Vowel Harmony in Hamedani Turkish: A Study to Test the Reliability of Optimmolity Models

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Linguistics, Imam Khomeini International University

Abstract

This article addresses vowel harmony in Hamedani Turkish Within the framework of different models of optimality theory including Feature alignment, Local Agreement, Spread, Span, and Agreement-By-Correspondence. A corpus of related data was gathered and pronounced by 30 native speakers of Hamedani Turkish. Examination of the data suggested that three types of harmony occur in the said dialect, namely total harmony, opaque harmony, and transparent harmony. Results obtained from analyses indicated that the Spread theory, as contrasted with other models of optimality theory, has both descriptive and explanatory adequacy to account for data of vowel harmony in Hamedani Turkish. For one thing, the model can account for any type of vowel harmony in Hamedani Turkish. On the other hand, using the markedness constraint Spead [αF], the model can explain why different processes of assimilation in the sound systems of languages serve to operate and function similarly in respect to agreement in articulatory mechanisms.  

Keywords

References

حسابگر، حسن. (1371). نظام آوایی ترکی آذری. پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
حیدری، عبدالحسین. (1381). بررسی هماهنگی واکه‌ای در ترکی آذری از دیدگاه واج‌شناسی زایشی و خودواحد. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
رضی­نژاد، سیدمحمد. (1392). هماهنگی و ناهماهنگی در زبان ترکی آذربایجانی. پژوهش‌های زبانی، 4 (2)، صص. 61-80.
علائی، بهلول. (1392). بررسی فرآیند‌های واکه‌ای در زبان ترکی آذری منطقة مغان از دیدگاه واج‌شناسی خودواحد. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 5 (1)، صص. 31-48.
کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه و رنگین‌کمان، فرانک. (1388). بررسی واج‌شناختی زبان ترکی گونه زنجان. مجله علم و فناوری، 8 (1 و 2)، صص. 58-70.
Bakovic, E. (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University.
Bakovic, E. & Wilson, C. (2000). Transparency, strict locality, and targeted  constraints. In R. Billerey and B. D. Lillehaugen (eds.) WCCFL  Proceedings 19: Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadia Press. 43-56 
Bakovic, E. and Wilson, C. (2004). Laryngeal markedness and the typology of repair. 78th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic   Society of America, Boston.
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publisher.
Kirchner, R. (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 27(2), 341-350.
Krämer, M. (2003). Vowel harmony and correspondence theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Mc Carthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency. A review, Phonetica, 43,  pp. 84-108.
McCarthy, J. (2004). Headed spans and autosegmental spreading. [ROA:  685-0904: http://roa.rutgers.edu]. 
McCarthy, J. (2008). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25, pp.  271-  319.
Padgett, J. (1997). Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation. In K.  Suzuki & D. Elzinga (eds.) Proceedings of the southwest optimality theory workshop. Tucson:  University of Arizona, pp. 1-40.
Rose, S. & Walker, R. (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language, 80, pp. 475-531.
Smolensky, P. and Legendre, G. (2006). The harmonic mind, from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Walker, R. (2009). Similarity-sensitive blocking and transparency in Menominee. The 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.
Journal of Iranian Dialects & Linguistics
Volume 5, Issue 1
May 2020
Pages 53-81

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 December 2019
  • Revise Date: 16 May 2020
  • Accept Date: 23 May 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics