ساخت‌های همسانی در ترکی آذربایجانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان شناسی، گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

2 استاد زبان‌شناسی، گروه زبان شناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری زبان شناسی، گروه زبان‌شناسی. دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

ساخت‌های همسانی از جنبة صوری و معنایی، وجوه اشتراک فراوانی با ساخت‌های تشابهی دارند و همین امر سبب شده تا ساخت‌های موردِ اشاره به صورت جداگانه و مطلوبی مورد بررسی جدی قرار نگیرند. هسپلمت و همکاران (Haspelmath et al., 2017) ضمن بررسی رده‌شناختی، شش نوع الگوی پایة جداگانه از ساخت‌های همسانی را بر می‌شمرده و بر اساس الگوهای موردِ اشاره سه تعمیم بینازبانی ارائه می‌دهند. در پژوهش حاضر، بر اساس تجزیه و تحلیل پیکره‌ای متشکل از داده‌های گفتاری ده گویشور آذری زبان و همچنین شم زبانی یکی از نگارندگان به این نتیجه رسیدیم که در زبان ترکی پنج الگوی پایه از ساخت‌های همسانی وجود دارد اما الگوی نوع دوم در زبان موردِ اشاره موجود نیست. داده‌های زبان ترکی تأیید کنندة وجود هر سه تعمیم مطرح شده به وسیلة هسپلمت و همکاران (همان) است.‌
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Equative construction in Turkic Azarbaijani

نویسندگان [English]

  • Parisa Najafi 1
  • Jalal Rahimian 2
  • Mahdye Rezaei 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate of General Linguistics- Shiraz University/ shiraz/ Iran
2 Professor of General Linguistics, Linguistic Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
3 Ph.D. Candidate of General Linguistics-, Linguistics Department, Shiraz University
چکیده [English]

INTRODUCTION

Equative constructions have not been desirably studied due to their formal and semantic similarity to similitive constructions. Haspelmath (2017) proposed the six basic types of equative constructions in distinct patterns based on typological studies. On the basis of these six patterns, there are also three cross-linguistic generalizations. In the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language, we conclude that five types of six types of these basic constructions can be found in the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, all generalizations are valid in (Turkic) Azarbaijani. It should be noted that the data of the present research are based on the corpus of the ordinary speech of the native speakers and the intuition of one of the writers.
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the present study, we have used a descriptive-analytical method to examine the data. The data of the present research are based on the corpus of the ordinary speech of the 10 native speakers and the intuition of one of the writers. This research mainly analyzes data from direct elicitation and does not include data from written text.
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Equative constructions express situations in which “two referents have a gradable property to the same degree" (Haspelmath, 2016, p. 9). Equative constructions vary widely in different languages, but the six main types are distinguished by Hespelmat (2016). Each of these types is characterized by the following five components:
 
(1) 1                  2                      3                  4                      5
Compare      degree-marker parameter standard-marker standard
Kim        is   [as                      tall]         [as                    Pat].
 
Type 1: Only equative standard-marker:
In this type of equative construction, there is a comparee, standard and standard marker, and there is no degree marker, and also the parameter generally plays the role of a predicate.
 
(2) Sanin  taĉin  xošgel  di.
 
"Taĉin" has appeared as a standard marker and is mostly used to compare similarities in human traits, and as it is obvious, this standard marker has appeared as a post-addition (after the standard marker). The comparee is used as a pronoun.
 
(3) Maryam mehrnaz ĉimi  gozal  di.
 
"ĉimi" is standard marker that is placed in postposition of standard (after the standard) and is used to express the similarity of traits between humans and other living things.
 
Type 2: Equative degree-marker and standard-marker:
In this type of construction, in addition to the three main components (comparee, standard, parameter), there are also a degree marker and a standard marker. In Azerbaijani, as far as the authors have studied, there is no structure in which it is possible to show both the standard marker and the degree marker based on type 2.
 
Type 3: Equative degree-marker unified:
In this type of construction, there are predicate parameter, degree marker (meaning the same degree) and [comparee + standard] exists as a unified unit, but there is no standard marker. In examples (4-5), "ham" and "bir" indicate degree marker.
(4) Nɑsirinan mahdya ham qiɑfa dilar.
(5) Husseinan Ɂahmad bir Ɂandɑzada dilar
 
Type 4: Primary reach equative:
In this type, the predicate is a verb means to reach / unite. In the Azerbaijani (Turkish) language, as shown in Examples (6-8), the verbs tʃatmaz, jetišmasan, tʃakib are used to mean to arrive, go or unite:
(6) Hiškim safihlida   Behruza  tʃatmaz
(7) San zirahlixda  maʤida   jetišmasan
(8) Sanda tanbalihdan bɑʤuɁɑ tʃakib san.
Type 5: Primary reach equative unified
In this type of construction, [comparee and standard] appear as a unified unit in role of subject, there is a verb to reach / unite and a parameter (usually in a dative case).
(9) Rɑmininan Bahram chohlexdɑ barɑbar dilar.
(10) Bizim mɑšininan sizin mɑšini sürɁatda bir dilar.
 
Type 6: Secondary reach equative
In this type of construction, there is a parameter as the first predicate and a verb (to reach united) as a second predicate. In examples (11-13), being good, being tall, and being stingy, respectively, are used as the predicate parameters, and the verb "tʃakib" is used as the second verb, which implicitly means to unite / achieve.
(11) Amir gözal di xɑlasina tʃakib
(12) Mohammad uzün   di   Aliya tʃakib
(13) Hasan xasi  di   Ɂisya   tʃakib
 

CONCLUSION

In the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language, we conclude among six types of these basic constructions, five can be found in the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language. The authors also provide the seventh pattern of the aforementioned constructions by examining other ways of expressing equative constructions in (Turkic) Azarbaijani. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, all generalizations are valid in(Turkic) Azarbaijani.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Similitive constructions
  • Equative constructions
  • Crosslinguistic generalization

مراجع

  1. احمدی گیوی، حسن (1383). دستور تطبیقی زبان ترکی و فارسی. چ 1. تهران: قطره.
  2. ارژنگ، غلامرضا (1350). «صفت و نقش دستوری آن در زبان فارسی معاصر». فصل‌نامه دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران. شماره پیاپی 77. صص 3-28.
  3. انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1393). دستور زبان فارسی 2. چ 4. تهران: فاطمی.
  4. شریعت، محمد جواد (1367). دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: اساطیر.
  5. صفائی اصل، اسماعیل (1394). «رده‌شناسی ترتیب واژه‌ها در زبان آذربایجانی». پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. سال 5. شماره 9. صص 163-184.
  6. صفائی اصل، اسماعیل (1393). «رده‌شناسی ترتیب واژه‌ها در فارسی و آذربایجان». مجموعه مقالات نهمین همایش زبا‌ن‌شناسی ایران. ج 2. به کوشش محمد دبیرمقدم. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی. صص 807-828.
  7. فرشیدور، خسرو (1388). دستور مفصل امروز. تهران: سخن.
  8. نجفی پریسا و جلال رحیمیان (1400). «ساخت‌های همسانی در زبان فارسی». زبان‌پژوهی. سال 13. شماره 38. صص 243-267.
  9. هیئت، جواد. (1380). سیری در تاریخ زبان و لهجه‌های ترکی. چ 3. تهران: پیکان.
  10. Ahmadi Givi, H. (2004). Comparative grammar of Turkic and Persian language. (1nd ed). Tehran: Ghatreh [In Persian]. 
  11. Anvari, H., & Givi, H. (2014). Dastor-e zaban-e farsi (2). (4nd ed). Tehran: Fatemi [in Persian].
  12. Arzhang, Gh. (1971). Adjective and its grammatical role in modern Persian language. Faculty of Literature and Humanities University of Tehran, 3 (77). 2-28 [in Persian].
  13. Crass, J. (2005). Das K’abeena: Deskriptive grammatik einer hochlandostkuschitischen Sprache. Köln: Köppe.
  14. Dryer, M. (1992). The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language, 68, 81-138.
  15. Farshidvar, K. (2009). Dastor-e Mofassal-e Emroz.Tehran: sokhan [in Persian].
  16. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (2nd ed. pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Haspelmath, M. & Oda B. (1998). Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In J. van der Auwera (Ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (pp. 277–334). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  18. Haspelmath, M. (2017). Equative constructions in world-wide perspective. In T. Yvonne & M. Vanhove (Eds.) Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.117.02. 9-32
  19. Heyat, Javad. (2001). Seiri dar Tarikhe Zaban va Lahjehaye Turki. (3nd ed). Tehran: Peykan [In Persian].
  20. Henkelmann, Peter. (2006). Constructions of equative comparison. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 59(4), 370–398.
  21. Kari, E. E. (2004). A Reference Grammar of Degema (Grammatical analyses of African languages). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
  22. Li, Ch. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  23. Löhr, D. (2002). Die Sprache der Malgwa (Nárá Málgwa). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  24. Mace, J. (2003). Persian grammar: For reference and revision. London: Routledge.
  25. Menges, K. H. (1995). The Turkic Languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic Studies (2nd  ed). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  26. Mennecier, P. (1995). Le tunumiisut, dialecte inuit du Groenland oriental: Description et analyse. Paris: Klincksieck.
  27. Meyer, R. (2005). Das Zay: Deskriptive Grammatik einer Ostguragesprache (Äthiosemitisch). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
  28. Najafi, P. & Rahimian J. (2021), Equative constructions in Persian language. Scientific Journal of Language Research, 38 (13), 243-267 [In Persian].
  29. Nichols, J. (2011). Ingush grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.
  30. Nikolaeva, I., & Tolskaya, T. (2001). A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  31. Olawsky, K. (2006). A Grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  32. Popjes, J., & Popjes, P. (1986). Canela-Krahô. In D. C. Derbyshire., & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages ( pp. 128–199). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  33. Quesada, J. D. (2000). A grammar of Teribe. München: Lincom.
  34. Safaei Asl, E. (2015). Word order typology in Azaraijani. Journal of Comparative Linguistic Researches, 5 (9),165-186 [In Persian].
  35. Sharia't, M. J. (1988). Persian grammar. Tehran: Asatir [In Persian].
  36. Safaei Asl, I. (1393). Typography of word order in Persian and Azerbaijan. In M. Dabir Moghaddam (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Iranian Linguistics Conference (pp.  807-828). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University [in Persian].
  37. Schaub, W. (1985). Babungo. London: Croom Helm.
  38. Vanhove, M. (2017) Similative, equative, and comparative constructions. In Beja (North-Cushitic). T. Yvonne & V. Martine (Eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  39. Wolfenden, E. (1971). Hiligaynon reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار