference and 14 (15.6%) agreed on similarity in pronunciation and written. This fact
supports Saeed (1999); who described the orthographic <dh> represent a voiced apico-postalveolar retroflex
implosive referred to as retroflex plosive /ɖ/. This speech sound consists of two letters (d and h). In English
phonetics, this speech sound is diphthong, meaning a clustered letters. The English language adopted it as
plosive retroflex voiced /ɖ/ dots 2 5 6, dots 1 4 5, with two Braille cells. In Kiswahili, the speech sound of
retroflex plosive /ɖ/ does not exist but the grapheme symbol <dh> exists as voiced dental fricative referred to
as /ð/ dots 2 3 4 6. In Arabic, the Somali grapheme symbol <dh> shares the same speech sound as voiceless
71
alveolar nasal but the grapheme symbol is written as <ṭ> or /t̪ˁ/ dots 2 3 4 5 6 which is totally different in
written format. Therefore, the researcher noted that there is no definite single Braille cell that has been
identified as retroflex plosive /ɖ/. In plosive velar, the grapheme voiceless <k>, English 27 (30%), Kiswahili
27 (30%) and Arabic 28 (31.1%); total 82 (91.1%) of participants agreed on similarity and 08 (8.9%)
disagreed. The researcher there is similarity between Braille code and Somali print.
For the plosive velar voiced <g>, English 25 (27.8%), Kiswahili 27 (30%) and Arabic 05 (5.6%); total 57
(63.3%) of participants agreed on similarity in pronunciation and written, while 33 (36.7%) disagreed. The
researcher noted that the Somali shared with English and Kiswahili the plosive velar of voiced <g> dots 1 2 4
5. In Arabic, the speech sound for Somali <g> does not exist but the Arabic voiced velar fricative <ġ> or /ɣ/
or [gh] uses dots 1 2 6. Although the speech sound of grapheme <g> is used in Sudan and North Africa
region, it is not part of Arabic letters of Alphabet. In plosive ovular, the grapheme <q>, English 18 (20%),
Kiswahili 02 (2.2%) and Arabic 24 (26.7%); total 44 (48.9%) of participants disagreed on similarity and 46
(51.1%) agreed. This speech sound is shared with Arabic as voiceless uvular nasal <q> dots 1 2 3 4 5. In
English, the speech sound is referred to as plosive uvular of voiceless <q> dots 1 2 3 4 5. In Kiswahili, there is
no speech sound for <q> but the KIE (1997) adopted it as special sign for the sound /kw/, dots 1 2 3 4 5. In
affricate palato-alveolar, the grapheme <j>, English 28 (31.1%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 28
(31.1%); total 85 (94.4%) of participants agreed on sameness, while 05 (5.6%) disagreed. The researcher
noted that this speech sound is shared with English, Kiswahili and Arabic as palatal voiced sound <j> dots 2 4
5.
For the nasal bilabial, the grapheme <m>, English 29 (32.2%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 29 (32.2%);
total 87 (96.7%) of participants agreed on sameness in pronunciation and written, while 03 (3.3%) disagreed.
72
The researcher noted that English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille share the bilabial nasal <m> as dots 1 3 4. In
nasal alveolar <n>, English 29 (32.2%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 29 (32.2%); total 87 (96.7%) of
participants agreed on sameness in pronunciation and in writing, while 03 (3.3%) disagreed. The researcher
noted that the Braille letters for English, Kiswahili and Arabic share alveolar nasal voiced <n> as dots 1 3 4 5.
The lateral alveolar, grapheme <l>, English 28 (31.1%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) and Arabic 29 (32.2%); total
85 (94.4%) of participants agreed on the sameness in pronunciation and in writing, while 05 (5.6%) disagreed.
The researcher noted that English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille share the lateral approximant alveolar or post
alveolar <l> as dots 1 2 3. The rolled alveolar, grapheme <r>, English 27 (30%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and
Arabic 30 (33.3%); total 86 (95.6%) of participants agreed on similarity, while 04 (4.4%) disagreed. The
researcher observed that the Braille letters for English, Kiswahili and Arabic share trill alveolar or post
alveolar voiced <r> as dots 1 2 3 5. In fricative labio-dental, grapheme <f>, English 27 (30%), Kiswahili 30
(33.3%) and Arabic 28 (31.1%); total 85 (94.4%) of participants agreed on similarity, while 05 (5.6%)
disagreed. The researcher noted that the English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille share the same Braille dots for
fricative labio-dental voiceless /f/ dots 1 2 4.
For the fricative alveolar <s>, English 28 (31.1%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) and Arabic 29 (32.2%); total 85
(94.4%) of participants agreed on the sameness in pronunciation and writing, while 05 (5.6%) disagreed. The
researcher noted that this speech sound <s>, dots 2 3 4 is shared with English, Kiswahili and Arabic. The
fricative palato-alveolar <sh>, English 18 (20%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 28 (31.1%); 75 (83.3%) of
the participants agreed on similarity and 15 (16.7%) disagreed. The researcher noted that Somali shared the
speech sound with Kiswahili and Arabic as fricative palatal alveolar voiceless <sh> or /ʃ/ dots 1 5 6. In
English and Kiswahili Braille, the special sign <sh> is used as contraction. In fricative velar <kh>, English 28
(31.1%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 07 (7.8%); total 64 (71.1%) of participants disagreed on similarity;
while 26 (28.9%) agreed. This fact supports the ICEB (2008), that adopted Braille sign for fricative ovular
73
voiceless <kh> or /ϰ/ as dots 3 5, dots 1 3 4 6 with two Braille cells. In Kiswahili Braille, the voiceless velar
fricative <kh> does not exist as Kiswahili Braille sign. In Arabic Braille the voiceless velar stop <kh> referred
to as /x/ dots 1 3 4 6 is the guttural [ch] as in the Scottish “loch‟. The researcher noted that there is no definite
single Braille cell that has been identified as voiceless velar fricative <kh>. In this case, Somali has to adopt a
Braille letter for the speech sound /kh/.
The fricative pharyngeal voiceless <x>, English 12 (13.3%), Kiswahili 30 (33.3%) and Arabic 10 (11.1%);
total 52 (57.8%) of participants disagreed on similarity of patterns of pronunciation and in writing; while 38
(42.2%) agreed. This fact supports The ICEB (2008), that adopted the Braille letters for fricative pharyngeal
voiceless /ħ/ as dots 2 3 5, dots 1 2 5 with two Braille cells. In English Braille, the researcher noted that the
Somali orthographic <x> represents the fricative velar voiceless <x> dots 1 3 4 6 but not the speech sound for
pharyngeal fricative /ħ/. In Kiswahili, the speech sound of pharyngeal fricative /ħ/ does not exist but KIE
(1997) adopted the Somali orthographic <x> as special signs to represent the presanalized bilabial stop sound
/mb/, dots 1 3 4 6. In his book, Arabic Braille, Murchie (2006) adopted the voiceless pharyngeal stop <ḥ> or
/ħ/ as dots 1 5 6. The researcher noted that Somali and Arabic share the pattern of pronunciation for
pharyngeal fricative /ħ/, but written differently in grapheme symbols. Hence, the Somali and Arabic cannot
share the same Braille dots for pharyngeal fricative /ħ/. So Somali has to adopt its own Braille letter for the
speech sound /ħ/ as dots 1 3 4 5 to represent its grapheme symbol <x>.
The fricative pharyngeal voiced <c>, English 15 (16.7%), Kiswahili 27 (30%) and Arabic 27 (30%); total 69
(76.7%) of the participants agreed on difference in pronunciation and written and 21 (23.3%) agreed on
similarity. This facts supports Thelwall (2003), who described the voiceless pharyngeal fricative <ʿ> or /ʕ/ or
[ain] dots 1 2 3 5 6. The researcher noted that Somali and Arabic share the same speech sound, but the written
74
aspect is different, hence cannot share the same Braille dots. Therefore, the researcher feels that the Somali
has to adopt its own Braille letter for the fricative pharyngeal voiced <c> as dots 1 4 to represent its
grapheme symbol. The fricative glottal, grapheme <h>, English 22 (24.4%), Kiswahili 26 (28.9%) and Arabic
27 (30%); total 75 (83.3%) of the participants agreed on similarity and 15 (16.7%) agreed on difference. The
researcher noted that the English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille adopted the fricative glottal voiceless as <h>
as dots 1 2 5. The vowel glide bilabial <w>, English 28 (31.1%), Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 28
(31.1%); total 85 (94.4%) of the participants agreed on similarity and 05 (5.6%) The researcher noted that the
English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille share the median approximant labial-velar <w> as dots 2 4 5 6. The
vowel glide palatal <y>, English 27 (30%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) and Arabic 29 (32.2%); total 84 (93.3%) of
participants agreed on similarity and 06 (6.7%) disagreed. This fact supports ICEB (2008), that adopted the
rounded front vowel sound <y> as dots 1 3 4 5 6 and the Kiswahili and Arabic braillists adopted the palatal
approximant <y> as dots 1 3 4 5 6.
Having analyzed the grapheme symbols and the consonant scores for English was 477, Kiswahili 460 and
Arabic 516 for similarity and difference was English 153, Kiswahili 170 and Arabic 114, , against total score
1890. To get the ratio of similarities of English 477, Kiswahili 460 and Arabic 516, were divided against the
total score of 1890. The ratio obtained for similarities was English 0.2523810, Kiswahili 0.2433862 and
Arabic 0.2730159. The ratio obtained for differences was English 0.0809524, Kiswahili 0.0899471 and
Arabic 0.0603174. To get the number of participants who agreed and disagreed, each ratio of score obtained
was multiplied by the total number of participants. Thus similar, English 0.2523810x90 = 23, Kiswahili
0.2433862x90 = 22 and Arabic 0.2730159x90 = 25. The difference, English 0.0809524x90 = 07, Kiswahili
0.0899471x90 = 08 and Arabic 0.0603174x90 = 05. That means English 23 (25.6%), Kiswahili 22 (24.4%)
and Arabic 25 (27.8%) of participants agreed that the grapheme symbols and speech sounds are similar in
pronunciation and written; while English 07 (7.8%), Kiswahili 08 (8.9%) and Arabic 05 (5.6%) disagreed.
The result reveals that the Arabic language contributes the highest consonants Braille letters in determining
75
Somali Braille. The table below shows the distribution of the result of Braille letters and Somali print by
similarities and differences in consonants.
Table 4.11 Distribution of Consonant Braille letters and Somali print.
Bilabial
Dental
Plosive
PostAlveolar
Velar
Somali
Print
Affricate
Nasal
Lateral
Rolled
Fricative
Vowel
Glide
Total
Mean
Ovular
PalatoAlveolar
Bilabial
Alveolar
Alveolar
Alveolar
LabioDental
Alveolar
PalatoAlveolar
Velar
Braille Letters
Total
English
Kiswahili
Arabic
Same Different Same Different same Different
29
01
30
00
30
00
90
26
04
28
02
29
01
90
26
04
26
04
28
02
90
00
30
02
28
12
18
90
Ba
Ta
Deel
Dha
[b]
[t]
[d]
Kaaf
Ga
Qaaf
Ja
[k]
[g]
[q]
[j]
27
25
18
28
03
05
12
02
27
27
02
29
03
03
28
01
28
05
24
28
02
25
06
02
90
90
90
90
Miin
Nun
Laan
Ra
Fa
[m]
[n]
[l]
[r]
[f]
29
29
28
27
27
01
01
02
03
03
29
29
28
29
30
01
01
02
01
00
29
29
29
30
28
01
01
01
00
02
90
90
90
90
90
Sa
SHii
n
KHa
[s]
28
18
02
12
28
29
02
01
29
28
01
02
90
90
02
28
01
29
23
07
90
18
15
12
15
00
03
30
27
20
03
10
27
90
90
22
28
27
477
23
08
02
03
153
07
26
29
28
460
22
04
01
02
170
08
27
28
29
516
25
03
02
01
114
05
90
90
90
1890
90
Pharyngea
l
Xa
Cayn
Glottal
Bilabial
Palatal
Ha
Wa
Ya
[ɖ]
[ʃ]
[ϰ]
[ħ]
[ʢ]
[h]
[w]
[y]
For the central low vowel, the grapheme <a>, English 28 (31.1%), Kiswahili 27 (30%) and Arabic 26
(28.9%); total 81 (90%) of participants agreed on similarity and 09 (10)%) disagreed in pronunciation and
writing. This fact supports ICEB (2008), who identified the short unrounded front sound /a/ is dot 1. The
Kiswahili and Arabic Braille adopted the same. In front mid vowel, the grapheme <e>, English 28 (31.1%)
and Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) of participants agreed on similarity while Arabic 30 (33.3%) disagreed. This fact
76
supports Crystal (2005), who explains that unrounded front sound /e/ dots 1 5, is made by the front of the
tongue raised half open and lips spread. In Kiswahili Braille, KIE (1997), adopted the lax high rounded back
vowel /e/ as dots 1 5 and the researcher noted that this vowel does not exist in Arabic. In front high vowel, the
grapheme , English 26 (28.9%), Kiswahili 27 (30%) and Arabic 26 (28.9%); total 79 (87.8%) of the
participants agreed on similarity and 11 (12.2%) disagreed in pronunciation and writing. This fact supports
KIE (1997), that the Kiswahili short vowel /i/ dots 2 4 represent a high unrounded front vowel. In English, the
unrounded front vowel sound /i/ dots 2 4, is produced by the front of tongue raised towards hard palate,
tongue raised to half position and lips spread to neutral. In Arabic, it is referred to as kasra sound /i/ dots 1 5
and similar acoustically.
For the back mid vowel, the grapheme <o>, English 29 (32.2%) and Kiswahili 29 (32.2%); total 58 (64.4%)
of participants agreed on similarity while Arabic 30 (33.3%) disagreed. This fact supports IPA (1997), that
explained the rounded back vowel sound /o/ dots 1 3 5 produced by the tongue raised at middle position and
lips rounded. In Kiswahili, KIE (1997), adopted the vowel /o/ dots 1 3 5 as mid high rounded back vowel,
while In Arabic Braille some additional vowel sounds were introduced, for example sukuun /o/ dots 2 5. The
difference shown in Arabic confirms that sukuun /o/ dots 2 5 is not a letter of alphabet but diacritic symbol.
In back high vowel, the grapheme , English 27 (30%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) and Arabic 27 (30%), a total
of 82 (91.1%) of participants agreed to be pronounced and written in the same way, while 08 (8.9%)
disagreed. This fact supports ICEB (2008), that adopted the rounded back vowel sound /u/ dots 1 3 6, as a
rounded back vowel, made by the back of the tongue raised to close position and lips close rounded.
According to KIE (1997), the vowel /u/ dots 1 3 6 was regarded as tense high rounded back vowel, while in
Arabic, Murchie (2006) adopted that the short vowels dhamma sound /u/ dots 1 3 6.
The long vowels the grapheme <aa>, English 30 (33.3%) agreed on difference while Kiswahili 27 (25.5%)
and Arabic 24 (20%); total 51 (56.7%) agreed on similarity. This fact supports KIE (1997), which states that
77
the double /aa/ dots 3 4 5 as low back vowel. In Arabic, Murchie (2006) adopted the long vowel - fathatain
sound /ä/ dots 2 3. The researcher noted that Somali shares the double /aa/ with Kiswahili but differ with
Arabic in written format because they are not letters of alphabet but diacritics symbols. The grapheme <ee>,
English 30 (33.3%) and Arabic 30 (33.3%); total 60 (66.7%) agreed on difference while Kiswahili 28 (31.1%)
agreed on similarity. This fact supports KIE (1997), which explains that the double vowel /ee/ dots 2 6,
assumes the mid unrounded front and the researcher noted this vowel does not exist in Arabic.
The grapheme <ii>, 30 (33.3%) of participants agreed on difference while Kiswahili 27 (30%) and Arabic 24
(26.7%); total 51(56.7%) agreed on similarity. This fact supports KIE (1997), that regards the double /ii/ dots
3 5 as lax high unrounded vowel. In Arabic, it is referred to as kasratain sound /ï/ dots 3 5. The researcher
noted that the Somali long vowel /ii/ are shared with Kiswahili and Arabic. The grapheme <oo>, English 30
(33.3%) and Arabic 30 (33.3%) of participants agreed on difference while Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) agreed on
similarity. This fact supports KIE (1997), which adopted the vowel double /oo/ dots 2 4 6, as mid rounded
back vowel. The researcher noted that Somali shares the long vowel with Kiswahili. The grapheme <uu>,
English 30 (33.3%) of participants agreed on difference while Kiswahili 29 (32.2%) and Arabic 22 (24.4%);
total 51 (56.7%) agreed on similarity. This facts supports KIE (1997), that regards the vowel double /uu/ dots
1 2 5 6, as lax high rounded back vowel. In Arabic, Murchie (2006) adopted that the long vowel dhammatain sound /ü/ dots 2 6. The researcher noted that Somali shares long vowel with Kiswahili and
Arabic but in Braille the long vowel is written differently in Arabic because it is not a letter of alphabet but
diacritic symbol.
Having analyzed the grapheme symbols and the vowel scores for English was 138, Kiswahili 279 and Arabic
149 for similarity and difference was English 162, Kiswahili 21 and Arabic 151, , against total score 900. To
get the ratio of similarities of English 138, Kiswahili 279 and Arabic 149 and differences , of English 162,
Kiswahili 21 and Arabic 151 were divided against the total score of 900. The ratio obtained for similarities
78
was English 0.1533333, Kiswahili 0.31 and Arabic 0.1655556. The ratio obtained for differences was English
0.18, Kiswahili 0.0233333 and Arabic 0.1677778. To get the number of participants who agreed and
English 0.1533333x90=14, Kiswahili 0.31x90=28 and Arabic 0.1655556x90=15. The difference, English
0.18x90=16, Kiswahili 0.0233333x90=02 and Arabic 0.1677778x90 =15.
The table below shows the
distribution of the result of Braille letters and Somali print by similarities and differences in vowel.
Table 4.12 Distribution of Vowel Braille letters and Somali print.
Somali
Short
Vowel
Print
Long
Vowel
Total
Mean
A
E
I
O
U
AA
EE
II
OO
UU
A
E
I
O
U
aa
ee
ii
oo
uu
English
Same Different
28
02
28
02
26
04
29
01
27
03
00
30
00
30
00
30
00
30
00
30
138
162
14
16
Braille Letters
Kiswahili
Same Different
27
03
29
01
27
03
29
01
28
02
27
03
28
02
27
03
28
02
29
01
279
21
28
02
Arabic
Same Different
26
04
00
30
26
04
00
30
27
03
24
06
00
30
24
06
00
30
22
08
149
151
15
15
Total
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
900
90
That means English 14 (15.6%), Kiswahili 28 (31.1%) and Arabic 15 (16.7%) of participants agreed that the
grapheme symbols and vowel sounds are similar in pronunciation and written; while English 16 (17.8%),
Kiswahili 02 (2.2%) and Arabic 15 (16.7%) disagreed. The result reveals that the Kiswahili language
contributes the highest vowel Braille letters in determining Somali Braille .
These finding supports the view of Pierce (2006), who emphasized that the basic alphabetical characteristic of
a language depends on how one can read or write a foreign language. Therefore, these results reveal that there
is a pattern of pronunciation and writing in developing Somali Braille.
79
4.4
Summary
The result obtained was a total score of 2019 (72.4%) for similarity and 771 (27.6%) for difference against a
total of 2790 (100%) score for Braille letters and Somali print. To get the ratio of similarities and differences
of English, Kiswahili and Arabic Braille and Somali print; the obtained scores for similarity 2019 and
difference 771 were divided against the total scores 2790. The ratio obtained were 0.7236559 for similarity
and 0.2763441 for different Braille letters and Somali print. To get the number of participants who agreed and
0.7236559 x 90 = 65 and different, 0.2763441 x 90 = 25. That means 65 (72.2%) of the participants agreed
on similarity, while 25 (27.8%) disagreed on Braille letters and Somali print. It is noted that Braille dots
remain the same, different languages adopted Braille codes according to their phonetic and phonological
structure. That means Kiswahili would contribute the highest Braille letters towards developing Somali
Braille, followed by Arabic and English. Therefore, the research results indicate that any speech sound,
grapheme symbol or Braille letters of Kiswahili, Arabic and English that is shared with Somali should be used
to determine the development of Somali Braille.
80
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.0
Introduction.
In this chapter, the main findings of the study are summarised and conclusions drawn. This helps to address
the major concerns of the first two chapters of this study. Recommendations and areas of further research are
also highlighted.
5.1
Summary of the findings
In identifying the similarity of the speech sounds, Braille letters and grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili
and Arabic in relation to Somali print, the researcher noted as follows: In plosive sounds, the bilabial dots
1 2; dental voiced <t> dots 1 2 5 6 and voiceless <d> dots 1 4 5; and velar voiced <k> dots 1 3 have similarity
in Braille code and Somali print. The plosive velar voiceless <g> dots 1 2 4 5 exists in English and Kiswahili,
except Arabic. The plosive ovular <q> dots 1 2 4 5 6 exists in English and Arabic, except Kiswahili. The
plosive diphthongs, <dh> or /ɖ/ exists in Arabic but differently read in Kiswahili and does not exists in
English. The diphthong <dh> is written dots 1 2 4 6 in Kiswahili and dots 2 3 4 5 6 in Arabic Braille. The
differences in written Braille are brought about by the differences in pronunciation. This fact was evidenced
by 59.6% of participants who agreed on similarity of pronunciation and in writing in Braille letters and
Somali print.
In affricate sound, the grapheme <j> dots 2 4 5, 85.6% of participants agreed on similarity. The nasal sound,
grapheme <m> dots 1 3 4 and grapheme <n> dots 1 3 4 5, 91.7% of participants agreed on similarity. In
lateral sound, grapheme <l> dots 1 2 3, 87.8%; rolled sound, grapheme <r> dots 1 2 3 5, 91.1% of
participants agreed on similarity in Braille letters and Somali print. In fricative sound, 50.8% of participants
81
agreed on similarity of Braille letters and Somali print. These include grapheme <f> dots 1 2 4, grapheme
<s> dots 2 3 4 and grapheme <h> dots 1 2 5. The diphthong <sh> dots 1 4 6 exists in Kiswahili and Arabic
alphabet, except English alphabet. The diphthong <kh> exists in Arabic but not in English and Kiswahili. The
diphthong <kh> is pronounced the same in Arabic and Somali but written differently. In Arabic the diphthong
<kh> is written as /x/ dots 1 3 4 6 in Arabic Braille. The grapheme <x> is pronounced differently in English
while pronounced the same and written differently in Arabic. In English the grapheme <x> dots 1 3 4 6, is
pronounced as /esk/, Arabic as /kh/ and Somali as /ha‟a/. The grapheme <x> does not exist in Kiswahili
alphabet but exists in Kiswahili Braille and it is pronounced as /mb/. The grapheme <x> is part of Somali
alphabet but adopted for the speech sound /ħ/. That means the grapheme <x> is written the same but
pronounced differently for all languages. In English the grapheme <c> dots 1 4 is pronounced as /si/ and
Arabic and Somali as /ain/. The grapheme <c> is pronounced the same in Arabic and Somali but written
differently. In Arabic Braille the sound <‫ >ع‬or /ain/ is written dots 1 2 3 5 6. The grapheme <c> does not exist
in Kiswahili but exists as sign word for /chai/ in Kiswahili Braille. The word [chai] means tea in Kiswahili
language. In vowel glide, grapheme <w> dots 2 4 5 6 and <y> dots 1 3 4 5 6, 89.7% of participants agreed on
similarity of Braille letters and Somali print.
In short vowels, grapheme <a>, dot 1, dots 2 4 and dots 1 3 6, are similar in Braille code and Somali
print. The grapheme <e> dots 1 5 and <o> dots 1 3 5 exist in English and Kiswahili except Arabic. This fact is
evidenced by 71.8% of participants who agreed on similarity of Braille letters and Somali print. In long
vowel, the grapheme <aa> dots 3 4 5, <ii> dots 3 5 and <uu> dots 1 2 5 6 are similar in Braille letters and
Somali print, except English. The grapheme <ee> dots 2 6, and <oo> dots 2 4 6 exist in Kiswahili, except
English and Arabic. In long vowel sounds, 38.7% of participants agreed on similarity of speech sounds.
Having tested the three hypotheses, the calculated values of χ² were much lower than the table values and
hence the experiment supports the null hypothesis. To determine whether Braille code and Somali print are
associated with each other, the value of Yule‟s coefficient of association between Braille letters and Somali
82
print was found to be positive one (+1). That means relationship exists between Braille code and Somali in
developing Somali Braille.
5.2
Conclusion
In analyzing the research data, the final result showed that there was a positive and significant similarity
among the speech sounds of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali languages. This fact is evidenced by 58
(64.4%) of participants who agreed on similarity of Braille letters and Somali print in pronunciation and
written. In regards to differences among the Braille letters and grapheme symbols of English, Kiswahili and
Arabic in relation to Somali print, 32 (35.6%) of the participants agreed on difference. In testing the
hypothesis HO1, HO2 and HO3, for 2 degrees of freedom at 5 per cent level of significance, the calculated
table was found to be much lower than the table value and hence the result of the experiment supports the null
hypothesis and confirms that the Braille letters and Somali print are independent variables. Therefore, the test
of validity using Chi-square concludes that the Braille letters and Somali print have similarities in developing
Somali Braille. That means some Braille letters do not exist in Somali print or are pronounced or written
differently. In determining the three existing Braille letters of English, Kiswahili and Arabic in developing
Somali Braille, the researcher used Yule‟s coefficient of association. Yule‟s coefficient of association value
between Braille letters and Somali print was found to be +1. That indicated that the class frequency of Braille
letters and Somali print was greater than the expectation of Somali Braille. That means the Braille letters and
Somali print were completely associated with each other and both had perfect positive relationship or
association with each other. Therefore, this study reveals that there is pattern of pronunciation and writing in
developing Somali Braille.
5.3
Recommendations
Since Standard Somali Braille does not exist, yet the coding of Braille into foreign languages depends on
pattern of pronunciation and sound coding of the letters, this research found out that 58 (64.4%) of
83
participants agreed on similarities of Braille letters and Somali print in pronunciation and written. This
implies that the existing Braille letters for English, Kiswahili and Arabic can be used to develop Somali
Braille. In order to realize the development of Somali Braille, this research work could be considered as a blue
print.
Evidently, Braille materials appear to be bulky unless some words are shortened through use of contractions
and word signs. This research work did not discuss the contraction of Somali Braille as it was based on
pattern of pronunciation and in writing, hence the need for research in Somali Braille contraction since a
portion of Standard Somali Braille was missing.
The major challenge facing Somalis is the education of the blind when the medium of instruction is Somali.
This implies that the totally blind Somali Community does not have the special skill of reading and writing in
Somali Braille. The absence of this Braille letters with accompanying skills have made Somali people who are
totally blind to remain illiterate since they cannot read and write their own language, when Somali language
is used as the medium of instruction. In this context, the governments, Non-Governmental Organizations, well
wishers and the International community should make an effort to come up with a strategy of developing
Somali Braille letters to serve the Somalis who are blind.
Currently, there are no schools and rehabilitation centres for the Somalis with visual impairment who are
using Somali language as a medium of instruction. There is therefore need to establish a Somali Braille centre
for the development of Standard Somali Braille. The centre would be used for training and producing Somali
Braille products for schools and rehabilitation centres.
In most cases, phoneticians deal with one language in analysing its phonetics and phonological structures and
forget comparing various languages. At the moment, the comparison of phonetics and phonological structure
84
of English, Kiswahili, Arabic and Somali has not been done. That means there is no proper harmonization of
Braille letters used in various languages due to their variety in pronunciation and writing. In this respect,
further research is highly recommended in the modification of the existing Braille letters that is acceptable to
all languages.
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bateson, M. C. (2003). Arabic Language Handbook. Georgetown University Press.
Blevins, J. (2006). New perspectives on English sound patterns: “natural and unnatural in evolutionary
phonology”. Journal of English Linguistics 34: 6–25.
Crystal, D. (2005). A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics (Fifth Edition). Maldern, MA/Oxford:
Blackwell, p. 494.
Doses of Hope Foundation (2010). Blind and Visually Impaired Rights Adviser. Hargeisa, Somaliland.
Duan, Y; Cruz C. (2011), Formalizing Semantic of Natural Language through Conceptualization from
Existence. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology(2011) 2 (1), pp. 37-42.
Holnneybusch, T. J. (2010). “Swahili”, International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford, pp. 99-106.
International Council on English Braille (2008). IPA Braille: Updated Tactile Representation of the
International Phonetic Alphabet. Edited by Robert Englebretson, published by CNIB. Kimbrough P.,
(2005), How Braille began, in The Braille Monitor, V.47, N.1, Published by the National Federation of
the Blind, Baltimore.
Kombo, D.K; Tromp, D.L.A. (2006). Proposal and Thesis Writing. Paulines publicationAfrica,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Kothari, C.R. (2008). Research methodology-Methods and techniques. New Age International
(P) Limited, Publishers. New Delhi, India.
Kenya Institute of Education. (1997), Kiswahili Prima. Kenyatta Foundation, Nairobi. Ladefoged, P. (2006).
A Course in Phonetics (Fifth Edition). Boston, MA: Thomson
Wadsworth, p. 189.
Maddieson, I. (2008). Absence of Common Consonants. In: Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer, Matthew S.
& Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck
Digital Library, chapter 18. Available online at http://wals.info/feature/18. Accessed on 2008-09-15.
Mellor, C. M. (2006). Louis Braille: A Touch of Genius. National Braille Press. ISBN 0939173700.
Mitani, S., Kitama, T., & Sato, Y. (2006). Voiceless affricate/fricative distinction by frication
duration and amplitude rise slope. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120 (3),
1600-1607.
Murchie, H. A. (2006). Arabic Braille, Madrassa An-Noor, Willowton, South Africa.
Orodho A. J. (2005). Techniques of Writing Research Proposal and Report in Education and
Social Sciences, Kanezja Hp Enterprises, Nairobi, Kenya.
Orwin, M. (2006). “Somalia: Language Situation”. In Keith Brown, ed., The Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.)
Pierce, B. (2006). Literary Braille Competency Test: New partnerships, new possibilities. Braille
Monitor, 49(1). Retrieved from http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm06/bm0601/bm060109.htm
Progressio (2010). Blind and Visually Impaired Rights Adviser. Hargeisa, Somaliland.
Reynold, C.R., Elaine F. J. (2007). Encyclopedia of Special Education: A-D. John Wiley and
Sons. P. 318. ISBN 978-0-471-67798-7.
Royal National Institute of the Blind (2006). RNIB position on Unified English Braille, RNIB,
London.
Saeed, J. I. (1999). Somali. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, B.V.
Simpson A. (2008). Language and National Identity in Africa, (Oxford University Press), p.288
Sullivan, J. (2008). Early history of Braille translators and embossers. Westford, MA: Duxbury
86
Systems. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://www.duxburysystems.com/bthist.asp
United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (2009). Proceedings of “Braille 1809-2009:
Writing with six dots and its future”, international conference held at the
Headquarters of UNESCO (Paris) from 5 to 8 January 2009
Thelwall, R. (2003). Arabic, Handbook of the International Phonetic Association
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge), ISBN 0-521-63751-1
Wallah, B. W. (2003). Kiswahili Mufti 1, Darasa la Kwanza, Longhom Publisher, Nairobi.
Watson, J. (2002). The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic, New York: Oxford University,
Press.
87
APPENDIX A- LETTERS OF ALPHABET
APPENDIX A1: English Letters of Alphabet
CONSONANTS:
English
B
C
D
F
G
Name:
IPA:
Braille:
bi:
[b]
b
si:
[c]
c
English: P
Name:
[d]
IPA:
[p]
Braille: p
kju:
a:
g
eıʧ
[h]
j
h
S
T
V
ɛs
ti:
vi:
[s]
[t]
[v]
[r]
r
J
[g]
f
R
[q]
q
ʤi:
[f]
d
Q
pi:
ɛf
di:
H
s
t
K
L
M
N
ʤeı
keı
ɛl
ɛm
ɛn
[j]
k
[k]
l
[l]
m
[m]
[n]
W
X
ʼdʌbʼlju:
[w]
v
n
w
x
Y
Z
ɛks
waı
[x]
y
[y]
[z]
ɨ
ɩ
zɛd/zi:
z
VOWELS (Rounded)
English:
Ø
œ
ɒ
ɔ
o
u
ɷ
Ɵ
ʉ
Y
Name:
Ø
œ
ɔ
ɒ
ou
u
ʊ
Ɵ
ʉ
Y
IPA:
[Ø]
[œ]
[ɒ]
[ɔ]
[o]
[u]
[ɷ]
[Ɵ]
[ʉ]
Y
U
(
Braille:
\
\
6*
<
O
0O
0U
6y
ɯ
ɐ
VOWELS (Unrounded)
English:
ɛ
i
e
Name:
ai
i
IPA:
[i]
[e] [ɛ]
Braille:
i
e
æ
a
ɒ
a:
ei
o
a
ʌ
ju
[æ]
[a]
[ɒ]
[ʌ]
[ɤ]
[ɯ]
e
>
%
a
*
ʌ
+
ɤ
6r 6U
ɜ
ɐ
ĕ
ɨ
a
[ɐ]
6a 6>
ə
I
[ɜ] [ə]
5
0i
[ɨ]
[ɩ]
/
APPENDIX A2: Kiswahili Letters of Alphabet
CONSONANTS:
Kiswahili: B
CH
Name:
ba
cha
D
da
DH
dha
F
fa
G
ga
GH
gha
IPA:
[d]
[ð]
[f]
[g]
[γ]
<
h
[b]
[ʧ]
*
d
Kiswahili: M
Name:
ma
N
na
NG
nga
NY
nya
P
pa
R
ra
IPA:
[n]
[ŋ]
[ɲ]
[p]
[r]
r
s
Braille:
Braille:
b
[m]
m
n
VOWELS (Short)
Kiswahili:
A
+
!
]
E
p
f
I
g
S SH
sa sha
[s]
[ʃ]
m
t
O
?
H
ha
J
ja
[h]
[ʤ]
j
K
ka
k
[k]
V W
Y
va wa ya
[t]
[v]
[w]
y
z
v
U
w
[l]
l
T TH
ta tha
[θ]
L
la
[y]
Z
za
[z]
88
Name:
eı
i:
aı
ǝŏ
ju:
IPA:
Braille:
[a]
a
[e]
e
[i]
[o]
[u]
VOWELS (Long)
Kiswahili:
AA
Name:
IPA:
Braille:
I
o
u
EE
II
OO
UU
eı
i:
aı
ǝŏ
ju:
[a]
>
[e]
5
[i]
[o]
[u]
9
[
\
APPENDIX A3: Arabic Letters of Alphabet
CONSONANTS:
Arabic: ʾ(a)
b
ṯ
t
ḥ
ğ
ẖ
Name:
Alif Baa Taa Thaa Jeem Haa
IPA:
[ʔ]
Braille
a
Arabic:
ḍ
[b]
B
[θ]
[t]
T
ṭ
?
ẓ
:
ˁ
ġ
z
r
Khaa daal Dhaal Raa
[ʤ] [ħ]
J
ḏ
d
X
f
[x]
[d]
[ð]
D
!
R
q
k
[z]
S
l
m
[s]
%
[tˤ]
[dˤ]
Braille: $
)
[zˤ]
=
[ʕ]
(
<
[ʁ]
F
[f]
Q
K
VOWELS (Long vowels)
Arabic:
a
i
Name:
Fatha
Kasra
IPA:
[a]
[i]
Braille:
1
e
VOWELS (Long vowels)
Arabic:
ã
ĩ
Name: Fatha alif
Kasra Yaa
IPA:
[a:]
[i:]
Braille:
/
y
VOWELS (Nunation)
Arabic:
AA
II
Name:
Fathatain
Kasratain
IPA:
[a:]
[i:]
Braille:
2
9
[q]
[k]
l
[l]
M
[m]
n
h
[ʃ]
n
h
w
Ha
[n] [h]
w
i
u
Dhamma
[u]
u
ũ
Damma waaw
[u:]
[
UU
Dhammatain
[u:]
8
[sˤ]
&
Name: Dhod Twa Dhaw Ain Ghain Faa Qaaf Kaaf Laam meem Noon
IPA:
ṣ
š
Zaa Seen Sheen Swod
[r]
Z
s
aỷ
Fatha alif maqsura
[a]
o
y
Waaw
Yaa
[w]
[j]
89
DIPHTHONGS
‫ﺅ‬
Arabic:
‫ﻻ‬
ẗ
‫ﺊ‬
‫ﺉ‬
‫ﺃ‬
Name: Waaw Hamza Laam Alif Alif Maqsura Taa Marbutah Yaa Hamza Alif Hamza
IPA:
[ a]
[at]
Braille:
\
V
o
*
y
8
ْ
Sukoon
Arabic:
‫ﺁ‬
Name: Alif Madda
IPA:
Braille:
[ʔa:]
[ow]
>
ّ
‫ء‬
Hamza
Shaddah
[u‟]
[a‟]
3
,
APPENDIX A4: Somali Letters of Alphabet
CONSONANTS:
Somali:
B
T
J
X
KH
D
R
S
SH
haʾ
kha
da
ra
sa
sha
[d]
[ r]
Name:
ba
ta
ja
IPA:
[b]
[t]
[ʤ]
Somali:
Name:
IPA:
G
ga
[g]
VOWELS (Short)
Somali:
A
F
fa
[f]
Q
qa
[q]
[ḥ]
[x]
K
ka
[k]
L
la
[l]
M
ma
[m]
[s]
N
na
[n]
E
I
O
U
Name:
eı
i
aı
ǝŏ
ju:
IPA:
[a]
[e]
[i]
[o]
[u]
EE
II
OO
UU
VOWELS (Long)
Somali:
AA
Name:
eı:
i:
aı:
ǝŏ:
ju:
IPA:
[a]
[e]
[i]
[o]
[u]
DH
dha
C
ain
[ʃ]
[ɖ]
[ʢ]
W
wa
[w]
H
ha
[h]
Y
ya
[y]
90
APPPENDIX B: PHONETIC CHART
APPENDIX B1: English Phonetic Structure
91
APPENDIX B2: Kiswahili Phonetic Structure
APPENDIX B3: Arabic Phonetic Structure
Contextual forms
Arabic
Script Isolated Final Medial Initial
‫ا‬‎
‫ﺍ‬‎
‫ب‬‎
‫ت‬‎
‫ث‬‎
‫ج‬‎
‫ح‬‎
‫ﺡ‬‎
‫خ‬‎
‫ﺥ‬‎
—
‫ﺎ‬‎
‫ﺏ‬‎
‫ﺐ‬‎
‫ﺒ‬‎
‫ﺑ‬‎
‫ﺕ‬‎
‫ﺖ‬‎
‫ﺘ‬‎
‫ﺗ‬‎
‫ﺙ‬‎
‫ﺚ‬‎
‫ﺜ‬‎
‫ﺛ‬‎
‫ﺝ‬‎
‫ﺞ‬‎
‫ﺠ‬‎
‫ﺟ‬‎
‫ﺢ‬‎
‫ﺦ‬‎
‫ﺤ‬‎
‫ﺨ‬‎
‫ﺣ‬‎
‫ﺧ‬‎
Name
Translit.
Phonemic Value (IPA)
ʼalif
ʾ/ā
various, including /aː/
bāʼ
b
/b/
tāʼ
t
/t/
ṯāʼ
ṯ
/θ/
ǧīm
ǧ (also j, g)
[ʤ] / [ʒ] / [ɡ]
ḥāʼ
ḥ
/ħ/
ḫāʼ
ḫ (also kh, x)
/x/
92
‫د‬‎
‫ﺩ‬‎
‫ذ‬‎
‫ر‬‎
‫ﺪ‬‎
‫ﺫ‬‎
‫ﺬ‬‎
‫ﺭ‬‎
‫ﺮ‬‎
dāl
d
/d/
—
ḏāl
ḏ (also dh, ð)
/ð/
—
rāʼ
r
/r/
—
zāī
z
/z/
sīn
s
/s/
šīn
š (also sh)
/ʃ/
ṣād
ṣ
/sˁ/
ḍād
ḍ
/dˁ/
ṭāʼ
ṭ
/tˁ/
ẓāʼ
ẓ
/ðˁ/ / /zˁ/
ʿayn
ʿ
/ʕ/
ġayn
ġ (also gh)
/ɣ/
fāʼ
f
/f/
‫ز‬‎
‫ﺯ‬‎
‫س‬‎
‫ﺱ‬‎
‫ﺲ‬‎
‫ﺴ‬‎
‫ش‬‎
‫ﺵ‬‎
‫ﺶ‬‎
‫ﺸ‬‎
‫ﺷ‬‎
‫ص‬‎
‫ﺹ‬‎
‫ﺺ‬‎
‫ﺼ‬‎
‫ﺻ‬‎
‫ﺽ‬‎
‫ﺾ‬‎
‫ﻁ‬‎
‫ﻂ‬‎
‫ﻄ‬‎
‫ظ‬‎
‫ﻅ‬‎
‫ﻆ‬‎
‫ﻈ‬‎
‫ﻇ‬‎
‫ع‬‎
‫ﻉ‬‎
‫ﻊ‬‎
‫ﻌ‬‎
‫ﻋ‬‎
‫غ‬‎
‫ﻍ‬‎
‫ﻎ‬‎
‫ﻐ‬‎
‫ف‬‎
‫ﻑ‬‎
‫ﻒ‬‎
‫ﻔ‬‎
‫ض‬‎
‫ط‬‎
‫ﺰ‬‎
—
‫ﻀ‬‎
‫ﺳ‬‎
‫ﺿ‬‎
‫ﻃ‬‎
‫ﻏ‬‎
‫ﻓ‬‎
93
‫ق‬‎
‫ﻕ‬‎
‫ﻖ‬‎
‫ك‬‎
‫ﻙ‬‎
‫ﻚ‬‎
‫ل‬‎
‫ﻝ‬‎
‫ﻞ‬‎
‫ﻠ‬‎
‫ﻟ‬‎
‫م‬‎
‫ﻡ‬‎
‫ﻢ‬‎
‫ﻤ‬‎
‫ﻣ‬‎
‫ن‬‎
‫ﻥ‬‎
‫ﻦ‬‎
‫ﻨ‬‎
‫ﻪ‬‎
‫ﻬ‬‎
‫ه‬‎
‫ﻩ‬‎
‫و‬‎
‫ي‬‎
‫ﻭ‬‎
‫ﻱ‬‎
‫ﻘ‬‎
‫ﻜ‬‎
‫ﻛ‬‎
‫ﻧ‬‎
‫ﻫ‬‎
—
‫ﻮ‬‎
‫ﻲ‬‎
‫ﻗ‬‎
‫ﻴ‬‎
‫ﻳ‬‎
qāf
q
/q/
kāf
k
/k/
lām
l
/l/, ([lˁ] in Allah only)
mīm
m
/m/
nūn
n
/n/
hāʼ
h
/h/
wāw
w/ū
/w/ / /uː/
yāʼ
y/ī
/j/ / /iː/
94
APPENDIX B4: Somali Phonetic Structure
95
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Listen carefully to the sounds produced by the instructor.
Identify the sounds and fill in the space given for each sound.
Write letter A for SAME sounds
Write letter B for DIFFERENT sounds.
In case you doubt or you don’t know the sound produced, leave the space blank.
SECTION A
Sound
B
C
D
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
V
W
X
Y
Z
A
E
I
O
U
SAME (A)
DIFFERENT (B)
96
SECTION B
Sound
B
CH
D
DH
F
G
GH
H
J
K
L
M
N
NG
NY
P
R
S
SH
T
TH
V
W
Y
Z
A
E
I
O
U
AA
EE
II
OO
UU
A (SAME)
B (DIFFERENT)
97
SECTION C
Sound
B
T
TH
J
Ḥ
KH
D
DH
R
Z
S
SH
Ṣ
Ḍ
Ṭ
Ẓ
ˁ
GH
F
Q
K
L
M
N
H
W
Y
A
I
U
AA
II
UU
A (SAME)
B (DIFFERENT)
98
APPENDIX D: ANALYSIS TABLE
SOMALI
SOUNDS
B
T
J
X
KH
D
R
S
SH
DH
C
G
F
Q
K
L
M
N
W
H
Y
A
E
I
O
U
AA
EE
II
OO
UU
TOTAL
A (SAME SOUNDS)
B (DIFFERENT SOUNDS)
ENGLISH KISWAHILI ARABIC ENGLISH KISWAHILI ARABIC TOTAL
27
30
30
03
00
00
90
22
26
29
08
04
01
90
25
27
25
05
03
05
90
05
00
10
25
30
20
90
02
01
16
28
29
14
90
22
22
25
08
08
05
90
24
28
30
06
02
00
90
25
26
27
05
04
03
90
05
27
26
25
03
04
90
00
05
09
30
25
21
90
00
06
06
30
24
24
90
19
23
11
11
07
19
90
24
30
26
06
00
04
90
05
04
17
25
26
13
90
23
24
26
07
06
04
90
25
26
28
05
04
02
90
27
28
28
03
02
02
90
27
28
27
03
02
03
90
26
28
26
04
02
04
90
14
21
23
16
09
07
90
24
25
27
06
05
03
90
25
24
22
05
06
08
90
26
27
00
04
03
30
90
22
24
22
08
06
08
90
29
28
00
01
02
30
90
24
26
24
06
04
06
90
00
23
18
30
07
12
90
00
25
00
30
05
05
90
00
24
17
30
06
13
90
00
26
00
30
04
30
90
00
27
14
30
03
16
90
497
699
619
463
261
341
2880
99
APPENDIX E: POPULATION CHART
APPENDIX E1: Thika High School for the Blind
FORM
1N
1S
1W
2N
2S
2E
2W
3N
3S
3E
3W
4N
4S
4W
Sub-Total
Total
TOTALLY BLIND
Boys
Girls
03
04
02
07
08
07
06
05
02
05
04
07
08
06
74
03
01
01
03
04
04
04
03
02
04
01
03
03
02
38
112
LOW VISION
Boys
Girls
08
07
09
06
04
07
07
06
10
05
08
05
05
06
93
GRAND
TOTAL
01
02
01
05
05
03
04
04
03
04
04
06
05
07
54
147
15
14
13
21
21
21
21
18
17
18
17
21
21
21
259
259
APPENDIX E2: Thika Primary School for the Blind
CLASS
KG
1N
1E
2N
2E
3N
3E
4N
4E
5N
5E
6N
6E
7N
7E
8N
8E
SPECIAL
PRE-UNIT
Sub-Total
TOTAL
TOTALLY BLIND
Boys
Girls
08
01
06
01
04
01
05
04
05
05
04
06
06
07
05
07
05
04
09
93
14
00
06
04
05
02
06
03
02
04
07
02
03
01
01
02
03
02
02
69
162
LOW VISION
Boys
06
03
01
02
00
05
00
02
01
02
02
03
02
02
04
02
03
00
00
40
GRAND
TOTAL
Girls
01
01
00
04
00
03
00
01
02
03
01
03
02
01
00
03
03
00
03
31
71
29
05
13
11
09
11
11
10
10
14
14
14
13
11
10
14
14
06
14
233
233

pattern of pronunciation and writing in developing somali braille

Transcription

Similar documents

Programme for the Hargeysa International Book

Innovating Perfection Thermal Printer EP / FP-2000

Eye Spy 2015

SOMALIA: Culture, Traditions, People and their Heritage

The Programme of Events

August 2014 - acobil.org

common sound levels and the decibel scale

7.) Unusually for its author, this book is a set of interrelated detective

A Poey and Dots by Prudy Vannier

Georges Seurat