پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 932 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,653 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,495,784 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,886,807 |
نشانداری در بیان شفاهی و تکرار بیماران زبان‌پریش: مطالعه‌ای بر پایه رویکرد بهینگی | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 11، دوره 11، شماره 31، شهریور 1398، صفحه 247-273 اصل مقاله (705.73 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2018.16054.1357 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| موسی غنچه پور* | ||
| استادیار گروه آموزش زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در این پژوهش، خطاهای دو بیمار زبان‌پریش بروکا و یک بیمار ترانس‌کرتیکال حرکتی در تولید اسم‌های ساده و مرکبی با ساختار «اسم+اسم»، «صفت+اسم» و «اسم+ستاک فعل» مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. سپس نشانداری این خطاها، با توجه به نظریه بهینگی پرینس و اسمولنسکی (Prince & Smolensky, 1993) بررسی شد. خطاها و فرایندهای واجی بیماران زبان‌پریش، در تکالیف نامیدن در مواجهه با و یا تکرارِ 32 اسم ساده و 32 اسم مرکب، بر اساس الگوها‌ی حذف، پیشین‌شدگی، انسدادی‌شدگی، حذف همخوان پایانی، کوتاه‌شدگی خوشه همخوانی پایانه هجا و واکداری همخوان‌های گرفته آغازه هجا تحلیل شدند. یافته‌ها نشان دادند که خطاهای این بیماران واجی‌اند و در هیچ یک ازخطاها فرایند درج در رفتار زبانی بیماران مشاهده نمی‌شود. فرایند حذف و کوتاه‌شدگی در خوشه‌های پایانی واژه‌ها صورت می‌گیرد، در حالیکه فرایند واکداری بیشتر در همخوان‌های گرفتة آغازه هجا رخ می‌دهد. مرتبه‌بندی محدودیت‌ها در خطاهای بیماران نشان می‌دهد که آواهای پیش‌زبانی در مقایسه با آواهای بدنه‌ای و نیز انسدادی‌ها در برابر سایشی‌ها بی‌نشان هستند. این آواها، به ترتیب از طریق محدودیت‌های نشانداری *بدنه زبانی و *سایشی نشان داده شده و نظریه نشانداری یاکوبسون (Jakobson, 1972) را تأیید میکنند. بیماران زبان‌پریش بروکا و ترانس‌کرتیکال حرکتی بیشتر همخوان‌های گرفته واکدار را در آغازه هجا به کار می‌برند. این امر با یافته‌های یاکوبسون (Jakobson, 1972) همخوانی ندارد و نمایانگر آسیب‌پذیر‌تر بودن همخوان‌های انسدادی بی‌واک در مقایسه با جفت‌های واکدار است. در میان واکه‌ها، واکه‌های افراشته بی‌نشان‌ترین واکه‌ها هستند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| واژه‌های کلیدی: نشانداری؛ محدودیت نشانداری؛ محدودیت پایایی؛ اسم مرکب؛ زبان‌پریشی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Markedness in oral production and repetition of Persian Aphasias: A study on Optimality theory | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mousa Ghonchepour | ||
| Assistant professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Farhangiyan University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| In this article, markedness is studied through the errors of one Persian Motor Transcortical and two Broca aphasias in production of simple and compound nouns comprising of “N+N”, “Adj+N” and “N+verb stem” with regard to optimality theory of Prince and Smolensky (1993). The issue that language structures include two marked and unmarked values is called markedness. It is believed that the unmarked phones and structures are acquired before marked ones in language acquisition (Ulatowska, & Baker 1975; Jakobson, 1941). The markedness studies also show contrast between these groups of phonemes: voiceless and voiced consonants; liquids and non-liquids; back and front consonants; affricates versus stops and fricatives and oral versus nasal vowels. Since compounding is one of the most productive and common processes in Persian, it is necessary to study markedness in confrontation naming and repetition tasks of verbal and nonverbal compound nouns on the basis of phonological theories such as optimality theory to get some pieces of fresh evidence in order to reveal whether markedness theory is true or false. Using the clinical data also gives us an opportunity to get a clear picture from phonological processes in speech production of Persian native speakers and add richness to former theories. The main purpose of this article is to study the markedness by using the description of the common error patterns to get the necessary evidence to evaluate the markednesss theory of Jakobson (1972). The study of aphasics’ data tries to clarify whether markedness is extended as a general principle to language behavior of aphasic patients and whether aphasic patients’ errors in confrontation naming and repetition tasks are in agreement with Jakobson (1972) or not. The comparison of Persian aphasic patients’ competence and performance is another purpose used to clarify what is the explanation of optimality theory of Prince and Smolensky (1993) regarding markedness theory in Persian. One female and two male monolingual Persian-speaking aphasic patients participated in this study. Three normal men and women as a control group were matched to aphasic patients according to gender, age, educational degree, native language and handedness. Language stimuli of this study included 32 simple and 32 root (nonverbal) and synthetic (verbal) compound nouns. These nouns were the most frequent categories among different categories derived from PhD dissertations of Khabbaz (2007) and Ghonchepour (2014). Regarding frequency and length of stimuli, an effort was made to match the simple words to the compound nouns. To investigate the ability of patients to produce simple and compound nouns, picture confrontation naming and repetition tasks were designed and performed. 32 pictures of compound stimuli were intermixed with 32 pictures of simple nouns. The speech of patients was recorded while doing the tasks.In the repetition task, the same lexical stimuli pertaining to confrontation naming task were used and the patients were asked to repeat them after the examiner. Their performance was recorded and then, errors were classified and analyzed based on phonological patterns of common disorders. Errors and phonological processes in confrontation naming and repetition of simple and compound nouns are analyzed on the basis of final consonant deletion, cluster reduction, fronting, stopping and onset voiced obstruent consonant patterns. Data analysis shows that the errors of these patients are phonemic and the insertion process is not observed in any of error patterns. The deletion and reduction processes take place in final clusters of word syllables while voicing process mostly happens in onset clusters of words. In other words, the *COMPLEX (coda), *CODA, MAX-IO and UNIFORMITY constraints of markedness and faithfulness show that the unmarked CV syllable structures are the most optimal output structures which are represented via the deletion of final consonant or the reduction of coda cluster obstruent consonants. The domination of ONSET (- voiced) obstruent over IDENT ONSET (voice) and IDENT- IO (voice) reveals that voiced obstruent consonants of onsets are the unmarked phonemes in comparison with voiceless ones. This issue is in agreement with Fromkin (1970), Lecours and Lhermitte (1969), green (1969) and Blumstein (1979) and is against Berlin, Lowe-Bell, Cullen, Thompson and Loovis (1973) and Jakobson (1972). Coronal phonemes in comparison with dorsal phonemes and stops against fricatives are unmarked which are respectively shown through *DORSAL and *FRICATIVE markedness constraints proving markedness theory of Jakobson (1972). The findings also show that the Persian Broca and Motor Transcortical aphasias mostly use onset voiced obstruent consonants in place of voiceless ones which is contrary to Jakobson (1972) and indicates that voiceless stops are more vulnerable than their voiced pairs. The findings also reveal that high vowels are the most unmarked ones among vowels and patients use them in place of mid or low vowels. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Key words: Markedness, markedness constraint, faithfulness constraint, compound noun, aphasia | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
خباز، مجید (1385). ترکیب غیرفعلی در زبان فارسی (پایاننامة دکتری) دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. غنچه پور، موسی (1386). بررسی تولید اسم ساده و مرکب در بیماران زبان پریش. پایاننامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی. غنچه پور، موسی. (1397). «ترکیب فعلی: فرایندی صرفی یا نحوی؟ یک بررسی پیکره بنیاد». زبان پژوهی. سال 10. شمارة 28. صص 149-173. نیلیپور، رضا (1372). آزمون زبان پریشی فارسی. تهران: دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران. References Ash, S., McMillan, C., Gunawardena, D., Avants. B., Morgan, B., Khan, A., Moore, P., Gee, J., & Grossman, M. (2010). Speech errors in progressive non-fluent aphasia. Brain and language,113(1), 13–20. Barlow, J. A., & Gierut Judith, A. (1999). Optimality theory in phonological acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 1482- 1498. Battistella, E. (1996). The logic of markedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press Berlin, C. I., Lowe-Bell, S., Cullen, J., Thompson, C., & Loovis, C. (1973). Dichotic speech perception: an interpretation of right ear advantage and temporal offset effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53, 699-709. Blumstein, S. (1973). A phonological investigation of aphasic speech. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frank Benson, D., & Ardila, A. (1996) Aphasia: a clinical perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fromkin, V. (1970). The concept of “naturalness” in a universal phonetic theory. Glossa, 4, 29-45. Garman M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ghonchepour, M. (2007). The study of production and comprehension of simple and compound nouns in Persian aphasic patients (Master’s thesis). Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian]. Ghonchepour, M. (2013). Verbal Compounding in Persian (Ph.D. dissertation). Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian]. Ghonchepour, M. (2018). Synthetic compounding: a syntactic or morphological processing? A corpus-based study. Zabanpazhuhi, 10(28), 149-173[In Persian]. Green, E., (1969). Phonological and grammatical aspects of jargon in an aphasic patient. A case study, Language and Speech, 12, 103-118. Greenberg, J. (1966). Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton. Hjelmslev, L. (1935). La cat ́egorie des cas: etude de grammaire g ́en ́eraleI (Acta Jutlandica: Aarsskrift for Aarhus Universitet 7.1). Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Jakobson, R. (1939). Signe zéro. In R. Jakobson, (Ed.). Selected writings II (pp. 211-219.). The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist och Wiksells Boktryckeri. Jakobson, R. (1972). Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiparsky, P. (1965). Phonological change(PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA. Lecours, A., & Lhermitte, F. (1969). Phonemic paraphasias: linguistic structures and tentative hypotheses, Ccortex, 5, 193-228. Lesser, R. (1989). Linguistic investigations of aphasia (2nd ed). Britain: Athenaeum Press LTD. Lesser, R., & Milroy, L. (1993). Linguistics and aphasia. London: Longman. Lombardi, L. (1995). Why place and voice are different: constraint interactions and feature faithfulness in Optimality Theory (Master’s thesis). University of Maryland, Maryland, USA. Lombardi, L. (2002). Coronal epenthesis and markedness, Phonology,19(2), 219–51. Lewis, M. (1936). Infant speech: a study of the beginnings of language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. Meuamann, E. (1903). Die Sprache des Kindes. Zurich: Zurich & Furrer. Miyakoda,H. (2005). Theprosodic structure in Japanese acquisition.In M.Tzakosta, C. Levelt & J. van de Weijer. (Eds.), Developmental paths in phonologicalacquisition (pp. 39-51). Special issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics. Nilipour, R. (1993). Aphasia tests. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences Publications [In Persian]. Ouden, D. B. (2002). Segmental vs positional markedness in syllables: deletion errors in the paraphasias of fluent and non-fluent aphasics. In E. Fava (Ed.) Clinical Linguistics: Theory and Applications in Speech Pathology and Therapy(pp. 23-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1987). A comprehensive grammar of the English language (5nd ed). London and New York: Longman. Rutherford, W. (1982). Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, 85-108 Salus, P., & Salus, M. (1974). Developmental neurophysiology and phonological acquisition order, Language, 50, 151-160. Trubetzkoy, Ni. S. (1969). Principles of phonology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Ulatowska, H. K., & Baker, W. D. (1975). On a notion of markedness in linguistic system: application to aphasia. In R. H. Brookshire (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology Conference Proceedings (pp. 153-164). Minneapolis, MN: BRK Publishers. Xabbaz, M. (2006). Root compounding in Persian (PhD dissertation). Tehran: Allame Tabataba’i University [In Persian]. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 575 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 424 |
||
