تعیین درجه رسایی واج های زبان فارسی براساس یک مطالعه آکوستیکی و مقایسه آن با مدل پارکر (2008) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
رسایی و جنبه های مختلف آن علاوه بر تأثیر بر ساختار هجا در مواردی می تواند به عنوان محرکِ وقوع برای برخی فرایندهای واجی و واژ- واجی زبان ایفای نقش کند. مبنای تحلیل رسایی بنیاد این فرایندها در این است که ابتدا درجه رساییِ واج های زبان به صورت سلسله مراتبی مشخص شود. برای این منظور، ابتدا با توجه به بنیان های نظری ارائه شده پیرامون رسایی، جدول سلسله مراتب رسایی واج های زبان فارسی به صورت یک فرضیه مطرح شد. سپس براساس روش تحقیق پارکر(2008) همه 23 همخوان زبان فارسی در جایگاه آغازه و در جایگاه پایانه هجای CVC در بافت های یکسان به کار رفت. 6 واکه زبان فارسی نیز در بین دو همخوان مشترک قرار گرفت. همه داده ها، در قالب جملات حامل توسط 10 گویشور تک زبانه فارسی زبان سه بار خوانده و ضبط شد و توسط نرم افزار پرت تقطیع و اندازه گیری شد. تمامی واج های هدف از نظر چهار پارامتر شدت، دیرش، بسامد پایه و سازه اول (با توجه به طبقات آوایی مختلف) اندازه گیری شدند. تحلیل آماری داده های زبان فارسی و مقایسه آن با نتایج پارکر(2008) نشان داد که رسایی واج های زبان فارسی با مدل وی منطبق است. بدین معنی که شدت مهمترین همبسته فیزیکی رسایی است و براساس آن مدل سلسله مراتب رسایی زبان فارسی ارائه شد. به دلیل محدودیت فضا در این مقاله صرفاً نتایج آماری مربوط به متغیر شدت ارائه می شود.Determining the sonority scale of Persian phonemes based on an acoustic study and comparing it with Parker's model (2008)
Sonority and its various aspects, in addition to affecting the structure of a syllable can trigger somephonological and morphophonological processes.The foundation of these sonority-based processes is that the sonority scale of all the phonemes should be determined in a hierarchical order.To achieve this primary goal, a sonority hierarchical model of Persian phonemes was proposed according to the theoretical foundations previously clarified about sonority,.Then, all the 23 Persian consonants were used in the onset and coda position of the CVC syllable. The 6 vowels of this language were also used in this syllable.In the next step, all the data were put in carrier sentences, then read and recorded three times by 10 monolingual native Persian speakers.Since according to Parker (2008), there is a direct relationship between intensity and sonority, so the intensity of all phonemes was measured in Praat software (version 6.1.42). Following that, through Pearson's correlation coefficient, the relationship between the intensity and sonority scale proposed in the hypothesis was calculated. In doing so, the calculations were done for individual phonemes and phonemic classes and the results were 0.90 and 0.91 respectively and the hypothesis of the research was statistically attested. Finally the hierarchical sonority model of Persian phonemes was presented.Moreover, the comparison of this model with the model suggested by Parker (2008) showed that it is completely consistent with it, and it can be claimed that Parker's model (2008) is also confirmed in Persian. Keywords: Sonority, Intensity, Persian Sonority Hierarchy, Parker's Sonority Hierarchy (2008) Introduction Sonority, as an interface between the phonetics and phonology of a language, can affect the syllable structure and its production. Moreover, sonority and its various aspects such as Sonority Sequencing Principle, Syllable Contact Law, Minimum Sonority Distance and Sonority Dispersion Principle can trigger some phonological and morphophonological processes of a language. Some linguists (Clements, 1990; Ohala, 1995; Parker, 2003; Zolfaghari & Kambuziya, 2005; Rahili, 2016; Mahmoodi, 2017; Wulfert, 2017; Salimi & Kambuziya, 2019) believe that some processes such as assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, deletion and insertion also happen under the influence of sonority. The foundation of these sonority-based processes is that the sonority scale of all the phonemes in a language should be determined in a hierarchical order. From articulatory point of view, sonority indicates the greater openness of the vocal tract and from acoustic point of view, it is related to the greater intensity of the sound signals (Parker, 2002: 41-49). Ladefoged and Johnson (2010: 245) believe that the sonority of a sound is its loudness relative to that of other sounds with the same length, stress, and pitch. They (ibid) state that the sonority of a sound can be estimated from measurements of the acoustic intensity of a group of sounds that have been spoken on comparable pitches and with comparable degrees of length and stress. Parker ( 2008) also focusing on the direct relationship between intensity and sonority proposes a hierarchical model of sonority as in table 1 and claims that it can be a universal model. Table 1- Parker's hierarchical model of sonority (2008) Phonemic Classes Sonority index Low vowels 17 Mid-peripherial vowels(not ə) 16 High- peripherial vowels(not ɨ) 15 Mid- interior vowel (ə) 14 High- interior vowel (ɨ) 13 Glides 12 Rhotic approximant (ɹ ) 11 Flaps 10 Laterals 9 Thrills 8 Nasals 7 Voiced fricatives 6 Voiced affricates 5 Voiced stops 4 Voiceless fricatives 3 Voiceless affricates 2 Voiceless stops 1 The present study was acoustically conducted to firstly determine the sonority scale of Persian phonemes based on intensity and secondly to compare the obtained scale with that of Parker's (2008). Materials and Methods To determine the sonority hierarchy of Persian phonemes based on intensity, in the first step, according to the theoretical foundations previously clarified by scholars (Clements, 1990; Parker, 2002) about sonority, a sonority hierarchical model of Persian phonemes was proposed as a hypothesis. Then, all the 23 Persian consonants were used once in the onset position and once in the coda position of the CVC syllable. The 6 vowels of this language were also used in this syllable. To maintain the consistent articulatory conditions for all the consonants in this syllable structure (CVC), they were used adjacent to the same vowel /ɑ/, i.e. when they appeared in onset position, the nucleus and coda were (–ɑm) and when they were employed in coda position, the onset and nucleus were (bɑ–). All the vowels were also alternatively used between /s/ and /r/ in s–r frame. The data gathered in this way were either monosyllabic Persian words or Persian syllables. In the next step, all the data were put in carrier sentences, then read and recorded three times by 10 monolingual native Persian speakers ranging from 30 to 40 years old from both genders. Following that, using Praat software (version 6.1.42), the audio files were acoustically analyzed, and all the target phonemes (tokens) were measured in terms of intensity variable. In doing so, according to Parker (2002: 107), peak intensity was measured for vowels since this was the point when they were most distinct from consonants. Conversely, for consonants minimum intensity was measured because the most consonant -like point of consonants was when their intensity marked the minimum. Following that, Mean Values for individual phonemes, Grand weighted Means for phonemic classes and Standard Deviations for both groups were calculated. Discussion of Results and Conclusions After extracting the Mean Values and Grand weighted Means, the relationship between intensity measurements and sonority indices proposed in the hypothesis was calculated through Pearson's Correlation Coefficient for two approaches (individual phonemes and phonemic classes) for both genders (male and female) and for both positions (onset and coda). Because of this, 8 Correlation Coefficients were obtained as in table 2: Table 2- Final correlation between intensity and sonority Coda consonants plus vowels Onset consonants plus vowels Mean women men women men 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.84 0.92 Individual phonemes 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.87 0.93 Phonemic classes As it is seen in table 2, the Correlation Coefficients for individual phonemes and phonemic classes were 0.90 and 0.91 respectively. These measurements show that intensity has a positive, direct and meaningful relationship with sonority. Accordingly, the hypothesis of the research was statistically attested and the hierarchical sonority model of Persian phonemes was presented as in table 3: Table 3- Sonority hierarchy of Persian phonemes Sonority index Phonemes Phonemic Classes 13 / ɑ , a/ Open vowels 12 / e , o/ Mid-open vowels 11 /i , u/ Closed vowels 10 /j/ Approximant 9 /l/ Lateral 8 /r/ Thrill 7 /m , n/ Nasals 6 /v , z , ʒ/ Voiced fricatives 5 /dʒ/ Voiced affricate 4 /b , d , ɟ , G/ Voiced stops 3 /f , s , ʃ , h , χ/ Voiceless fricatives 2 /tʃ/ Voiceless affricate 1 /p , t , c , ʔ/ Voiceless stops Moreover, the comparison of this model with the model suggested by Parker (2008) showed that it is completely consistent with it, and it can be claimed that Parker's model (2008) is also confirmed in Persian.
تبلیغات
