Deletion in Farsi

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 1, Volume 11, Issue 1, September 2019, Pages 1-38   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2019.28421

Authors

Aliyeh Kord-e Zafaranlu Kambuziya¹; Farzaneh Tajabadi^{* 2}; Ailin Firouzian Pouresfahani³

¹Tarbiat Modares University

²Shahid Beheshti University

³Damghan University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Weakening is the process by which a sound is turned into a sound of lesser degree of stricture or duration. Among different forms of weakening, deletion is the most complete form. Deletion is a phonological process that often occurs in continuous speech. In the sense that whenever the combination of phonemes result in creating an ill-form linguistic unit which is not in agreement with  the phonological system of the language, a phonetic unit of the speech chain is deleted to resolve this problem. This process changes the structure of the syllable and creates an acceptable syllabic or lexical pattern coincided with the phonotactics rules and restrictions of a language.
The current study aimed to shed light on the process of deletion in Standard Persian language in view of the optimality theory. The following questions were addressed in this research: 1. In what phonetic environment does the deletion process arrive in standard Persian language? 2. Among consonants and vowels, which of them is exposed to the deletion process? 3. What is the category and kind of words in which the deletion process appeared?

Review of Literature

On the phonological process of deletion, valuable studies have been carried out that can be broadly divided into two categories: standard Persian language researches and studies on different dialects of Persian. In the case of different dialects of Persian, the following studies can be mentioned: Kalbasi, (1991), Shokri, (1995), Borughani, (2004), Alamdari (2005), Korde Zafaranlu Kambuzia and Sha'bani (2007), Kambuziya and Nemati (2007), Sharifi, (2008), Khodabakhshi (2008), Jabarooti (2010), Razmdide (2011), Kazemaini (2011), Miri (2011), Fadaei (2011), Soleimani (2012), Kambuziya, Tajabadi, Esmailimatin, and Khordbin, S.(2016) etc. Furthermore, Lazard (1992), Meshkatodini, (1995), Bijankhan (2006), Kord-e Zafaranlu Kambuziya (2007), Sadeghi (2007), Jam (2009) etc. have studied Standard Persian. A review of the research literature indicates that all studies have focused on only one aspect of this process and so far no comprehensive study has been conducted, especially on the Standard Farsi, which clearly demonstrates the need for the present study.

Method

This descriptive-analytical study describes and explains the phonological process of deletion in the Standard Persian language. For this purpose, in addition to the authors’ intuition and linguistic knowledge, written sources such as books, theses in dialectology and dialect dictionaries have been used to collect the research data. In order to extract the data, in addition to the Standard Farsi, a total of 25 other language varieties were randomly selected. Data extracted from these linguistic varieties were examined only as an evidence to validate the results of this study. Totally, 881 samples from Standard Farsi and 200 samples from different dialects were extracted. Then these data were examined in terms of the type of linguistic unit removed, the context and also the structure and lexical category of the word in which the deletion process occurs. Furthermore, the percentage of units affected by the process was calculated. Finally, these data were analyzed within the framework of standard optimality theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993).

Results and Discussion

In this section, we examine the different types of deletion in the Standard Persian language in terms of the deleted unite, the position and context in which the deletion take place. A close look at the data shows that the deleted unit can be consonant, vowel, consonant-vowel sequence, or vowel-consonant sequence. Depending on the number of deletions in each datum, it can be categorized into single deleted item group or multiple deleted items group. In items of the second group, two consonants or one consonant with a consonant-vowel sequence or vowel-consonant sequence, are deleted. It is worth noting that the deletion of only one consonant is the most frequent ones; however the deletion of two consonants is more varied than other types of deletion. Among all kind of consonants, stops make a greater contribution to the deletion process and fricatives rank second. In addition, among stop consonants, the share of coronal consonant and among fricatives, the contribution of glottals is greater than others. In multiple deleted items group, deletion of stop-stop consonants accounts for the most.
On the other hand, examination of data in which only vowel deletion has occurred (51 cases) indicates that out of the six Persian vowels, only three short vowels (a, e, o) are deleted in a single word. Of the 47 cases of vowel-consonant deletion, 83% of deleted vowels were short ones. In addition, out of the 38 consonant-vowel deletions, only 18% of the deleted vowels were long vowels.
Regarding the relationship between deletion and number of word syllables, it can be said that among the one-to-five syllable words, the three syllable words have the highest and the two syllable words have the least tendency toward the deletion process.
With regard to the relation of deletion to lexical type and category, it seems that words with the lexical category of noun and derivative structure have the highest share.
In terms of the position in which deletion occurs (initial, middle, final position of syllable or word, syllables boundary, the boundary of two morphemes), it can be said that in Standard Persian there is only a middle and ending deletion, and the final deletion is much more than the middle deletion.
Analysis of the results demonstrated that consonants underwent the deletion process more than vowels. Meanwhile stop consonants and short vowels (a, e, o) were ranked first in deletion process as compared with others. The findings also indicated that derivations, nouns, and two or three syllable words were more likely to be deleted. Furthermore, last syllable of the words tends to be the best place for applying the deletion process.  

Conclusion

It can be said that when some of the universal principles like Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) and Syllable Contact Law (SCL) are violated, a series of phonological processes, including the deletion process, are used to modify the existing structure. In addition, the presence of heavy syllables or an abundance of light syllables creates a kind of asymmetry in words. This type of sequence is both productively and audibly problematic. In these cases, phonological processes, such as deletion, operate to bring the desired structure as close as possible to the optimal syllable of the language studied.

Keywords

Deletion; Persian language; syllable; word category; obtimality theory

References

1. بروغنی، فاطمه. (1383). بررسی واج‌شناختی گویش سبزواری. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

2. بی‌جن‌خان، محمود. (1384). واج‌شناسی نطریة بهینگی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.

3. ثمره، یدالله. (1381). آواشناسی زبان فارسی (آواها و ساخت آوایی هجا). تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.

4. جبروتی، فائز. (1389). بررسی گویش تاتی کجل (خلخال). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

5. جم، بشیر. (1388). نظریة بهینگی و کاربرد آن در تبیین فرایندهای واجی زبان فارسی. رسالة دکتری زبان‌شناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

6. خدابخشی، فاطمه. (1387). بررسی گویش ونداده‌ای در استان اصفهان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

7. رزم‌دیده، پریا. (1390). بررسی تضعیف و تقویت در گونه‌های زبانی استان کرمان: با رویکرد زایشی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

8. زمردیان، رضا. (1385). واژه‌نامه گویش قاین. تهران: نشر آثار.

9. سامعی، حسین. (1384). تکیة فعل در زبان فارسی: بررسی مجدد. نامة فرهنگستان. سال چهارم، دوره اول، صص 21-6.

10. سلیمانی، آرزو. (1391). توصیف فرآیندهای واجی گویش بالاگریوه: رویکرد بهینگی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

11. شریفی، گوهر. (1387). بررسی نظام آوایی گونه اقلید در چارچوب واج‌شناسی زایشی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

12. شکری، گیتی. (1374). گویش ساری (مازندرانی). تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.

13. ....................... (1385). گویش رامسری. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.

14. شیخ‌سنگ‌تجن، شهین و بی‌جن‌خان، محمود. (1389). بررسی کاهش واکه‌ای در زبان فارسی.پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی. سال دوم، شماره اول، صص 48-35.

15. صادقی، علی اشرف. (1357). تکوین زبان فارسی. تهران: دانشگاه آزاد ایران.

16. ............................... (1386). تحول کلمات فارسی در دورة اسلامی. ادب پژوهی. شمارة اول، صص 15-9.

17. علمداری، مهدی. (1384). گویش دماوندی تهران. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.

18. فدائی، قربانعلی (1390). بررسی واج‌شناسی گویش نیشابوری بر اساس واج‌شناسی خود واحد. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

19. کاظمینی، سمیه. (1390). توصیف واج‌شناختی گویش شهرضایی بر اثر نظریه واج‌شناسی زایشی چامسکی و هله. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

20. کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه. (1385). واج‌شناسی رویکردهای قاعده‌بنیاد. تهران: انتشارات سمت.

21. کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه و آقا‌گل‌زاده، فردوس و رضایی، علی. (1387). برخی فرایندهای واجی در گونه زبانی شیرگاه از گویش مازندرانی. زبان و زبان‌شناسی. سال چهارم، شماره اول، صص 105-96.

22. کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه، تاج‌آبادی، فرزانه، اسماعیلی متین، زهرا و خوردبین، سارا.(1395). واج‌آرایی کلمات فارسی با ساخت هجایی (c)v.cvc(c). جستارهای زبانی. دوره هفتم، شماره اول (پیاپی29)، .صص107-81.

23. کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه و شعبانی، منصور. (1386). برخی از فرآیندهای واجی در گویش گیلکی رودسر. مجله انجمن زبان‌شناسی ایران. سال سوم، شماره اول. صص 28- 30.

24. کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه و نعمتی، فاطمه. (1386). برخی فرایندهای واجی در گویش دلواری. علوم انسانی دانشگاه الزهرا. سال شانزدهم و هفدهم،شماره 63 و 64، صص181-207.

25. کلباسی، ایران. (1370). فارسی اصفهانی. تهران: مؤسسه مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی.

26. مشکوه‌الدینی، مهدی. (1374). ساخت آوایی زبان. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی.

27. میری، ملیحه. (1390). بررسی واژه از نظر آوا، ساخت و معنی بر اساس کتاب گورنامه نیمروز (سیستانی/ زابلی).پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

28. Burquest, D.A. (1998). Phonological Analysis: A Functional Approach.Texas: SIL International.

29. Cable, S. (2004). A metrical analysis of syncope in Tlingit.

30. Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman (eds.), Between the grammar and physics of speech: Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,283-333.

31. Coleman, J.C. (1995). Declarative Lexical phonology. In Jacques Durand and Francis Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structure, Derivations. New York: Longman.

32. Côte, Marie-Helène. (1997). Phonetic salience and consonant cluster simplification. In Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds.), PF: Papers at the Interface, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics, MIT, 229-262.

33. Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.Cambridge University Press.

34. Dell, F. (1980). Generative phonology and French phonology. Translated from French by Catherine Cullen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35. Flemming, E. S. (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.

36. http://web/ MIT. Edu/scable/www/work/papwrs

37. Kambuziya, A. (2007). Arabic definite prefix: an autusegmental analysis. South Asian Language Review, XVII(2), 63-73.

38. Kambuziya, A.& Zolfaghari Serish, M. (2006).Sonority hierarchy principle in cvcc syllable of Persian.Humanities. 13(1), 107-122.

39. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

40. Laver, J.(1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41. Lazard,G. (1992). A grammar of contemporary Persian. California: Costa Mesa.

42. Lief, E.A. (2006). Syncope in Spanish and Portuguese: the diachrony of Hispano- Romance phonotactics. Doctoral dissertation. Dorneel University. Morales, A. (1995). On deletion rules in Catalan. In Jon Amastae, Grant Goodall, Mario Montalbetti, and Marianne Phinney (eds.), Contemporary research in Romance linguistics: Papers from the 22nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Philadelphia, 37-52.

43. Prince, A. & Smolensky.P. (1993). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. MA: MIT Press.

44. Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

45. Straka, G. (1964). L’evolution phonetique du latin au français sous l’effet de l’energie et de la faiblesse articulatoires. Travaux de Linguistique et de Litterature de l’Universite de Strasbourg. 2 (1): 17-98.