نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناس ارشد زبان شناسی، دانش آموختۀ گروه زبان شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار گروه زبان شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران .
3 دانشیار گروه زبانشناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
چکیده
در این پژوهش، به بررسی چگونگی مفهومسازی حذف در ساختهای همپایة فارسی، با رویکرد دستور شناختی پرداختهایم. از دید لنگکر (Langacker, 2012, p. 585)، حذف به مواردی گفته میشود که در آنها یک عبارت، جمله نیست، ولی در قیاس با عبارت دیگری که جمله است، تفسیری جملهگونه مییابد. بر مبنای پژوهشهای انجامگرفته در زبان انگلیسی، انتظار بر آن بود که دستور شناختی با کمک مفاهیم متمایز و ضد متمایز از عهدۀ تبیین حذف در ساختهای همپایة فارسی برآید. برای آزمودن این امر، تعداد 405 دادۀ دارای ساخت همپایه از دو روزنامۀ پرشمارگانِ شرق و اعتماد گردآوری شده و ساختهای دارای حذف را از متن آنها برگزیدیم. سپس، با کمک ابزار نظری پژوهش، به بررسی آنها پرداختیم. یافتهها نشان دادند که حذف ساختهای همپایه در زبان فارسی به کمک پنجرههای توجه و بر اساس مفاهیم متمایز و ضد متمایز قابلتبیین است، به گونهای که متمایز و ضدمتمایز، همپایههای ساخت موردنظر را تشکیل میدهند. بنابراین، بدون در نظر گرفتن کلاسیک بودن یا نبودن سازههای همپایه، حذف ساختهای همپایه در زبان فارسی بدون ایجاد چالش برای نظریه در چارچوب دستور شناختی تبیین میشود.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Viewpoint of Cognitive Grammar to Ellipsis in Persian Coordinative Constructions
نویسندگان [English]
- Saba Hasheminasab 1
- Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid 2
- Arsalan Golfam 3
1 M.A. in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
This study aims at the investigation of ellipsis in Persian coordinative constructions. Langacker (2012) speaks of ellipsis in cases where an expression that is not a clause itself, receives a clause-like interpretation by analogy to one that is. Most of the research on ellipsis in coordination regarding Persian have adopted a Generative Grammar approach. Generative linguists seemingly do not hold a unified opinion about ellipsis coordination or what they call right node raising. Shabani (2013) has mentioned that constituency or non-constituency of the omitted part is a subject of controversy among different generative linguists. On the one hand, linguists, such as Postal (1974), Bresnan (1974), Williams (1990), and Larson (1990) claim that right node raising only works on the elements forming a constituent. On the other hand other linguists, including Abbott (1976), Wilder (1995), Duman (2003), Kluck (2007), Wyngaerd (2007), Ince (2009), and Alzaidi (2010) argue that right node raising targets non-constituents as well as constituents, and this means that right node raising violates constituency condition. Having this in mind, it seems that the fixed and rigid constituency defined by Generative Grammar has caused some challenges for this kind of constructions description. Hence, adopting Cognitive Grammar approach, which is meaning-based instead of syntax-oriented and investigates language with all aspects of it, has rendered new and different results.
Langacker (2009) argues that meaning includes not only conceptual content but also construal: our ability to conceive and portray the same situation in alternate ways. In order to have a uniform way of referring to (conceptual) content, the term domain (base) is adopted in cognitive grammar. One dimension of construal is the prominence conferred on conceptual elements, and one kind of prominence – profiling- is of central importance in coordination. This is how meaning plays a significant role in our analyses. Langacker (2012) introduces differential and anti-differential as the coordinands of an elliptic coordinative construction. He defines differential and anti-differential in the framework of a model named as Access and Activation Model. Based on this model, on a given time scale processing takes place in successive windows. A window provides the extensionality required for multiple entities to be represented and connected with one another. Canonically, the content subsumed in a window is thereby integrated to form a coherent structure organized around a single focus, or salient entity (Langacker, 2012). In the same work, Langacker refers to the windows coinciding with clauses as "clause-sized windows". Langacker (2012) employs Access and Activation model as an alternative metaphor for compositionality. As he puts it, the linguistic notion of composition is based on the metaphor of building something out of smaller pieces. While it is unavoidable, useful, and valid up to a point, the compositional metaphor has its limitations and is deleterious if pushed too far. In this alternative metaphorical model, a moving window of attention provides serial access to a complex conception. Portions of this target conception appear in the window at each processing stage until it is deemed to have been covered sufficiently for communicative purposes. Differential is defined as the content appearing in one clausal window that does not appear in the prior window. The anti-differential consists of any previously active content that the differential conflicts with and suppresses (Langacker, 2012). Based on Langacker's research carried out on English, it was expected for cognitive grammar to manage to describe ellipsis in Persian, considering differential and anti-differential as the coordinands of the coordinative constructions.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Coordination
- Ellipsis
- Wndows of attention
- Differential
- Anti-differential
- انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1390). دستور زبان فارسی 2. تهران: انتشارات فاطمی.
- بهرامی خورشید، سحر (1398). دستور شناختی: مبانی نظری و کاربست آن در زبان فارسی. تهران: سمت.
- راسخ مهند، محمد (1390). «تبیین نقشی از حذف به قرینه در جملات همپایۀ زبان فارسی.» مجلۀ زبانشناسی و گویشهای خراسان. دورة 3. شمارة 5. صص 35-45.
- شعبانی، منصور (1392). «ارتقای گره راست در زبان فارسی.» ادب پژوهی. دوره 7. شماره 24. صص 149-170.
- قادری نجف آبادی، سلیمان (1395). «همپایگی طبیعی و تصادفی در زبان فارسی از دیدگاه ردهشناسی زبان». پژوهشهای زبانشناسی تطبیقی. دورة 6. شمارة 11. صص 19-33.
- قریب، عبدالعظیم، جلال همایی، رشید یاسمی، ملکالشعرایبهار و بدیعالزمان فروزانفر. (1366). دستور زبان فارسی پنج استاد. تهران: اشرفی.
- کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه، منصور شعبانی، فردوس آقاگلزاده و ارسلان گلفام (1389). «ساخت همپایگی با نگاهی به زبان فارسی». ادبپژوهی. دوره 4. شماره 13. صص 131-156.
- مادرشاهیان، سارا (1394). «حذف فعل از منظر معنیشناسی شناختی». زبانپژوهی. دورة 7. شمارة 16. صص 101-134.
- مشکوهالدینی، مهدی (1370). دستور زبان فارسی بر پایۀ نظریۀ گشتاری. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
- ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1352). دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
- نغزگوی کهن، مهرداد و جلال احمدخانی (1394). «همپایگی عطفی در زبان فارسی». پژوهشهای زبانشناسی تطبیقی. دورة 5. شمارة 10. صص 197-217.
- وحید، انیس (1398). تحلیل ساختهای حذفی همپایه در زبان فارسی در چارچوب دستور موازی. رسالۀ دکتری. دانشگاه الزهرا.
- Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 639–642.
- Alzaidi, M. S. (2010). Gapping and right node raising: An LFG approach (Master thesis). University of Essex, Essex, England.
- Anvari, H., & Ahmadi-Givi, H. (2011). Persian grammar 2. Tehran: Fatemi.([in Persian)
- Azar, B. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar. New York: Pearson education.
- Bahrami-Khorshid, S. (2020). Cognitive grammar: Theoretical foundations, and application in Persian. Tehran: SAMT.(in Persian)
- Bresnan, J. W. (1974). The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure, Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 614-619.
- Duman, B. (2003). Right node raising & Turkish (Master thesis). Tilburg University, University, Netherlands.
- Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
- Ghaderi Najafabadi, S. (2016). Natural and accidental coordination in Persian. Comparative Linguistic Research, 6 (11), 19-33. (in Persian) https://doi.org/ 10.22084/rjhll.2016.1520
- Gharib, A., Homaee, J., Yasemi, R., Bahar, M., & Fourozanfar, B. (1987). Panj ostad Persian grammar. Tehran: Ashrafi. (in Persian)
- Hartmann, K. (2000). Right node raising and gapping: interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
- Haspelmath, M. (2007). Coordination. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions (Vol 2. pp. 1-51). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Ince, A. (2009). Dimensions of ellipsis: Investigations in Turkish (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
- Kluck, M. (2007). The perspective of external remerge on right node raising. In N. Hilton, R. Arscott, K. Barden, A. Krishna, S. Shah, & M. Zellers (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth University of Cambridge postgraduate conference in language research (pp. 130-137). Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research (CILR).
- Kord Za'feranloo Kambozia, A., Sha’bani , M., Aghagolzadeh, F., & Golfam, A. (2010). Coordination and its determination in Persian. Adabpazhuhi, 4 (13), 131-156. (in Persian)
- Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. CA: Stanford university press.
- Langacker, R. W. (2009). The conceptual basis of coordination. In R. W. Langacker (Ed.), Investigations in cognitive grammar (pp. 341-374). Berlin/Newyork: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Langacker, R. W. (2012). Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 555-599. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/cog-2012-0017
- Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. New York: oxford university press.
- Larson, R. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 589-632.
- Madarshahyian, S. (2015). “Verb ellipsis” within the cognitive linguistics framework. Journal of Language Research, 10(16), 101-134. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2015.2092
- Meshkat Al-Dini, M. (1987). An Introduction to Persian Transformational Syntax. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University Press. (in Persian)
- Naghzguy-Kohan, M., & Ahmadkhani, J. (2015). Conjunctive coordination in Persian. Comparative Linguistic Research, 5 (10), 197-217. (in Persian)
- Natel-Khanlari, P. (1973). Persian grammar. Tehran: Bonyad Farhang Iran. (in Persian)
- Postal, P. (1974). On raising. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
- Rasekh-Mahand, M. (2011). A functional account of ellipsis in Persian co-ordinate sentences. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 3 (5), 35-45. (in Persian)
- Sha’bani, M. (2013). Right node raising in Persian. Adab Pazhouhi, 7 (24), 149-170. (in Persian).
- Swan, M. (1996). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford university press.
- Vahid, A. (2019). The analysis of coordination ellipsis in Persian In the framework of the parallel architecture of grammar (Doctoral dissertation) Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran (in Persian)
- Wilder, C. (1995). Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. Geneva Generative Papers, 2 23–61. https://doi.org/:10.1075/la.13.04wil
- Williams, E. (1987). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review, 6 (3), 265-279. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/tlir.1987.6.3.265
- Wyngaerd, G. van den. (2007). Gapping constituents: A revised version of 1998 version. Ms.FWO/KU Brussel, retrieved from <http://lirias.hubrussel. be/handle/123456789/2332.>
- Zhang, N. (2009). Coordination in syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.