اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 735 |
| تعداد مقالات | 6,056 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,897,820 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,940,597 |
نگرش دستور شناختی به پدیدۀ حذف در ساخت‌های همپایۀ فارسی | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 08 خرداد 1401 | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2022.37065.2075 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
سبا هاشمی نسب1؛ سحر بهرامی خورشید  2؛ ارسلان گلفام 3
| ||
| 1دانش آموخته رشته زبان شناسی، گروه زبان شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس | ||
| 2عضو هیأت علمی گروه زبانشناسی/دانشگاه تربیت مدرس | ||
| 3دانشگاه تربیت مدرس | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در این پژوهش به بررسی چگونگی مفهوم‌سازی حذف در همپایگی در زبان فارسی، با رویکرد دستور شناختی پرداخته‌ایم. لنگکر و (Langacker, 2012, p.585) حذف را به مواردی اطلاق می‌کند که در آن‌ها یک عبارت جمله نیست، اما در قیاس با عبارت دیگری که جمله است، تفسیری جمله‌گونه پیدا می‌کند. زبان‌شناسان زایشی دربارۀ حذف در همپایگی یا ارتقاء گره راست اتفاق نظر نداشته و سازه‌بندی ثابت و سفت‌وسخت دستور زایشی موجب بروز چالش‌های در تبیین این ساخت شده است. از این رو اتخاذ رویکرد دستور شناختی که معنامحور بوده و زبان را با تمامی ابعاد آن، و نه فقط با تکیه بر نحو، به بوتۀ آزمایش می‌گذارد، نتایجی نوین به دست داده است. بر اساس پژوهشهای انجام‌گرفته در زبان انگلیسی، انتظار بر آن بود که دستور شناختی با کمک مفاهیم متمایز و ضدمتمایز از عهدۀ تبیین حذف در همپایگی در زبان فارسی برآید. برای آزمودن این امر تعداد 200 دادۀ دارای ساخت همپایه را از دو روزنامۀ کثیرالانتشار شرق و اعتماد جمع‌آوری کرده و ساخت‌های دارای حذف را از میان آن‌ها برگزیدیم. سپس، بعد از بررسی مبانی نظری دستور شناختی، با کمک ایزار نظریه به بررسی آن‌ها پرداختیم. نتایج نشان داد که حذف در همپایگی در زبان فارسی به کمک پنجره‌های توجه و بر اساس مفاهیم متمایز و ضدمتمایز قابل‌تبیین است، به طوری که متمایز و ضدمتمایز همپایه‌های ساخت موردنظر را تشکیل می‌دهند. بنابراین صرف نظر از سازۀ کلاسیک بودن یا نبودن همپایه‌ها، حذف در همپایگی بدون ایجاد چالش برای نظریه در چارچوب دستور شناختی تبیین می‌شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| همپایگی؛ حذف؛ پنجره‌های توجه؛ ضدمتمایز؛ متمایز | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Viewpoint of Cognitive Grammar to Ellipsis in Persian Coordinative Constructions | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Saba Hasheminasab1؛ Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid2؛ Arsalan Golfam3 | ||
| 1M.A in Linguistics, TMU | ||
| 2Assistant Professor/Linguistics Department, TMU | ||
| 3Tarbiat Modares University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study aims at the investigation of ellipsis in Persian coordinative constructions. Langacker (2012: 585) speaks of ellipsis in cases where an expression that is not itself a clause, receives a clause-like interpretation by analogy to one that is. In Persian, there have been some researches on ellipsis in coordination, most of which have adopted a Generative Grammar approach. Generative linguists seemingly don’t have a unified opinion about ellipsis coordination or as they call it, right node raising. Shabani (2013, pp. 152-153) 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, and on the other hand other linguists including Abbott (1976), Wilder (1995), Duman (2003), Kluck (2007), Wyngaerd (2007), Ince (2009), and Alzaidi (2010), in opposition to the first group, 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 in describing this kind of constructions. So 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, p. 341) 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 eliptic coordinative construction. He defines differential and anti-differential in the framework of a model named as Access and Activation Model. According to 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, p. 561). He (2012, p.562) refers to the windows coinciding with clauses as "clause-sized windows". Langacker (2012, p. 656) employs Access and Activaton model as an alternative metaphor for compositionality. As he (2012, p. 657) 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, p. 555). Based on Langacker's researches 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. In order to investigate this hypothesis, a number of 200 examples containing coordinative constructions were gathered from two major Iranian newspapers, Shargh and Etemad. Then the elliptic coordinative constructions were extracted and analyzed adopting Langacker's views. First the ellipsis from different grammatical positions were represented in some simple examples, and then we tried to seek differential and anti-differential in our gathered data to make sure that they work as coordinands. Below is an example of a Persian elliptic coordinative construction, represented using differential and anti-differential, and windows of attention. 1. Maryam roman minevisad va Ali Mikhanad. (Maryam novel writes and Ali reads.) The results showed that elliptic coordination in Persian can be justified using windows of attention, and differential and anti-differential. In this kind of constructions, differential and anti-differential act the coordinands. We can also see that no matter for the coordinands to be classic constituents or not, elliptic coordination can be described with no controversies in Cognitive Grammar framework. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| coordination, ellipsis, windows of attention, differential, anti-differential | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 12 |
||
