پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 935 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,687 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,543,817 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,914,231 |
روابط معنایی در زبان مخفی جوانان | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 12، دوره 11، شماره 32، آذر 1398، صفحه 281-309 اصل مقاله (814.98 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2018.17608.1436 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| معصومه پلوئی* 1؛ محمدرضا احمدخانی2 | ||
| 1زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه پیام نور | ||
| 2دانشگاه پیام نور | ||
| چکیده | ||
| زبان مخفی، یکی از گونه‌های زبان معیار است که در میان جوانان و یا گروه‌های بزه‌کار جامعه ایجاد می‌شود. هدف مقالة حاضر، شناسایی روابط معنایی در واژگان زبان مخفی در چهارچوب نظریة ساخت‌گرایی است. حجم نمونه ، مشتمل بر 1507 واژه است که به دو روش اسنادی از فرهنگ لغات زبان مخفی و روش مصاحبة محقق‌ساخته با روش نمونه‌گیری گلوله‌برفی استخراج گردیده‌است. پس از گرد‌آوری و آمایش، واژه‌ها بر اساس ماهیّت و مفهومشان در چهارده حوزة معنایی دسته‌بندی شدند. علاوه بر تعیین حوزه‌های معنایی، مفهوم هر دستة واژگانی نیز مشخص شد. زیرا، پدیدآورندگان واژگان زبان مخفی در ساخت این واژه‌ها و برای نهان نگه‌داشتن اسرار درون گروهی از دانش درون زبانی خود استفاده می‌کنند. این در حالی است‌که ممکن است مصداق این واژه‌ها با این مفاهیم متفاوت باشد. سپس، روابط معنایی داده‌های واژگانی هر حوزه با روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی مشخص گردید. سؤال پژوهش این است که در صورت وجود روابط معنایی در زبان مخفی بیشترین و کمترین بسامد روابط معنایی متعلق به کدام رابطه است؟ یافته‌های تحلیل معنایی پژوهش حاضر، نشان داد که ترادف معنایی و هم‌نویسه به ترتیب بیشترین و کمترین فراوانی روابط معنایی را در این واژگان دارند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| معنا‌‌شناسی ساخت‌گرا؛ شبکۀ روابط معنایی؛ جامعه‌شناسی زبان؛ زبان مخفی؛ زبان عامیانه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Semantic relations in the argot language of youth | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Massumeh Poloie1؛ Mohammad reza Ahmadkhani2 | ||
| 1general linguistics, payame noor university department | ||
| 2Associate professor/Payame Noor University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The Argot language is one of the standard varieties of language that is formed among young people or a group of delinquents. Each social group has its own terms and expressions that must be learned in order to enter that group. Argot language is not separate from the language. Rather, it is one of its various varieties. This language represents a heterogeneous society, with each group having an impact on language. One can argue beyond this, claiming that the difference between each Argot language and the language commonly depends on the group attribute that uses this Argot language. The more different these groups are, the more they use different language forms to establish and maintain a relationship with the linguistic community. Young people form a large part of the active population of our community and the tendency towards peers and differences with adults are important features of this group. They have a particular language system that consists of the norms, values, behaviors and the core of their subculture. It is a secret code and a special communication symbol that transmits messages and creates certain rules and behaviors. Therefore, young people have their own subculture and use special vocabulary. The use of these vocabulary by young people and their influence on the youth subculture has created a certain verbal and non-verbal communication among young people that requires a scientific review. Groups and circles of friends, SMS, social networking messages, television movies, virtual social media, print media such as fictional characters, borrowing from other languages, and other forms of creativity are the means for dissemination of these words. The purpose of this paper is to identify semantic relations in the secret language within the framework of the theory of constructivism. Constructive semantics is one of the most important methods of achieving analysis using structuralism theory. In this view, the network language is one of the systematic relationships. Structural meanings refer to what the equivalent of a semantic unit is and how they are connected. The constructive semantic label is usually limited to lexical semantics. One of the most fundamental and general principles of constructivist linguistics is that languages, systems, and sub-systems or their constituent levels –grammatical, lexical, and phoneme levels– are interdependent. An important aspect of lexical semantics is how semantic relations of vocabulary are with each other; in particular, the discovery of the four classes of semantic relations, opposition, hyponymy, synonymy, and member-collection is important. Semantic Relationship is the relationship between lexical categories with other vocabulary, which confronts the speaker with the choice of different lexical categories. This term has different types. In other words, the meaning of the semantic relation is that the language has a semantic structure and the words are related in groups. Of course, these groups are formed on the basis of the semantic relations between the words. According to the tradition of studying meaning, these relations are in the semantic system of language between concepts that at first glance may seem independent, but have a close connection with each other, which is sometimes impossible to distinguish them from one another. Conceptual relationships have two types. Some of them are substitutions, and the others are synthetic, or, according to the famous statement, according to the Saussure’s attitude, is a function of substitution and conjunction. The substitution relationships between concepts arise among members of a grammatical category and with their replacement. This category of conceptual relationships, typically and not necessarily, consists of words from various grammatical categories that together create well-formedness. In order to achieve the purpose of the article, we first discuss the categories of semantic, synonymy, polysemy, opposition, hyponymy, meronymy, collocation, portion-mass, member-collection, homophony and homography. After processing and identifying these relationships in the Argot language vocabulary derived from an interview of the 15-30 year old young people in Tehran subway, as well as the Persian Dictionary of Argot of Samai’s work, the frequency of each semantic relationship was determined. The sample size is 1507 words; it has been extracted by two methods of documenting the Persian Dictionary of Argot and a researcher-made interview with a Snowball Sampling method. After collecting and deletion, the words were classified according to their nature and meaning in fourteen semantic areas. These classes include tools and objects, automobiles, moods, ethics and behavior, secret communication, the condition of organs, numbers, organs, eating and drinking, people, actions, opiates, clothing and places. The information of each word includes the semantic domain, the concept, the lexical entry and the Encyclopedia meaning. In addition to identifying semantic domains, the concept of each lexical category was also identified. Because the creators of the Argot language vocabulary use or create these words in an attempt to keep secrets hidden within a group of their inherent knowledge, the words reference may be different from these concepts. Then, the semantic relations of lexical data in each area were determined by qualitative content analysis method. The question of this research is if semantic relations exist in the secret language and what the relationship between the highest and lowest frequencies of semantic relations is. The results of the derivation of semantic analysis show that the highest and lowest lexical frequencies belong to the domains of people and clothing, respectively. Also, synonymy with the frequency of 63.05% has the highest semantic and homography with the frequency of 0.11% has the least semantic relation. The high frequency of synonymy relation in the vocabulary of this language represents the main reason for the use of Argot language; that is, to hide the meaning of these words. If these meanings are revealed to others, new terms replaces the previous words. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Semantic Structure, Network of Semantic Relationships, Argot, Slang | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
اعتضادی، شیدا و علمدار، فاطمه (1387). «تحلیل جامعه‌شناختی زبان مخفی در بین دختران». مطالعات راهبردی زنان (کتاب زنان). شمارة 41. صص 65-69. افراشی، آزیتا (1381). «نگاهی به مسأله باهم‌آیی واژگان». اندیشه‌هایی در معنی‌شناسی (یازده مقاله). به کوشش آزیتا افراشی. تهران: فرهنگ کاوش. صص 31-38. امینیان، مطهره (1384). فرهنگ نوین زبان مخفی. مشهد: آوای رعنا. آل‌صاحب‌فصول، صدیقه محجوبه (1393). تأثیر زبان مخفی دختران و پسران 15 تا 25 سال در گفتار والدین در خانواده‌های ساکن شهر تهران با توجه به متغیر تحصیلات. پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه الزهراء (س). پالمر، فرانک رابرت (1374). نگاهی تازه به معنی‌شناسی. ترجمة کورش صفوی. تهران: مرکز. ترادگیل، پیتر (1376). زبانشناسی اجتماعی (درآمدی بر زبان و جامعه). ترجمة محمّد طباطبایی. تهران: نشر آگه. رضایتی کیشه‌خاله، محرم و مجید ایران‌نژاد نجف‌آبادی (1395). «جامعه‌شناسی زبان مخفی». پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی. شمارة 8. صص 982-990. رضوی، محمّد‌رضا (1379). «جزء‌واژگی چیست». زبانشناسی. شمارة 1و2. صص82-92. سمائی، مهدی (1382). فرهنگ لغات زبان مخفی (با مقدمه‌ای دربارة جامعه‌شناسی زبان). تهران: نشر مرکز. شاه‌ناصری، شادی (1394). «بررسی زبان‌گونة مخفی جوانان در روابط گروهی بر اساس رویکرد همسان‌سازی». پژوهشهای زبانشناسی تطبیقی. شمارة 10. صص147-156. صفوی، کورش (1380). گفتارهایی در زبانشناسی. تهران: هرمس. صفوی، کورش (1384). فرهنگ توصیفی معنی‌شناسی. تهران: معاصر. صفوی، کورش (1387). درآمدی بر معنی‌شناسی. تهران: سوره مهر. صفوی، کوروش و مریم رمضان‌خانی (1397). «صوری‌سازی رابطة مفهومی تقابل معنایی در سطح واژه از دیدگاه زبانشناسی ریاضی» زبان‌پژوهی. دورة 10. شمارة 29. صص 193-217. عباسی، فتح‌اله و صیادی، احمد‌رضا (1394). «زبان مخفی جلوه‌گاه ذوق و طینت ایرانی». رشد. شمارة 115. صص34-95. کالوه، لویی ژان (1378). زبان مخفی چیست. ترجمة شهروز پزشکی. تهران: پژوهشگاه اطلاعات و مدارک علمی ایران. کیقبادی امیری، کیانوش (1385). بررسی واژه‌ها و عبارات زبان مخفی جوانان (نگاهی صرفی -معنی‌شناختی). پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی. مدرسی، یحیی (1390). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی زبان. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی. نشاط، محمود (1368). شمار و مقدار در زبان فارسی. تهران: امیرکبیر. نوری‌رج، منیره (1392). تحلیل مردم‌شناختی مقایسه‌ای زبان مخفی (آرگو) در بین دختران نوجوان تهران (مورد مطالعه: مدارس سرای دانش فلسطین و باب‌السلام). پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکزی. یول، جورج (1379). بررسی زبان (یک بررسی زبان‌شناختی). ترجمة نسرین حیدری. تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت). References
Abbasi, F., & Sayadi, A. R. (2015). The argot represents Iranian creativity. Roshd, 115, 34-95 [In Persian].
Afrashi, A. (2002). Take a look at the vocabulary collocation. In A. Afrashi (Ed.), Thoughts in semantics (11 essays) (pp. 31-38). Tehran: Farhang Kavesh. [In Persian]
Alesahebefosul, S. M. (2013). The effect of the argot of girls and boys between the ages of 12-25 on parents’ speech in families residing in Tehran, considering the variable of education (Master Thesis). Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Aminian, M. (2005). Modern dictionary of Argot language. Mashhad: Ava-e-Ra’na. [In Persian]
Calvet, L. J. (2009). L’Argot. (Sh. Pezeshki. Trans). Tehran: Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IRANDOC). [In Persian]
Chinwe, E. D., & Ojonugwa, J. S. (2016). Issues in second language levels: the sociolinguistic variables in the speech of Port-Harcourt street gangs. Journal of Modern European Language and Literature(JMEL), 7, 88-105.
Cruse, D. A. (1995). Lexical semantic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1992). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Einat, T. & Einat, H. (2000). Inmate Argot as an expression of Prison subculture: the Israeli case. The Prison Journal, 80, 308-325.
Etezadi, Sh. & Alamdar, F. (2008). Sociological analysis of Argot language among girls. Women’s Strategic Studies, 41, 65-69. [In Persian]
Guiraud, P. (1966). L’Argot. France: Presses Universitaires De France.
Hurford, R. J., Brendom, H., & Smith, B. M. (2007). Semantics a course book. United Kingdom: Cambridge University.
Kayghobadi Amiri, K. (2006). The words and expressions of the Argot of the youth a morphologic- semantic look (Master Thesis). Islamic Azad University. Tehran Central Branch, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Koskela, A., & Murphy, M. L. (2006). Polysemy and homonymy. In K. Allan (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pp. 711-714). Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd.
Lyons, J. (1987). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Modarresi, Y. (2014). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and cultural Studies. [In Persian]
Murphy, M. L. (1995). In opposition to an organized lexicon: pragmatic principle and lexical semantic relations (Ph.D. dissertation). Illinois university, Illinois, USA.
Murphy, M. L. (2009). Antonymy and incompatibility. In K. Allan (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of semantics (pp. 25-28). Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd.
Neshat, M. (1991). Number and amount in Persian language. Tehran: Amir Kabir [In Persian].
Nori Raj, M. (2013). Comparative anthropological analysis of the Argot language among teen girls in Tehran (case study: Felestin Saraye Danesh School & Babussalam School) (Master thesis). Islamic Azad University, Central Branch, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Palmer, F. R. (1987). Semantics: a new outline. (K. Safavi. Trans.) Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz [In Persian].
Pustejovsky, J. (2006). Lexical relations. In K. Allan (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of semantics (pp. 475-479). Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd.
Razavi, M. R. (2000). What is meronymy. Iranian Journal of Linguistics, 1 & 2, 82-92 [In Persian].
Rezayati Kishekhale, M. & Irannejad Najafabadi, M. (2016). Sociology of Argot language. Institute for Humanities & Cultural Studies, 8, 982-990. [In Persian]
Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing semantics. U.K.: Cambridge University.
Saeed, J. (2009). Semantics. United Kingdom: Willey Blackwell.
Safavi, K. & Ramezankhani, M. (2019). Formalizing the sense relation of words’ opposition from logical point of view, a mathematical linguistics approach, Zabanpazhuhi, 10(29), 193-217 [in Persian].
Safavi, K. (2001). Essays on linguistics. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian]
Safavi, K. (2006). Descriptive dictionary of semantics. Tehran: Farhange Moaser. [In Persian]
Safavi, K. (2008). An introduction to semantics. Tehran: Soore Mehr. [In Persian]
Samai, M. (2003). A Persian dictionary of argot. Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz. [In Persian]
Shah Naseri, Sh. (2015). Investigation of argot language of youth in group relationship based on the integration approach. Journal of Comparative Linguistic Researches, 10, 147-156. [In Persian]
Tonkova, G. E. (2015). New material nouns in the Russian argot. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, 6, 431-434.
Trask, R. L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Trudgill, P. (1997). Sociolinguistics: an introduction to language and society. (M. Tabatabaei. Trans.) Tehran: Agah. [In Persian]
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Yule, G. (2000). The study of language: an introduction. (N. Heydari. Trans.) Tehran: The organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in Humanities (SAMT). [In Persian] | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 931 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 467 |
||
