Related Links
Statistics
| Number of Journals | 32 |
| Number of Issues | 840 |
| Number of Articles | 8,153 |
| Article View | 52,502,735 |
| PDF Download | 8,896,678 |
Glottal Stop in Persian | ||
| زبان فارسی و گویشهای ایرانی | ||
| Article 4, Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 6, July 2019, Pages 73-92 PDF (810.88 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.22124/plid.2019.11361.1310 | ||
| Author | ||
| Bashir Jam* | ||
| Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Shar-Kord | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Extended abstract 1. Introduction The nature and identity of glottal stop in Persian has always been a subject of much controversy; some scholars consider it a phoneme while some others do not believe that it is a phoneme in Persian. This research is an attempt to resolve this controversy. 2. Theoretical framework This paper applies Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2004) in analyzing its data. Optimality theory is one of the most significant developments in generative grammar. The first detailed exposition of the theory appears in Prince and Smolensky's (1993/2004) book, entitled ‘Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar’. Its goal is to explain the phonology of languages only by using a set of universal constraints. No phonological rule is being applied in its analyses because they generally explained the language-specific phenomena. In contrast, constraints in OT are not merely solutions to language-specific problems; they are claims about Universal Grammar (UG) seeking to explain phonological phenomena universally. Furthermore, there is no interaction between rules and constraints, i.e., OT is not a mixed theory. The principles of SPE phonology (Chomsky & Halle, 1968) namely rules and serial derivations between underlying representation (UR) and phonetic representation (PR) have been abandoned by OT; however, UR and PR which are renamed as input and output respectively, are being assumed in the classical sense. There are two types of constraints: markedness constraints and faithfulness constraints. Markedness constraints serve to evaluate the well-formedness of candidates, therefore they are also known as well-formedness constrinats. These constraints have no access to the input; they only evaluate output forms, that is, they penalize candidates that violate their terms, without considering the input. ONSET and *COMPLEXONS are two Markedness constraints. The former dictates that syllables must have onsets, and the latter forbids syllables from having consonant clusters in their onsets. Faithfulness constraints, on the other hand, have access to both input and output: they serve to ensure that no change occurs in the output compared with the input. Therefore they penalize those candidates that have not been faithful to the input. DEP and MAX are two faithfulness constraints which forbid insertion and deletion respectively. 3. Methodology Glottal stop was analyzed in different words and contexts in the formal style of Persian to figure out whether it is a phoneme or a phone and to discuss the phonological processes as well as the constraints which affect its occurrence and non-occurrence in different environments. However, prior to applying OT analyses it discusses the derivations and interactions between the phonological processes. 4. Results & Discussion This research was an attempt to resolve the disagreements and misconceptions about the identity of glottal stop in Persian. The results indicate that glottal stop is a phoneme only as the pronunciation of the letters “ء” and “ع” in the orthography of Arabic loanwords. In the rest of the words including Persian words of native origin as well as in non-Arabic loanwords it is a phone whose task is to fill empty onset positions at the beggining and in the middle of the words because it does not exist in the underlying representation of these words. It is in fact the result of insertion at the very moment of physical production. The duty of this phone is to fill empty onset positions in vowel-initial words, in cluster- initial loanwords (after [e] is inserted to declusterize the word), and to resolve hiatus at morpheme boundary between two words of a compound, and between a word and an affix/ enclitic. Based on the sonority hierarchy, the reason of glottal stop insertion is that it is the least sonorant among all the consonants. It was discussed in this paper that the term “minimal pair” is about the opposition of two phonemes rather than the opposition of a phoneme and a phone. The findings of this research are in contrast with the studies in the literature which regarded glottal stop as a phoneme in Persian words of native origin as and in non-Arabic loanwords. It is also in contrast with the studies which regarded the opposition of a phoneme and a phone as a “minimal pair”. 5. Conclusion & Suggestions The significance of this research is that it argued if glottal stop represents letters “ء” and “ع” in the orthography of Arabic loanwords, it is a phoneme; otherwise it is a phone whose task is to fill empty onset positions. Furthermore, it was discussed that the reason glottal stop is not inserted in the onset when it is preceded by a closed syllable is the application of resyllabification which bleeds glottal stop insertion. It was also discussed that simultaneous application of both glottal stop prosthesis and glottal stop apocope in a single word is an instance of rule inversionin Vennemann’s (1972) sense. A future research suggestion could beinvestigating the nature and identity of glottal stop in other languages. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| glottal stop; hamza; rule inversion; feeding interaction; bleeding interaction | ||
| References | ||
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,563 PDF Download: 851 |
||