The interface of syntax and sociolinguistics: sociolinguistic analysis of some Persian syntactic structures based on Labov’ variation theory

Document Type : Research

Author

Abstract

 
The Interface of Syntax and Sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistic Analysis of some Persian Syntactic Structures based on Labov’ Variation Theory
 
Abrahim Rezapour[1]
 
 
Received: 2014/07/12
Accepted: 2015/03/15
 
 
Abstract
Sociolinguists consider language variation as one of the inherent characteristics of languages. They believe that social factors including gender, social class, education, age and ethnicity are playing a fundamental role in creating and distributing language variation. In this research, the effects of social class, education and gender on frequency and distribution of syntactic variation in every day and scientific colloquial discourse of Persian are explored. Men used scrambling, cleft construction and focus adverbs more than women in every day colloquial discourse and contrarily, women used scrambling and cleft construction more than men in scientific colloquial discourse. Upper social class people used scrambling more than middle and low classes and low class social societies used cleft construction and focus adverbs more than other social classes in every day colloquial discourse. In scientific discourse, high social class used scrambling more than other social classes. MA and BA graduates used scrambling more than high school graduates in every day colloquial discourse and high school graduates used cleft construction more than other educated people. Also, MA graduates used scrambling more than other graduates in scientific colloquial discourse.  Findings of the present research indicate that we must include sociolinguistic considerations in linguistic studies in addition to using generative grammar. The existence of syntactic variations in Persian speech in different social contexts and styles represents the status and value of variation theory in linguistic explorations. In this research, the existence of three different syntactic structures representing the sameness of core meaning and also discoursal meaning indicates that generative grammar is not able to analyze them. These syntactic structure variations and distribution of them in every day and scientific discourses may be analyzed only through Variation Theory.  Findings of the present research are convergent with studies of King(2005) in the field of morpho-syntactic variation in Acadian French; and also studies of  Barbiers(2005) in the field of word order variation in Dutch dialect.
Keywords: Variation Theory, scrambling, cleft construction, focus adverbs, social class, education, gender, discourse
 



[1] Assistant Professor, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran,abrahim_rezapour@profs.semnan.ac.ir


The Interface of Syntax and Sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistic Analysis of some Persian Syntactic Structures based on Labov’ Variation Theory
 
Abrahim Rezapour[1]
 
 
Received: 2014/07/12
Accepted: 2015/03/15
 
 
Abstract
Sociolinguists consider language variation as one of the inherent characteristics of languages. They believe that social factors including gender, social class, education, age and ethnicity are playing a fundamental role in creating and distributing language variation. In this research, the effects of social class, education and gender on frequency and distribution of syntactic variation in every day and scientific colloquial discourse of Persian are explored. Men used scrambling, cleft construction and focus adverbs more than women in every day colloquial discourse and contrarily, women used scrambling and cleft construction more than men in scientific colloquial discourse. Upper social class people used scrambling more than middle and low classes and low class social societies used cleft construction and focus adverbs more than other social classes in every day colloquial discourse. In scientific discourse, high social class used scrambling more than other social classes. MA and BA graduates used scrambling more than high school graduates in every day colloquial discourse and high school graduates used cleft construction more than other educated people. Also, MA graduates used scrambling more than other graduates in scientific colloquial discourse.  Findings of the present research indicate that we must include sociolinguistic considerations in linguistic studies in addition to using generative grammar. The existence of syntactic variations in Persian speech in different social contexts and styles represents the status and value of variation theory in linguistic explorations. In this research, the existence of three different syntactic structures representing the sameness of core meaning and also discoursal meaning indicates that generative grammar is not able to analyze them. These syntactic structure variations and distribution of them in every day and scientific discourses may be analyzed only through Variation Theory.  Findings of the present research are convergent with studies of King(2005) in the field of morpho-syntactic variation in Acadian French; and also studies of  Barbiers(2005) in the field of word order variation in Dutch dialect.
Keywords: Variation Theory, scrambling, cleft construction, focus adverbs, social class, education, gender, discourse
 



[1] Assistant Professor, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran,abrahim_rezapour@profs.semnan.ac.ir

Keywords

References

بی‌من، ویلیام (1381). زبان، منزلت و قدرت در ایران. ترجمة رضا مقدم‌کیا. تهران: انتشارات نشر نی.
ترادگیل، پیتر(1376). زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی. ترجمة محمد طباطبایی. تهران: انتشارات اگاه.
حیدری، عبدالحسین و افسر روحی (1393). «قلب نحوی در زبان ترکی آذری بر اساس انگاره کاوشگر- هدف برنامة کمینه‌گرایی». مجلة جستارهای زبانی. دورة 5. شمارة 1 (پیاپی 17). صص 44-27.
خرمایی، علیرضا و نازنین طباطبایی (1391). «تفاوت‌های گفتمانی و نحوی جملات گسسته و شبه‌گسسته در زبان فارسی». نشریة پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. سال اول. ش 1. صص 63-33 .
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1388). پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی فارسی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
درزی، علی و مژگان همایون فر (1389). «کانونی‌سازی در زبان فارسی». مجلة زبان و زبان‌شناسی. سال ششم. شمارة دوم. پیاپی دوازدهم. صص 20-1.
راسخ مهند، محمد (1383). «رفتار کلامی قلب نحوی در فارسی». پژوهش‌های زبان شناسی ایرانی. ش 2. صص 116-65.
راسخ مهند، محمد (1385). «ارتباط قلب نحوی و تأکید در زبان فارسی». مجلة دستور، ویژه‌نامة نامة فرهنگستان. شمارة 2. صص 33-20.
رضاپور، ابراهیم (1393). «قلب نحوی در گویش مازندرانی». مجلة جستارهای زبانی. دورة 5. شمارة 5 (پیاپی 21). صص 115-95.
رضایی، والی و مژگان نیسانی (1393). «ساخت‌های اسنادی‌شده زبان فارسی در ترازوی نظریه‌های نحوی». فصل‌نامة جستارهای زبانی. دورة 5. ش 1 (پیاپی 17). صص 88- 63 .
غلامعلی زاده، خسرو(1374). ساخت زبان فارسیز تهران: احیاء کتاب.
مدرسی، یحیی (1391). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی زبان. تهران: انتشارات پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
واعظی، هنگامه (1391). «تحلیل ساخت‌های پرسشی در زبان فارسی». ادب‌پژوهی، ویژه‌نامة زبان و گویش. شمارة 20 . صص 109-89.
Adger, D. & J. Smith (2005). "Variation and the Minimalist Program". Syntax and  Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. Cornips, L, Corrigan & K. John Benjamins (eds.). Amsterdam. pp. 149-178.
Bailey, Charles-James N. (1971). Variation and Language Theory. Unpublished Dissertation.
Baily, J. (2002). "On Scrambling: A reply to Boškovič and Takahashi". Linguistic Inquiry. 32 (4). pp. 635-658.
Barbiers, Sjef (2005). "Word Order Variation in Three-verb Clusters and the Division  of  Labour between Generative Linguistics and Sociolinguistics". Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social.  L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds.).Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 233- 264.
Bickerton, Derek (1971). "Inherent Variability and Variable Rules". Foundations of Language.7. pp. 457–492.
Canale, M. (1983). "From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Ppedagogy". Language and Communication. Richards, J. C., & R. W.  Schmidt (Eds.). London: Longman. pp. 2-27.
Cedergren, Henriette & David Sankoff (1974). "Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence". Language. 50. pp. 333–355.
Chambers, Jack K. (2003). Sociolinguistic Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cheshire, J. (2003). "Social Dimensions of Syntactic Variation". Social Dialectology: In Honour of Peter Trudgill. J. Cheshire & D. Britain (eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 245–261.
………. (2005). "Syntactic Variation and Spoken Language". Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 81-106.
Collins, Peter C. (1990). "Pseudo-Cleft and Cleft Constructions: A Thematic and Informational Interpretation". Linguistics. 29. pp. 481-519.
De Camp, David (1971). "Towards a Generative Analysis of a Post-Creole Speech Continuum." Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Dell Hymes (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 349–370.
Elliott, D., Stanley Legam & Sandra A. Thompson (1969). "Syntactic Variation as Linguistic Data". Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 52-59.
Erteschik-shir, Nomi (2007). Information Structure: The Syntax-discourse Interface. Oxford university press.
Fasold, R.W. (1991)."The Quiet Demise of Variable Rules in American Speech". 66 (1). pp. 3-21.
Green, Lisa J. (2007). "Syntactic Variation". Sociolinguistic Variation: Theories, Methods, and Applications. Robert Bayley & Ceil Lucas (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PP. 24-44.
Henry, Alison (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Hudson, Richard A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (second edition). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). "On Communicative Competence". Sociolinguistics: selected readings. Pride, J. B. & J. Holmes (eds.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 269–293.
Ishihara, Shinichiro (2000). "Stress, Focus, and Scrambling in Japanese". MIT working papers in linguistics.  39. pp. 142–175.
Jespersen, Otto (1927). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part 3, Syntax, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Winter.
Karimi, S. (2003). Word Order and Scrambling. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
………. (2005). A minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Kayne, Richard S. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford: OUP.
King, Ruth (2005). "Morphosyntactic Variation and Theory: Subject-verb Agreement in Acadian French." Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds.).PP. 199- 233.
Kiss, K. E. (1998b). "Identificational Focus  versus Information Focus". Language. 74 (2). pp. 245–73.
Kizu, Mika (2005). Cleft Constructions in Japanese Syntax. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Labov, W. (1969). "Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula". Language. 45. pp.715-762.
………. (1971). "Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology". Language in Society 1(1). pp. 97–120.
………. (1982). "Objectivity and Commitment in Linguistic Science: The Case of the Black English Trial in Ann Arbor". Language in Society. 11. pp.165-201.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
………. (2001). "A Framework for the Analysis of Cleft Constructions". Linguistics. 39 (3). pp. 463-516.
Lavandera, Beatriz (1978). "Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?". Language in Society. 7. pp.171–182.
Miller, Jim & Regina Weinert (1998). Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Claredon.
Moezzipor, farhad (2010). Cleft Construction in Persian: Role and Reference Grammar. MA thesis. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies.
Muysken, Pieter (2005). "A Modular Approach to Sociolinguistic Variation in Syntax: The Gerund in Ecuadorian Spanish". Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social. L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 31- 54.
Pavey, Emma (2004). The English it-cleft Construction: A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis. PhD Dissertation. University of Sussex.
Prince, Ellen (1978). "A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and It-Clefts in Discourse". Language. 54(4). pp. 883-906.
Rickford, J. R. & A. Rickford (1995). "Dialect Readers Revisited". Linguistics and Education. 7. pp. 107- 128.
 
Roberts, John (2005). "Scrambling in Persian: A Role and Reference Grammar Approach". Paper Presented at the First International Conference on Iranian Linguistics. Leipzig. pp. 820-861.
Roeper, Thomas & Angeliek Van Hout (2009). "The Representation of Movement in -ability Nominalizations: Evidence for Covert Category Movement, Edge Phenomena, and Local LF". quantification, definiteness and Nominalization. Giannakidou, A. & M. Rathert (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 344-364.
Romaine, S. (I981). "The Status of Variable Rules in Sociolinguistic Theory". JL I7. pp. 93- I19.
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts  Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Sankoff, G. (1980a). "The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives". The Social Life of Language. G. Sankoff (ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 211–255.
………. (1980b). The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
………. (1980c). "Above and Beyond Phonology in Variable Rules." The Social Life of Language. Gillian Sankoff (ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 81–93.
………. (1982). "Usage Linguistique et Grammaticalisation: Les Clitiques Sujets en Français". La Sociolinguistique dans les Pays de Langue Romane. N. Dittmar & B. Schlieben-Lange (eds.). Tübingen: G. Narr. pp. 81–85.
Szendori, kriszta (2001). Focus and the Syntax-phonology Interface. Ph.D Dissertation. London, University  College.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
Trudgill , P. & J. Chambers (1991)."Verb Systems in English Dialects". Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. P. Trudgill & J. Chambers (eds.). pp. 49–53.
Wardaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Wiley-Blakwell.
Weinert, R. & J. Miller (1996). "Cleft Constructins in Spoken Language". Journal of Pragmatics. 25. pp. 173-206.
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog (1968). "Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change". W. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds.). Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 95-198.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 9, Issue 22
April 2017
Pages 77-105

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics