‌تحلیل نوایی ساخت اضافه در چهارچوب واجشناسی نوایی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزشی زبانشناسی همگانی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 گروه آموزشی زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشکده ی ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

در این مقاله، الگوی نوایی عناصر حاضر در حوزةاضافه و کل ساخت اضافه در چهارچوب واج‌ شناسی نوایی بررسی شده­ است. در این راستا، آزمایشی تولیدی که مشتمل بر سه جملة دارای ساخت اضافه بود، انجام شد و از دوازده گویشور فارسی زبان خواسته شد تا آن جمله­ ها را تولید کنند. صدای این گویشوران در محیطی آکوستیک ضبط شد و سپس مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت. باید توجه داشت که هر یک از عناصر [+N] موجود در ساخت اضافه، به همراه واکة اضافة متصل به آن، منجر به ایجاد نواخت گونه ­ای از گروه واجی یعنی گروه واژه‌بست می­شود (Hekmati, 2016). بر این مبنا، این پرسش مطرح شد که کل ساخت اضافه در چه سطحی از سلسله سطوح نوایی قرار خواهد گرفت. باید توجه داشت که سطح نرخ فرکانس پایة تکیة آخرین گروه واجیِ ساخت اضافه، نسبت به نرخ فرکانس پایة تکیة کلیة گروه‌های واژه‌بست حاضر در ساخت مورد اشاره پائین ­تر بود. این امر سبب می­شود تا در مواردی که دیرکرد قلة هجا، سببِ حرکتِ قلة فرکانس پایة هجای تکیه‌ بر به هجای بعد از آن گردد، کل ساخت اضافه به لحاظ نوایی به سطح گروه آهنگ انتقال یابد. چنین تحلیلی قادر به تبیین علت برجستگی شنیداری هر یک از عناصر حاضر در حوزة اضافه است. چرا که هر یک از گروه‌های واژه‌بست حاضر در حوزة اضافه تکیة دومین را جذب می ­کنند. بنابراین، آخرین واژة حاضر در این ساخت به‌عنوان گروه واجی جاذب تکیة نخستین (گروه آهنگ) به شمار می­ رود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Prosodic analysis of Ezafe construction in the framework of prosodic phonology

نویسندگان [English]

  • ramin hekmati 1
  • mahmood bijankhan 2
1 faculty of general linguistics, university of Tehran, Tehran , Iran
2 department of general linguistics, faculty of humanities, university of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In this study, the prosodic pattern of Ezafe construction has been investigated under the framework of prosodic phonology. Prosodic phonology is a framework which evinces that a purely phonological constituent structure lies between syntax and phrasal phonetics (Pierrehumbert & Beckman, 1988). While this phonological constituent structure is independent of the syntactic constituency, it is related to it by a module of the syntactic-prosodic constituency. Syntactic-prosodic constituency requires that the morpho-syntactic categories ought to be matched to phonological categories, regarding ALIGNMENT constraint which requires syntactic categories to be edge-aligned (right or left) with the head of phonological constituents (Selkirk, 2011). In this framework, heads are marked by their prominence by which it means that the most prominent element in a prosodic constituent is the phonological head of that constituent (Truckenbrodt, 1995). Those edge-aligned constituents make a hierarchical order in a strict manner with respect to each other, the strict layer hypothesis, in which a purely formal phonological mechanism specifies how constituents of the different prosodic levels form a prosodic hierarchy. In Persian, Kahnemuyipour (2003) investigated the prosodic structure of phonological constituents within the prosodic phonology framework. He proposed that within the phonological words, the right-most syllable, and within the phonological phrases, the left-most phonological word, and within the intonational phrases the right-most phonological phrase, and within the utterances, the left-most intonational phrase is merit of receiving the prominence and therefore should be regarded as the head of their phonological constituents.
Since the Ezafe construction is a unique linguistic phenomenon which can only be found in Persian, a great deal of dispute in previous studies can be found about the prosodic structure of this construction. While a number of researchers like Eslami (2005), Bijankhan and Abolhasanizadeh (2011) and Mahjani (2003) only investigated the phonetic realization of Ezafe construction within the autosegmental-metrical phonology framework, within the prosodic phonology framework, Kahnemuyipour (2003) based on Ghomeshi (1996) takes the nouns and adjectives in an Ezafe construction, to be non-projecting base-generated X0 elements, and therefore, proposed that the entire Ezafe construction is mapped into a single phonological word. Although Kahnemuyipour’s proposal was remarkably novel; he did not implement any laboratorial experiment to supporting his claim, but his own intuition furthermore, considering the whole Ezafe construction as a single complex word is not intertwined with Persian speaker’s intuition. With this regard in this research, a laboratorial experiment is manipulated in order to figure out the prosodic level of the entire Ezafe construction within the prosodic phonology framework.  
In so doing, we arranged an articulatory experiment included three sentences which differed due to their Ezafe construction’s length (from two to four words per each Ezafe construction) and we asked six men and six women of native Persian speaker to read aloud those sentences twice.
1) / nazar-e dɑvar hame ra ʃeɡeftzade kard /
2) / bɑvar-e barɑdar-e ʔɑzar besijar aʤib-o ɢarib bud /
3) / xabar-e xɑb-e bad-e bahɑr dar hameje ʃahr piʧid /
We recorded their voices in a soundproof booth in the University of Tehran within the PRAAT environment and then after we extract the fundamental frequency of each stress bearing syllable within Ezafe construction. Since we assume that each [+N] element in Ezafe construction with its adjoined Ezafe vowel construct a clitic group which is itself an allatone of phonological phrase (Hekmati, 2016); now we want to find the place of Ezafe construction in the hierarchy of prosodic structure as a whole. The most probable option for the whole Ezafe construction would be an intonational phrase, because theoretically when we combine a number of phonological phrases we would expect to generate the next upper level of the prosodic hierarchy, intonational phrase. The phonetic counterpart of the intonational phrase is final lowering in which the fundamental frequency of the final stress bearing syllable is significantly lower than its previous counterparts (Pierrehumbert & Beckman, 1988). Comparing the fundamental frequency amount of the final stress bearing syllable of Ezafe construction with its non-final counterparts reveals that the fundamental frequency of the final stress bearing syllable of Ezafe construction is significantly lower than its counterparts (p<0.001).
Having a lower rate of F0 in the final stressed vowel of the last phonological phrase compare to F0s of the stressed syllables of all the phonological phrases of Ezafe construction in which peak delay causes the movement of F0 peak of stressed syllable to the following syllable led us to map the Ezafe construction as a whole to an intonational phrase. This analysis can explain the cause of auditory prominence of each element in the Ezafe domain. Each phonological phrase in Ezafe domain absorb the secondary stress and the final word in Ezafe domain absorb the primary stress as the intonational phrase.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Prosodic phonology
  • Peak delay
  • F0
  • secondary stress

اسلامی، محرم. (1384). واج ­شناسی: تحلیل نظام آهنگ زبان فارسی. چ 1. تهران: سمت.

بی‌جن‌خان، محمود و وحیده ابوالحسنی‌زاده. (1390). «دیرکرد قله‌ی هجا در ساخت نوایی واژه‌بست‌های زبان فارسی». زبان‌پژوهی. سال 5. دورة 3. صص 69-51.

حکمتی، رامین. (1395). الگوی آهنگ گروه کسرة اضافه در زبان فارسی. پایان­نامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه تهران.

رحمانی، حامد، محمود بی‌جن‌خان و مهران قاجارگر. (1391). «ناشنوایی تکیه در گویشوران فارسی». شنوایی‌شناسی. دورة 21. شمارة 3. صص102-87.

صادقی، وحید. (1390). «کشش جبرانی در زبان فارسی: یک آزمایش ادراکی». پژوهش‌های زبانی. سال 2. شمارة 2. صص 94-77.

مولودی، امیرسعید و محمود بی­جن­خان. (1390). «تظاهر آهنگی تکیة دومین در زبان فارسی معاصر». پژوهش ­های زبانی. سال 2. شمارة 2. صص 127-146.

 

 References
Abolhasanizadeh, V., Gussenhoven, C., & Bijankhan, M. (2011). A pitch accent position contrast in Persian.In W. Lee and E. Zee (Eds,). Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 188-191). Hong Kong: ICPhS XVII.

Bijankhan, M., Abolhasanizadeh, V. (2011). Peak delay in clitic constructions of Persian. Zabanpazuhi,5(3), 51-69 [In Persian].

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 12.1.5.

        [Online]: http://www.praat.org/

Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic system and intonation in English. London: Cambridge University Press.

Eslami, M. (2005). Phonology: analyzing the intonation system of Persian. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].

Ghaniabadi, S. (2010). The empty noun construction in Persian (PhD dissertation). University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada.

Ghomeshi, J. (1996). Non-projecting nouns and the Ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 15(4), 729-788.

Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, mode, and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 377-417.

Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hekmati, R. (2016). The prosodic pattern of Ezafe group in Persian (Master’s thesis). University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].

Kahnemuyipour, A. (2003). Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 21(2), 333-379.

Kahnemuyipour, A. (2014). Revisiting the Persian Ezafe construction: A Roll-up Movement Analysis. Lingua, 150, 1-24.

Ladd, D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mahjani, B. (2003). An instrumental study of prosodic features and Intonation in modern Farsi (Persian)(Master’s thesis). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Moloodi, A., & Bijankhan, M. (2011). Intonational representation of secondary stress in contemporary Persian language. JOLR, 2(2), 127-146 [In Persain].

Nespor, M, & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.

Pierrehumbert, J., & Beckman, M. E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Rahmani, M., Bijankhan, M., & Ghajargar, M. (2012).Stress deafness in Persian speakers. Audiol, 21(3), 86-102 [In Persian].

Sadat Tehrani, N. (2007). The intonational grammar of Persian (PhD dissertation). University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada.

Sadeghi, V. (2011). Compensatory lengthening in Persian: a perception experiment. JOLR, 2(2), 77-94 [In Persian].

Samiian, V. (1983). Structure of phrasal categories in Persian, an X-bar analysis (PhD dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

Samvelian, P. (2006). When morphology does better than Syntax: the Ezafe construction in Persian(Unpublished Manuscript). Paris: Universite de Paris.

Selkirk, E. O. (2001). The syntax-phonology interface.In B. Comrie (Ed.), Linguistics Section of International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 1-10), Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Selkirk, E. O. (2011). The syntax phonology interface. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed. pp. 435-484). London: Blackwell Publishing.

Towhidi, J. (1974). Studies in the phonetics of modern Persian. Intonational and related features. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA.