A Study of Vowel and Vowel-consonant Harmony in Persian in the Framework of Optimality Theory

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
M. ahmadkhani 1
E. vasegh 2
1 Associate Prof. of Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD. Candidate in Linguistics, Payame Noor University
Abstract
Vowel harmony like assimilation is a very common process which is seen in most languages of the world. This process is studied by most phonological theories such as generative phonology, auto segmental phonology and optimality theory and is considered as a criterion for evaluating the adequacy of these phonological theories to account. This article deals with the vowel and vowel consonant harmony in Persian. Vowel harmony and vowel consonant harmony studies the features such as height, front/backless, roundness, and advanced tongue root and retracted tongue root. The research method of this article is content analysis and the data are collected by purposive sampling. Theoretical framework of this research is Optimality Theory. In Persian languages features of vowels such as frontness/backness, height and roundness involved in vowel and vowel consonant harmony are studied. Also some features of consonants such as anteriority or posteriority or their place of articulation changed in harmonies are studied. In this article some faithfulness and marked constraints for accounting vowel and vowel- consonant harmony in Persian such as license, agreement and identity are introduced. Finally it was shown that strong positions in Persian account harmony in this language

1. Introduction

In some languages there are specific constraints ruling on vowel features which appear in special linguistic area which is called harmony, thereby vowels in intended areas harmonize in some feature. (Roca &Johnson,2005:149). In other words, vowel harmony is a kind of assimilation in which vowels in a specific phonological, morphological or syntactic assimilate in one or some features. The aim of this research is describing types of vowel harmony and vowel consonant harmony in the framework of optimality in Persian. The main question of this research is that whether there is vowel or vowel consonant harmony in Persian and if so, what features are involved in it? The research method of this article is content analysis and the framework is optimality theory. Data of this research are 705 words collected by counting all cases from the Moin 6 volumes dictionary. The data for optimality theory analysis are collected by purpose. Data analysis shows that in front vowels by reducing the height the frequency of vowel harmony among vowels increases. Also, in back vowels the most frequent harmony belongs to /a/ and frequency of vowel harmony among two other vowels, /o/ and /u/ are the same. In back vowels by reducing the height frequency of vowel harmony increases. In Persian and specially in colloquial variety vowel harmony is seen in simple and two part morphemes. Followings are main types of harmony in Persian: a: simple harmony in one feature. In this harmony only one feature is involved. Back harmony: [ʔerteʔɑš] →[ʔertɑʔɑš]. Height harmony: sebi´l → sibi´l. Roundness harmony: be+xor → bo´xor. b. harmony in multiple features. In this type some vowel fetures are involved. In be+gu → bu´gu /e/ alternates with /u/./e/ because of heightness and backness of /u/ become [ +high,+back].In epenthesis vowel harmony in Bushehri dialect definite suffix has three alternations: /-oku/, /-eku/ and /-ku/, from which the first two end in consonant and the last one end in vowel. (Ahmadzade Borazjani,2010). In vowel consonant harmony features of vowel harmonize with consonant: in bi-ya alternation of /i/ and /e/ is because of harmony between height and since /y/ has the feature [-back,+high], /e/ becomes high and changes to /i/.



Tableau 1. constraints of /bæha’r /



Input: /bæhar´/
AGREE(back)
Lic(back)-σæ
IDENT- IO(back)


a. bæhar´
*!




a. bæhar´


*


c.bæhær´

*!
*





Tableau 1 represents constraints, candidate a doesn't violates license constraint and the reason is that /a/ has stress. This candidate violates Agree constraint because of difference of the vowels. Also, this candidate because of the lack of changing the vowels from input to output violates the identity constraint. Candidate b observes the license constraint because of the stress of the second vowel. Also, this candidate observes the Agree constraint because of sameness of vowels. However, the third constraint because of the difference in input and output in the first vowel is violated. Candidate c violates the license constraint because of the lack of stress in back vowels. Also, this candidate violates the identity because of the difference of the vowel in input and output. Agree constraint because of the identity of the vowels is not violated. So, the candidate b is optimal.



Tableau2. Constraints of /keli´d/




Input: /keli´d/
AGREE(high)
Lic(high)-σæ
IDENT- IO(high)


a.keleʹd

*!
*


b.Ckili´d


*


c.kileʹd
*
*!
**





In tableau 2 candidate a violates a because of lack of height of stressed vowel. This candidate observes Agree constraint because of identity of vowels. Also, this candidate violates identity constrain because of changing the second vowel. Candidate b violates identity constraint because of the lack of height stressed vowel. Candidate c violates license constraint because of the lack of height of stressed vowel. Also, this candidate violates the Agree constraint because of the difference in vowels. Identity constraint is violated twice because of the difference in vowels in input and output. So, constraint b is optimal.



Tableau3. Constraints of /be-xor/




Input: /be-xor/
AGREE(back)
Lic (+round)- σ´
IDENT(round)


a. be-xor
*




b. Cbo-xor


*





In tableau 3 candidate a violates Agree constraint in backness. Candidate b violates only roundedness constraint which is in lower rank. So, candidate b is optimal.

In Persian there are three types of vowel harmony including harmony in height, harmony in back vowels and harmony in roundedness. Harmony of height of vowels applies on middle vowels and this causes to raising and become a high vowel. The goal of vowel harmony of backness or height of vowels in Persian is reducing the resetting articulatory organs and this is the result of faithfulness of strong position. It seems that in Persian in simple word stress is phonological element which causes harmony. In these words, feature spreading from strong position, stress position to weak phonological position, stress less position. However, in complex words root acts as strong position.

Keywords

Subjects

احمدزاده برازجانی،علی.(1389). گویش بوشهری از دیدگاه صرف و واج شناسی.پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه پیام نور.
بدخشان، ابراهیم و زمانی، محمد. (1392).« تحلیل و توصیف فرآیند حذف در زبان کردی (گویش کلهری)»، پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، سال پنجم، شماره اول، ص 30-19.
بی‌جن‌خان، محمود. (1388). واج‌شناسی: نظریه بهینگی. تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).
جم، بشیر. (1389). «بررسی فرآیند تضعیف در چند گویش کویری در چارچوب نظریه بهینگی»، اولین همایش بین‌المللی گویش های مناطق کویری ایران، 727-.740
جم، بشیر و احمد ذلقی.(1392). «بررسی تبدیل واکه /u/ به /i/ در گویش لری سیلاخوری در چارچوب نظریه بهینگی»، پژوهشهای زبانی،دوره 4، شماره 21،2-40.
جم، بشیر و مرضیه تیموری.(1393). «تبدیل واکه /a/ به واکه /a:/ یا /o/ در لهجه فردوس در چارچوب بهینگی»،زبان شناسی و گویش های خراسان، سال ششم، شماره 10، 97-120.
دبیرمقدم، محمد. (1383). زبان‌شناسی نظری: پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی. (ویراست دوم). تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).
دیهیم، گیتی. (1368). « گرایش‌های آوایی و واجی فارسی گفتاری تهران ». ‌ زبان‌شناسی، سال ششم، 2، پاییز و زمستان،97- 105.
صفری، ابراهیم.(1395).« توصیف و تحلیل فرآیندهای واجی گویش گالشی: رویکرد بهینگی». جستارهای زبانی دوره۷ ،143-163.
کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه. (1385). واج‌شناسی: رویکردی قاعده‌‌بنیاد. تهران: سمت.
کلباسی، ایران. (1380). «فارسی گفتاری و نوشتاری». فرهنگ (ویژه‌ی زبان‌شناسی). 38-37، بهار – تابستان، 49 -68
مدرسی قوامی، گلناز. (1389). « الگوهای هماهنگی واکه‌ای و هم‌تولیدی واکه به واکه در زبان فارسی»، زبان و زبان‌شناسی، دوره ششم، بهار و تابستان 1389، 11، 69-8.
مشکوة‌الدینی، مهدی. (1385). ساخت آوایی زبان. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
معین.محمد.( 1393). فرهنگ فارسی. تهران: امیرکبیر.
میر دهقان، مهین ناز و سعید رضا یوسفی.(1395). «حرف اضافه نمایی افتراقی در وفسی در چهارچوب نظریة بهینگی». جستارهای زبانی، 3، 197-222
Ansarin, A. K. (2004). An Acoustic Analysis of Modern Persian Vowels. Presented at 9th Conference on Speech and Computer. St. Petersburg.
Bakovic, E.(2000). Harmony, Dominance, and Control. PhD thesis Rutgers University.
Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional Faithfulness. PhD. dissertation, University of Massachusetts,Amherst. [ROA-234.]
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clements, G. N. & E. Sezer.( 1982). Vowel and consonant dis harmony in Turkish. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith(eds.) The structure of phonological representationsII. Dordrecht, Foris,pp.213-255.
Crosswhite, K. (2004). Vowel reduction, in Hayes, B., et al. “Phonetically based phonology”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191-231. Ellosion, T. Mark. 1995. Phonological Derivation in Optimality Theory. MS, University of Edinburg.
Harris, J. (2005). Vowel reduction as information loss. In P. Carr, J. Durand & C. J. Ewen (eds.), Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, 119−132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyman. L. (2002). Is there a Right -to-left Bias in Vowel Harmony? Presented at the 9th International Phonology Meeting.Vienna.
Kager,R.(1999). Optimalty theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krämer, Martin. (2003). Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lass, Roger. 1984 .Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press.
Laver, J.( 1995) . Principls of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazard, Gilbert. (1980).Grammar of Contemporary Persian. California: Mazda
Lloret, Maria-Rosa .(2007). "On the Nature of Vowel Harmony: Spreading with a Purpose", in Bisetto, Antonietta; Barbieri, Francesco, Proceedings of the XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, pp. 15–35
McCarthy, John.(2002). A thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J and Alan Prince. (1995). Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity.UMOP.18,249-384.
McCarthy, and Alan Prince. (1993). Generalized Alignment. In G.E. Booij and J. van mark.(eds.), Year book of Morphology.79-153.Dordrecht.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. RuCCS Technical Report #1, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. [To appear, MIT Press, Cambridge.]
Pulleyblank, D. (2004). A note on tonal markedness in Yoruba. Phonology, 21:409–425.
Roca,I.& W. Johnson.(2005). A course in phonology. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Shademan, Shabnam .(2002). Epenthetic Vowel Harmony in Farsi. M.A., UCLA University.
Smolensky, P. (1993). “Harmony, Markedness, and Phonological Activity”, paper presented at the First Rutgers Optimality Workshop (ROW 1), Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
Steriade, D.(1995). Underspecification and Markedness. In Goldsmit, J., editor, The Handbook of Phonological Theory,Pages 114-174.Blackwell.
van der Hulst, Harry and Jereon van de Weijer. (1995). Vowel Harmony. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 495-534. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Walker, R.(2001). ‘Positional Markedness in Vowel Harmony’. In: Proceedings of HILP 5. Linguistics in Potsdam.
Walker, R. (2005). Weak Triggers in Vowel Harmony. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 917-989.
Wright, J. T. (1986). The Behavior of Nasalized Vowels in The Perceptual Vowel Space. In Experimental Phonology, edited by J. J. Ohala and J. J. Jaeger. Orlando: Academic Press, 45-67.
Zoll, Cheryl. (1996). Parsing below the Segment in a Constraint-based Framework. Ph.D Dissetation, University of California, Berkeley.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 6 - Serial Number 60
January and February 2020
Pages 351-381