Relation Between the Syllable Structure of Suffix and Moraic Weight of Base in Persian Tri-syllabic Words

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of literature and Humanity, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Linguistics Department, Faculty of Humanitis, Tarbiat Modares Universit,, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities , Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

This paper examines relation betweensyllable structure of derivational suffixes and the weight of the base it is added to, in Persian tri-syllabic words, within a Moraic-theoretic account. The weight pattern of a word is the weight of its syllables and it is defined based on the distinction between heavy and light syllables (Carr, 2008:172). Here, the notion of mora (often symbolized μ) as a basic timing unit, is important because it provides a distinction between 'light' and 'heavy' syllable. As Hayes (1989: 356) mentions, heavy syllables are of more moras compared to light syllables. In order to study and compare the weight pattern of derivational suffixes, 6665 tri-syllabic derivative words were collected from two dictionaries Dehkhoda (2003) and Moshiri (2009). Then, they were sorted in an Excel worksheet with all their etymological and phonological information including the weight of syllables (light, heavy, super-heavy, and ultra-heavy). Studies show that there are two groups of suffixes in tri-syllabic derivatives: suffixes beginning with a consonant in the onset; suffixes with no onset, beginning with a vowel. The latter, make about 77 percent of the data, among which /-i/ as a long vowel is so frequent and productive and can be added to all bases of one mora (mono-moraic), two moras (bi-moraic), three moras (tri-moraic), and even four moras (tetra-moraic). The weight patterns of these suffixes show that they mostly tend toward tri-moraic bases. On the other hand, suffixes with a consonant in the onset are less productive and tend toward bi-moraic bases.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

بی‌جن­خان، محمود (1394). واج‌شناسی: نظریه بهینگی. چ 5. تهران: سمت.
دهخدا، علی اکبر (1385). فرهنگ فارسی. تهران: سمت.
سلیمی، لیلا ( 1397). محدودیت‌های حاکم بر واج‌آرایی واژه‌های دو هجایی زبان فارسی: نظریة بهینگی. رسالة دکتری. تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
شقاقی، ویدا (1386). مبانی صرف. تهران: سمت.
قربان‌پور، امیر (1398). بررسی محدودیت‌های واج­آرایی زبان فارسی در چارچوب نظریۀ بهینگی مطالعۀ موردی واژه­های چهارهجایی. رسالة دکتری. تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
کامبوزیا کرد زعفرانلو، عالیه و بهرام هادیان (1388). طبقات طبیعی در واکه‌های زبان فارسی. پژوهش زبان و ادبیات فارسی، 15، صص. 117-144.
کامبوزیا کرد زعفرانلو ، عالیه (1385). واج‌شناسی: رویکردهای قاعده‌بنیاد. چ 6: 1393. تهران: سمت.
کامبوزیا کرد زعفرانلو، عالیه و رضا خیرآبادی (1389). بررسی رابطة ساخت هجایی با میزان زایایی وندهای اشتقاقی فعل­افزای زبان فارسی. پژوهش­های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، 3، صص. 143-156.
کلباسی، ایران (1380). ساخت اشتقاقی واژه در فارسی امروز. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
مشیری، مهشید ( 1388). فرهنگ زبان فارسی. چ 5. تهران: سروش.
معین، محمد (1366). فرهنگ فارسی. تهران: امیرکبیر.
 ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1373). وزن شعر فارسی. چ 6. تهران: توس.
Aronoff, M. (1983). Potential words, actual words, productivity and frequency. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguistics. pp.163-171.
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carr, P. (2008). A Glossary of phonology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
 Haghshenas, A. (1999). Phonetics. Tehran: Agah.
Durand, J., & Katamba, F. (Eds.). (1995). Frontiers of phonology: Atoms,structures and derivations. London & New York: Routledge.
 Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20. pp. 253-306.
Hubbard, K. (1995). Toward a theory of phonological and phonetic timing: Evidence from Bantu, in Bruce Connell and Amalia Arvaniti (ed.), Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV. (pp.168-187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyman, L. (1985). On phonological weight. in Charles Kreidler (ed.), Phonology: Critical concepts, (2001). (pp. 143-95) London: Routledge. Vol 3.
Jensen, J. T. (2004). Principles of generative phonology, An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Kenstowitcz, M .(1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge MA & Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Lazard, G. (1992). A grammar of contemporary persian. Translated by Shirley A. Lyon (Persian Studies Series, No. 14). New York: Mazda Publishers, in association with Bibliotheca Persica.
McCarthy, J. J. and A. Prince (1986). Prosodic morphology: The handbook of phonological theory: The essential readings. Oxford: Blackwell.
Samare, Y. (1999). The phonetics of the Persian: Sounds and phonetic structure of syllable. 2nd ed. Tehran: Markaze Nashre Daneshgahi.
Windfuhr, G. (1997). Persian phonology. In A. Kaye (ed.). Phonologies of Asia and Africa. (pp. 675-689). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Journal of Iranian Dialects & Linguistics
Volume 8, Issue 1
September 2023
Pages 173-190

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 31 January 2023
  • Revise Date: 28 February 2023
  • Accept Date: 12 March 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics