PhD student of Linguistics, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Sonority determines the legal syllable structure of a language and triggers applying some phonological processes in order to retain the appropriate syllable pattern. All Turkic languages exhibit five different strategies/consonant cluster processes (metathesis, weakening, degemination, deletion and epenthesis) which are sonority-driven and arise through the interaction of markedness and faithfulness constraints. By considering a full range of data from Azeri and Turkish languages within the framework of optimality theoretic phonology we found that high ranking sonority constraints such as syllable contact law, sonority sequence principle, and sonority angle affect the clusters of loanwords and native words through different phonological processes. In fact these various phonological processes are used to improve syllable structure and save a segment from deletion. While in these languages words can end in two consonants, glide/liquid-nasal and glide-liquid sequences in spite of having rising sonority are not possible. Although coda sonorants may not be broken by a vowel epenthesis due to an OCP effect because /r/-obstruent and /n/-obstruent (ʣ) sequences are also not preferred in casual speech. In this paper, in the light of evidence from Turkic languages, issues like inserting and omitting of vowel within the rising sonority medial clusters, Prothesis and Anaptyxis in onset clusters, vowel epenthesis in rising and falling sonority final clusters, and consonant deletion in pre-consonantal coda position are considered within the framework of optimality theoretic phonology to show that the motivation for vowel insertion in word initial consonant clusters is to observe *Complexons, the epenthesis site (within the cluster or at the word-edge) is determined by the high ranking sonority constraints And also to show that the sonority advantage of a glide or a liquid over a nasal is insufficient to override Dep-Io. So what triggers the variable behavior of Turkish, Lebanese Arabic, Irish, Chaha, Catalan clusters is the Sonority Angel formed by the contours /CC/ and [CV]. Finally we observe that homorganic clusters are perceptually marked. That is a consonant which has few feature distinguishing it in place or manner from a preceding consonant is perceptually indistinct and is less suitable than a more contrastive consonant for maintaining lexical contrasts. Moreover we have to note that In Azeri the occurrence of coda-onset sequences across a syllable boundary subjects to the Syllable Contact Law (the optimal intervocalic consonant cluster is the one that terminates the first syllable with high sonority and starts the next syllable with low sonority). Thus Azeri applies some strategies to optimize the syllable contact. All clusters violating syllable contact are reordered, and broken up by epenthesis. Metathesis which can be explained in terms of phonological system rather than phonetical system is regular and productive in the language in question and links synchronic studies to diachronic ones.
احمدخانی محمدرضا و همکاران (۱۳۹۴). «واجشناسی اجتماعی: بررسی موردی قلب واجی در زبان فارسی». جستارهای زبانی. دانشگاه تربیتمدرس. دوره 7، ش 4 (پیاپی 32). صص 21-37 .
راهانداز، سعید و همکاران (۱۳۹۳). «خوشههای همخوانی و ساخت هجا در ترکی آذری». مجموعه مقالات نهمین همایش زبانشناسی ایران. بهکوشش محمد دبیرمقدم. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. صص 553- ۵۶۴.
Clements, G. N. & E. Sezer (1982). “Vowel and Consonant Disharmony in Turkish”. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (eds.) The Structure of Phonological Representations (part II). Dordrecht: Foris. Pp.213-56.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press.
Fleischhacker, H. (2001). “Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries”. In A. Albright and T. Cho (eds.) UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7. Papers in Phonology 5:Pp. 71-116.
Flemming. E. (2008). Asymmetries between Assimilation and Epenthesis. MIT ms.
Hartkemeyer, D. (2000). “An OT Approach to Atonic Vowel Loss Patterns in Old FRENCH and Old SPANISH”. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Göksel, A. & C. Kerslake (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Oxon: Routledge.
Gouskova, M. (2001). “Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and Syllable Contact”. In CLS 37:Pp. 175-85.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1978). “Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant sequences”. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 2 (Phonology), Pp.243-279. Stanford University Press.
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. UK: Blackwell.
Karim, K. (2011). An Optimality Theoretic (OT) “account of word-final vowel epenthesis and deletion processes in the incorporation of loanwords into the Dhaka dialect of Bangla”. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 21:Pp.22–33.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford University Press.
Lombardi, L. (2002). “Markedness and the typology of epenthetic vowels”. Proceedings of Linguistics &phonetics.
McCarthy, J. J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Malden, MA, & UK.
McCarthy, J. J. & A. S. Prince (1999). “Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology”. In Kager, R., van der Hulst, H., and Zonnefeld, W., editors. The Prosody-morphologyInterface,Pp. 218–309. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Murray, R. W. & T. Vennemann (1983). “Sound Change and Syllable Structure in Germanic Phonology”. Language 59: Pp.514--28.
Padgett, J. (1995). “Feature Classes”. In J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk and L. Alsh (Eds.). Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Pp.385-419.
Parker, S. G. (2002). Quantifying the Sonority Hierarchy. UMass Amherst Dissertation.
Prince, A. & P. Smolenskey (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraints Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA, & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. [Revision of 1993 technical report, Rutgers university Center for Cognitive Science. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-537.].
Rose, S. (2000). “Epenthesis Positioning and Syllable Contact in Chaha”. Phonology 17: Pp. 397-425.
Tokizaki, H. & Y. Kuwana (2012). “Limited consonant clusters in ov languages”. In P. Hool(eds.) Consonant clusters and structural complexity. Berlin, Germany,Pp. 71-92.
Wheeler, M. W. (2005). “Cluster Reduction: Deletion or Coalescence?” In Catalan Journal of Linguistics4:Pp. 1-31.
Yun, S. (2012). “Perceptual Similarity and Epenthesis Positioning in Loan Adaptation”. In Proceedings of CLS 48. 175-85. Retrieved on 7 March 2015. from:http://web.mit.edu/suyeon/www/Suyeon_Yuns_website/Papers_files/Yun_cls48.pdf.
Ahmadkhani, M.; A. Zaferanlu & L. HajiHassanlu (2015). Sociophonology: Phonological Metathesis in Persian. Language Related Research. Tarbiat Modares University. [In Persian]
Rahandaz, S.; M. Asiyai & Sh. Naghshbandi (2014). “Consonant cluster and Syllable Structure in Azeri”. 9th Proceeding of Iranian linguistics. Allameh Tabataba’i university[In Persian]