ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Durational Parameters of Speech Rhythm, A Measure for Detection of the Persian Speakers’ Use of Disguise?
Using the auditory-acoustic approach, the present study examines the possibility of using durational acoustic parameters of speech rhythm for detecting the Persian speakers’ use of Azeri as a form of voice disguise. To do so, continuous speech of 5 speakers of Standard Persian and 5 speakers of Azeri, Tabrizi variety, were chosen for the acoustic and statistical analysis after completing the validity procedures. All Persian speakers were monolingual and all Azeri speakers were bilingual speakers of Azeri and Persian, who spoke Azeri as their mother tongue and Persian as their second language. Each Persian speaker was asked to narrate a lifetime experience once in Persian (Persian- Persian data), and once as an imitation of Azeri (Persian- Azeri data). Azeri speakers were also asked to narrate a lifetime experience once in Azeri (Azeri- Azeri data) and once in Persian (Azeri-Persian Data). Persian-Azeri data is the type that is considered as the disguised data in this survey. The recorded data were then annotated in five tiers: segment, CV-segment, CV-segment interval, CV-interval and syllable. In order to control the effect of any unwanted variable, one minute (±5 seconds SD) of each sound file was extracted for further acoustic and statistical analyses. A Praat script, DurationAnalyzer, was used to automatically calculate the acoustic correlates of durational parameters of speech rhythm. These parameters are: %V (the proportion which speech is vocalic), ΔC (ln) (standard deviation of the natural-log normalized duration of consonantal intervals), ΔV (ln) (standard deviation of the natural-log normalized duration of vocalic intervals), nPVI- V (rate-normalized averaged durational differences between consecutive vocalic intervals) and syllable rate. Results revealed there was a significant difference between the proposed types of data and that%V and syllable rate best discriminated between them; however, none of the above-mentioned parameters were significantly different between Persian-Azeri and Azeri-Persian data.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77589_21f7a9655477d4cc7011f3b97e508172.pdf
2020-08-22
1
23
10.22059/jolr.2020.298600.666587
voice disguise
speech rhythm
durational parameters of speech rhythm
forensic phonetics
persian
Azeri
Tabrizi variety
Maral
Asiaee
m.asiaee@alzahra.ac.ir
1
Ph. D Candidate in Linguistics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran,
AUTHOR
Mandana
Nourbakhsh
nourbakhsh@alzahra.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor Linguistics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
راهانداز، سعید، آسیائی، مارال و نقشبندی، شهرام (۱۳۹۳). خوشه همخوانی و ساخت هجا در زبان ترکی آذری، در دبیرمقدم، محمد، مجموعۀ مقالات نهمین همایش زبان شناسی ایران (۵۵۳- ۵۶۴). تهران، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
1
صادقی، وحید (۱۳۹۴). بررسی آوایی کاهش واکهای در زبان فارسی، جستارهای زبانی، دورۀ شش، شمارۀ ۳، ۱۶۵- ۱۷۸.
2
Amino, K. and T. Arai. 2009. Speaker-Dependent Characteristics of the Nasals, Forensic Science International 185(1): 21–28. http: // www. sciencedirect. Com /science/article/pii/S0379073808004672.
3
Asadi, H., M. Nourbakhsh, F. Sasani, and V. Dellwo. 2018. Examining Long-Term Formant Frequency as a Forensic Cue for Speaker Identification: An Experiment on Persian. In M. Nourbakhsh, H. Asadi, and M. Asiaee (eds), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Laboratory Phonetics and Phonology (21-28),. Tehran: Neveesh Parsi Publications.
4
Asiaee, M., M. Nourbakhsh, and R. Skarnitzl. 2019. Can LTF Discriminate Bilingual Speakers? In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA), Istanbul, 41–42.
5
Barry, W. J., B. Andreeva, M. Russo, S. Dimitrova and T. Kostadinova. 2003. Do Rhythm Measures Tell Us Anything about Language Type? In D. Recasens, M. J. Solé, and J. Romero (eds), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (15th ICPhS) (2693-96), Barcelona.
6
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. 2020 Praat: doing phonetics by computer. http://www. praat.org, Accessed 02 March 2020.
7
Dauer, R. M. 1983. Stress-Timing and Syllable-Timing Reanalyzed, Journal of Phonetics 11(1): 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470 (19) 30776-4.
8
De Jong, N. H., R. Groenhout, R. Schoonen, and J. H. Hulstijn. 2015. Second Language Fluency: Speaking Style or Proficiency? Correcting Measures of Second Language Fluency for First Language Behavior, Applied Psycholinguistics 36(2): 223–43.
9
Dellwo, V., S. Ramyead and J. Dankovicova. 2009. The influence of voice disguise on temporal characteristics of speech. Abstract presented at the IAFPA conference, Cambridge: UK
10
Dellwo, V., A. Leemann, and M. J. Kolly. 2015. Rhythmic Variability between Speakers: Articulatory, Prosodic, and Linguistic Factors, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(3): 1513–28.
11
Dellwo, V. 2010. Influences of Speech Rate on the Acoustic Correlates of Speech Rhythm: An Experimental Phonetic Study Based on Acoustic and Perceptual Evidence. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Bonn (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn).
12
Eriksson, A. 2010. The Disguised Voice: Imitating Accents and Speech Styles and Impersonating Individuals, Language and identities (January 2010): 86–96.
13
Gold, E., P. French, and P. Harrison. 2013. Examining Long-Term Formant Distributions as a Discriminant in Forensic Speaker Comparisons under a Likelihood Ratio Framework, Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 19(May).
14
Grabe, E., and E. L. Low. 2002. Durational Variability in Speech and the Rhythm Class Hypothesis. In C Gussenhoven and A Warner (eds), Laboratory Phonology 7 (515–46), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
15
Hollien, H. 2002. Forensic Voice Identification. San Diego: Academic Press.
16
IBM Corp. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 22.0). Armonk, NY: International Business Machines Corporation.
17
Jessen, M. 2008. Forensic Phonetics, Language and linguistics compass, 2(4): 671–711.
18
Kinoshita, Y. 2005. Does Lindley’s LR Estimation Formula Work for Speech Data? Investigation Using Long-Term F0, Forensic Linguistics, 12(2): 235–54.
19
Künzel, H. J. 2000. Effects of Voice Disguise on Speaking Fundamental Frequency, Forensic Linguistics, 7 (2): 149–179. https :// www2. scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0 54249140687 & partnerID = 40&md5 = 91a9ecd533c278f5e6fc8f1d80299550.
20
Labov, W. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City, 2nd ed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Lazard, G. (1992) Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.
22
Leemann, A. and M. J. Kolly. 2015. Speaker-Invariant Suprasegmental Temporal Features in Normal and Disguised Speech. Speech Communication,75:97–122. https:// www2.scopus.Com/inward/ record. Uri ?eid =2-s2.0-84946575988&doi=10.1016%2Fj.specom. 2015. 10.002&partnerID=40&md5=dfbba8701a51254a6dc359b266ce994e.
23
Low, E. L., E. Grabe, and F. Nolan. 2000. Quantitative Characterizations of Speech Rhythm: Syllable-Timing in Singapore English, Language and Speech,43(4): 377–401.
24
James, A. 1940, Speech Signals in Telephony, London: Pitman
25
Mairano, P., and A. Romano. 2011. Rhythm Metrics for 21 Languages, ICPhS XVII (August): 1318–21.
26
Masthoff, H. 1996. A Report on a Voice Disguise Experiment, Forensic, Linguistics 3(1): 160–67. https: // journals. equinoxpub. com/index. Php /IJSLL/article/view/17245.
27
Meyerhoff, M. 2011. Introducing Sociolinguistics, New York, NY: Routledge.
28
Ghaffarvand Mokari, P. and S. Werner. 2017. Illustrations of the IPA: Azerbaijani, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 47(2): 207–12.
29
Nespor, M. (1990). On the rhythm parameter in phonology. In I. Roca (eds.), the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition (157-175), Foris. Dordrecht.
30
Nolan, F., and C. Grigoras. 2005. A Case for Formant Analysis in Forensic Speaker Identification, International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 12(2): 143–73.
31
Nolan, F. 1983. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
32
Perrot, P. and Chollet, G. 2012. Helping the Forensic Research Institute of the French Gendarmerie to Identify a Suspect in the Presence of Voice Disguise or Voice Forgery, In A. Neustein and H. A. Patil (eds.), Forensic Speaker Recognition: law enforcement and counterterrorism (pp.469-503). New York: Springer. https: // www2. scopus. Com / inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84943230355 & doi= 10.1007% 2F9781461402633_16&partnerID=40&md5=026de43ee05d64da537d50753b60e535.
33
Perrot, P., G. Aversano, and G. Chollet. 2007. Voice Disguise and Automatic Detection: Review and Perspectives. In Y. Stylianou, M. Faundez-Zanuy and A. Esposito (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 4391 LNCS(101–17),https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71505-4_7.
34
Rahandaz,S., M. Asiaee & Sh. Naghshbandi. 2015. Consonant Cluster and Syllable Structure in Azerbaijani.” In M. Dabirmoghaddam (ed.), 9th Iranian Conference on Linguistics (553-564),Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai’ University [In Persian].
35
Ramus, F., M. Nespor, and J. Mehler. 1999. Correlates of Linguistic Rhythm in the Speech Signal, Cognition, 75(1): 265–92.
36
Rathcke, T. V. and R. H. Smith. 2015. Speech Timing and Linguistic Rhythm: On the Acoustic Bases of Rhythm Typologies, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,137(5): 2834–45.
37
Rodman, R. D. 1998. Speaker Recognition of Disguised Voices: A Program for Research. In A. Demirekler, M. Saranli, A. Altincay and H. Paoloni (eds.), Proceedings of the Consortium on Speech Technology Conference on Speaker Recognition by Man and Machine: Birections for Forensic Applications (9–22). http: // citeseerx. ist. psu. edu/ viewdoc / summary?doi=10.1.1.116.7877.
38
Sadeghi, V. (2015). A phonetic study of vowel reduction in Persian, Language RelatedResearch, 30: 165–187. [In Persian]
39
Saks, M. J. and J. J. Koehler. 2005. The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, Science 309(5736): 892–95.
40
Shuy, R. W. 1995. Dialect as Evidence in Law Cases, Journal of English Linguistics, 23(1/2): 195–208.
41
Skarnitzl, R., and J. Vaňková. 2017. Fundamental Frequency Statistics for Male Speakers of Common Czech, Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Philologica 3, Phonetica Pragensia XIV: 7–17.
42
Taghva, N. and V. Abolhasani Zadeh. 2016. Comparison of English Language Rhythm and Kalhori Kurdish Language Rhythm, Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(2): 226–30.
43
White, L. and S. L. Mattys. 2007. Calibrating Rhythm: First Language and Second Language Studies, Journal of Phonetics, 35(4): 501–22.
44
Windfuhr, G. L. 1979. Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800425
45
Wolf, Jared J. 1972. Efficient Acoustic Parameters for Speaker Recognition, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51(6B): 2044–56. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913065.
46
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Study of Derived Words Ending in '-ār' Suffix from the Viewpoint of Construction Morphology
All languages in the world use different mechanisms to create new words. Derivation and compounding are two morphological processes whose main function is the formation of new word-forms. In Persian, derivation is one of the dynamic and widely used processes of word formation. In the realm of derivation, Persian language has many prefixes and suffixes that can be attached to existing words in order to create new words. One of these suffixes is "-ār" which is considered as one of the semi-productive suffixes of Persian language; however, the observations reveal that it has become a productive suffix in today's Persian. The main purpose of this research is to study the derivational construction [x-ār] in Persian within the framework of Construction Morphology (CM). It makes use of the notion of ‘construction’, which is defined as a pairing of form and meaning, to describe the properties of complex words. Therefore, on the basis of a construction-based approach and regarding a descriptive-analytic method, the authors try to represent the systematically semantic varieties of "-ār", possible schemas and subschemas and also the hierarchical structures, based on which, [x-ar] construction has been achieved. The data analyzed in this study has been gathered from three sources: Reverse Dictionary (Zansu) (Keshani, 1993), Persian Linguistic Database (PLDB) and FarsNet. Then, the extracted words have been examined in Farhang-e Bozorg-e Sokhan (Anvari, 2002) and obsolete items have been excluded. The findings of the research show that “-ār” has seven different meanings (functions) and thus we can consider it as a polysemous suffix. Its polysemy is not explainable at the level of words, but at the level of abstract schemas; hence, it is called “constructional polysemy”. The results of this study indicate that "entity with relation R to SEM" is the prototypical meaning of [x-ār] which is the most abstract correlation among meaning and form in Persian language.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77585_c7d0f365dafc1f91d8245ac573f13c86.pdf
2020-08-22
25
48
10.22059/jolr.2020.264867.666402
Suffix “-ār”
affixation
construction morphology
constructional polysemy
constructional schema
Sahar
Bahrami-Khorshid
sahbahrami@modares.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Saeedeh
Ghandi
sid.gh.14@gmail.com
2
PhD Student of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,Iran
AUTHOR
ابوالقاسمی، محسن (1389). دستور تاریخی مختصر زبان فارسی، چاپ هشتم، تهران، سمت.
1
انوری، حسن (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران، سخن،
2
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1378). دستور زبان فارسی1، تهران، فاطمی.
3
بامشادی، پارسا و فریبا قطره (1396). «چندمعنایی پسوند «-ی» فارسی: کندوکاوی در چهارچوب ساختواژۀ ساختی»، جستارهای زبانی، س8، ش7، پیاپی 42، ویژهنامۀ زمستان، صص 289-265.
4
بامشادی، پارسا و شادی انصاریان (1395). «رویکرد ساختبنیاد به صرف و کاربرد آن در آموزش واژههای مشتق و مرکب فارسی برای فارسیآموزان». مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش واکاوی منابع آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی زبانان، به کوشش مهینناز میردهقان، ج2، صص 1020-999.
5
بهار، مهرداد (1351). واژهنامۀ گزیدههای زادسپرم، تهران، بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
6
خطیبرهبر، خلیل (1381). دستور زبان فارسی. چ 1، تهران، مهتاب.
7
خیامپور، عبدالرسول (1372). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، کتابفروشی تهران.
8
رفیعی، عادل (1391). «مفهوم عامل در واژههای مشتق زبان فارسی». پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، 4(7)، صص 32-19.
9
سلطانی گرد فرامرزی، علی (1381). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، مبتکران.
10
شفیعیکدکنی، محمدرضا (1385). آیینهای برای صداها، چ5، تهران، سخن.
11
شقاقی، ویدا (1394). فرهنگ توصیفی صرف، چ 1، تهران، علمی.
12
صادقی، علیاشرف (1380). مسائل تاریخی زبان فارسی (مجموعه مقالات)، چ1، تهران، سخن.
13
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1384). دستور مفصل امروز، تهران، سخن.
14
کشانی، خسرو (1372). فرهنگ زانسو، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
15
کلباسی، ایران (1391). ساخت اشتقاقی واژه در فارسی امروز، چ5، تهران، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
16
مرادی، ابراهیم (1393). «بررسی ساختواژی چند واژه در زبان فارسی»، فصلنامۀ رشد آموزش زبان و ادب فارسی، س18، ش112، 61-58.
17
مرادی، ابراهیم و غلامحسین کریمیدوستان (1390). «بررسی نقش معنایی پسوندهای ـَنده و ـار در زبان فارسی»، پژوهشهای زبانی، 2(1)، صص128-101.
18
ناتل خانلری، پرویز و عفت مستشارنیا (1386). دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، چ6، تهران، توس.
19
وحیدیان کامیار، تقی و غلامرضا عمرانی (1386). دستور زبان فارسی (1)، چ10، تهران، سمت.
20
Abolghasmi, M., 2010. A Short Historical Grammar of the Persian Language (8th ed.). Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
21
Anvari, H., and Ahmadi Givi, H., 1999. Persian Grammar 1. Tehran: Fatemi. [In Persian].
22
Anvari, H., 2002. Farhang-e Bozorg-e Sokhan. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
23
Bahar, M., 1972. Glossary of Selections of Zadsparam. Tehran: Bonyad-e Farhang-e Iran [In Persian].
24
Bamshadi, P., and Ghatreh, F., 2018.“The Polysemy of Suffix “-i”: An Exploration within the Construction Morphology”. Language Related Research. 8 (7): 265-289 [In Persian].
25
Bamshadi, P., and Ansarian, S., 2016. “A Construction-based Approach to Morphology and its Applications to the Teaching of Persian Derivational and Compound Words”. Proceedings of First International Conference on Investigating TPSOL Textbooks (Vol. 2), 19-20 October 2016, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University. pp. 999-1020 [In Persian].
26
Booij, G., 2007. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Morphology (2nd ed.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27
_____ , 2003. “Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language”. Trends Cognitive Science, 7 (5): 219-224.
28
_____ , 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29
_____ , 2013. “Morphology in Construction Grammar”. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255-274). Oxford: oxford University Press.
30
_____ , 2015. “Construction Morphology”. In Andrew Hippisley and Gregory T. Stump (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (Chapter 17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
Croft, W., 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32
Farshidvard, K., 2005. Dastur-e Mofassal-e Emruz. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
33
Fillmore, Charles J. (1988). “The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar”. BLS, 14: 35-55.
34
Fillmore, C, J., and Kay, P., 1993. Construction Grammar Coursebook. Berkeley: University of California.
35
Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36
Kalbasi, I,. 2012. The Derivational Structure of Word in Modern Persain (5th ed.). Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies [In Persian].
37
Keshani, K., 1993. Dictionnaire Inverse de la Langue Persane. Tehran: Markaz-e Nashr-e dāneshgāhi [In Persian].
38
Khatibrahbar, K., 2002. Persian Grammar (1st ed.). Tehran: Mahtab [In Persian].
39
Khayyampour, A., 1993. Persian Grammar. Tehran: Ketabforushi-ye Tehran [In Persian].
40
Langacker, R. W., 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41
Moradi, E., and Karimi-Doostan, G,. 2011. “The Study of Semantic Contribution of -ār and -andeh Suffixes in Persian”. Language Research, 2(1), 101-128 [In Persian].
42
Moradi, E., 2014. “The Morphological Study of Some Words in Persian”. Faslname-ye Roshd-e Amoozesh-e Zaban va Adab-e Farsi. 18(112).58-61 [In Persian].
43
Natel-Khanlari, Parviz and Effat Mostasharniya(2007). Historical Grammar of the Persian Language. (6th ed.). Tehran: Toos [In Persian].
44
Rafiei, A., 2012. “Agent Meaning in the Derived Words of Persian”. Researches in Linguistics, 4(7), 19-32 [In Persian].
45
Sadeghi, A, A., 2001. Historical Problems of the Persian Language.(1st ed.). Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
46
Shafiei-Kadkani, M. R. 2006. āyine-yi baraye sedaha [A Mirror for Sounds]. (5th ed.). Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
47
Shaghaghi, V. 2015. An Introduction to Morphology. (1st ed.). Tehran: Elmi [In Persian].
48
Shamsfard, M. et al. 2010. “Semi-Automatic Development of Farsnet; The Persian Wordnet”. Proceedings of 5th Global WordNet Conference (GWA2010). Mumbai, India.
49
Soltani, G., Ali. 2002. Persian Grammar. Tehran: Mobtakeran [In Persian].
50
Vahidiyan, K., T. and Emrani G., 2007. Persian Grammar 1. (10th ed.). Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
51
http://pldb.ihcs.ac.ir/
52
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Survey Analysis of the Use of Kurdish Kinship Terms and Persian Borrowed Equivalents (Based on Data from Kalhori Kurdish)
This study set out to examine the use of Kurdish kinship terms comparing with Persian borrowed equivalents in Kalhori Kurdish. Matras (2009), Treffers-Daller (2010) and Muysken, (1987) were frequently cited and adopted as theoretical model. Methodologically, this study is quantitative and descriptive. To achieve the goals, a list composed of almost all Kurdish kinship terms together with Persian borrowed equivalents were distributed among the participants to choose from. Based on gender, age and educational backgrounds, the subjects were divided to eight groups: young male/ female educated; old male/ female educated; young male/ female uneducated; old male/ female uneducated participants. For each group, 10 people were selected randomly. Therefore, a total number of 80 participants were selected to respond to the provided list through interview. For each kinship term, different contexts were provided and then the participants were asked to choose either the local kinship term or the borrowed one from Persian. To analyze the data, SPSS (version 23) was employed. As for the statistical test, ANOVA was employed to find any meaningful relation between the three independent variables of the study (age, gender and educational background) and the participants’ choice among the Kurdish kinship terms and Persian borrowed ones (dependent variable). Unlike the predictions of the theory of borrowing hierarchy (Muysken (1987), the results indicated the Kurdish kinship terms were used much more frequently than their (more prestigious) Persian equivalents in Klahori Kurdish. Different groups employed at least 54.5% to 100% Kurdish kinship terms. Since, no Kurdish lexical gap was found in the provided list, the results were in line with the predictions of the theory of lexical gap (Matras, 2009). Regarding the attested variations among different groups, the statistical employed test (ANOVA) showed that education and age play a meaningful role, while, sex was found to be statistically insignificant.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77343_7b451949ad067f7eb1dff8a71e2f5ae6.pdf
2020-08-22
49
72
10.22059/jolr.2020.295585.666597
kinship terms
borrowing
lexical gap
Kalhori Kurdish
language contact
Shahram
Jamali
sh_jamali32@yahoo.com
1
Ph.D Candidate of Linguistics, Ilam branch, Islamic Azad University , Ilam, Iran,
AUTHOR
Habib
Gowhary
h_gowhary@yahoo.com
2
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Ilam branch, Islamic Azad University , Ilam, Iran,
LEAD_AUTHOR
استاجی، اعظم (1394). بررسی اصطلاحات خویشاوندی در زبان فارسی. مجله زبانشناسی و گویشهای خراسان، سال 7، شمارۀ 2، شمارۀ 13، صص 1-19
1
حیدری، عبدالحسین (1399). سلسلهمراتب قرضگیری زبان ترکی آذربایجانی از زبان فارسی. فصلنامه مطالعات زبانها و گویشهای غرب ایران، دورۀ هشتم، شمارۀ 2، صص 39-59
2
عباسی، بیستون و کریستین کزازی (1392). بررسی واژگان خویشاوندی هورامی بر اساس معیارهای مورداک. فصلنامه مطالعات زبانها و گویشهای غرب ایران، سال اول، شمارۀ 2، صص 31-55
3
گوهری، حبیب و شهرام جمالی (1399). بررسی میزان وامگیری در مقولات واژگانی اصلی بر اساس رویکرد سلسلهمراتب وامگیری در کردی کلهری. مجله پژوهشهای زبانشناسی. پذیرفتهشده برای انتشار. شناسه دیجیتالی (DOI): 10.22108/JRL.2020.120997.1445
4
نقشبندی، زانیار؛ ملکی، ناصر؛ و علیرضا خانی (1395). بررسی اصطلاحات خویشاوندی در گویش کلهری گونه ایوانی. فصلنامه مطالعات زبانها و گویشهای غرب ایران، سال سوم، شمارۀ 12، صص 85-10
5
منصوری، مهرزاد و شفق رحمانی (1394). نظام واژههای خویشاوندی در زبانها و گویشهای ایرانی. نشریه پژوهشهای زبانشناسی تطبیقی، سال 5، شمارۀ 10، صص 157-175.
6
Abasi, B., Kazzazi, K. 2013. Analyzing Hawrami Kinship Terms Based on Murdock’s Criteria. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 2 (1): 31-55, [in Persian].
7
Bakker, P. 1996. A language of our own. The genesis of Michif — the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford University Press.
8
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
9
Borg, A. and Azzopardi-Alexander, M. 1997. Maltese. London: Routledge.
10
Brown, C. H. 1999. Lexical acculturation in Native American languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
11
Comrie, B. 2000. Language contact, lexical borrowing, and semantic fields. In: Gilbers, D. G., Nerbonne, J., and Schaeken, J. eds. 73–86.
12
Estaji, A. 2015. A Diachronic Study of Kinship Terms in Persian. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects Biannual, 7 (2): 1-19, [in Persian].
13
Field, F. W. 2002. Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14
Gowhary, H. Jamali, Sh. 2020. Investigating Lexical Borrowing based on Borrowing Hierarchies in Kolhari Kurdish Emphasizing Gender, age and Educational Background. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, Articles in Press. DOI: 10.22108/JRL.2020.120997.1445, [in Persian].
15
Heidari, A. 2020. The Borrowing Hierarchy of Azerbaijani from Persian. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 8 (28), 39-59, [In Persian].
16
Hekking, E. and Bakker, D. 2007. The case of Otomi: A contribution to grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. In: Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. eds. 435–464.
17
Holmes, J. 2008. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.
18
Haugen, E. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26: 210–231.
19
Matras, 2000. Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism 4(4): 505–528.
20
Matras Y. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Minett, J. W. and Wang, S.-Y. 2003. On detecting borrowing. Distance-based and character-based approaches. Diachronica 20, 289–330.
22
Moravcsik, E.A. 1978. Language Contact. In J. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language: 93–122. Stanford University Press.
23
Morgan, L.H. 1871. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
24
Murdock, G.P. 1949. Social Structure. The MacMillan Company, New York.
25
Muysken, P. 1981a. Quechua en Spaans in het Andesgebied. [Quechua and Spanish in the Andes.] Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 1: 124–138.
26
Muysken, P. 1987. Concepts, methodology and data in language contact research: Ten remarks from the perspective of grammatical theory. In Papers for the workshop on concepts, methodology and data, Network on Code-switching and language contact: 15–30. Basel.
27
Naghshbandi, Z. Maleki, N. Khani, A. 2016. Investigating Kinship Terms in Kalhori Variety of Eyvan. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 3 (12), 85-104, [In Persian].
28
Rahmani, S. Mansuri, M 2015. Kinship Term patterns in Iranian Languages. Journal of Comparative Linguistic Researches, 5 (10): 157-175, [in Persian].
29
Poplack, S., D. Sankoff & C. Miller 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26: 47–104.
30
Salverda De Grave, J.J. 1906. De Fransche woorden in het Nederlands. [French words in Dutch.] Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 6.
31
Stolz, T. 2003. Not quite the right mixture: Chamorro and Malti as candidates for the status of mixed language: In: Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. eds. 271–315. Thomason, S.G. (ed.) (1996). Contact languages. A wider perspective. John Benjamins.
32
Swadesh, M. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96, 452–463.
33
Thomason, S.G. & T. Kaufman 1988. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.
34
Treffers-Daller, J. 2010. Borrowing. In M. Fried, J. O. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds), Vocabulary Studies in first and second language acquisition. The interface between theory and applications (pp. 74-90). Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
35
Vellupillai 2015. Pidgins, Creoles & Mixed Languages. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
36
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. Mouton.
37
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Cognitive Study of the Effect of Cultural Artifacts on the Metaphorical Comprehension of Time Concept in Persian
In different cultures, people use space to make linguistic representations of time. In general, there are two different approaches toward deictic time expressions: a Moving Time Metaphor and a Moving Ego Metaphor. In the Moving Time metaphor, time is conceived as moving forward, while in a Moving Ego Metaphor, a moving observer is conceptualized. The purpose of this research is to explore the effect of cultural artifacts on metaphorical comprehension of time expressions in Persian language. In this regard, following Duffy and Feist (2014), the present study was carried out based on the ambiguous question: Wednesday's Meeting suggested by McGlone and Harding (1998). The first experiment directly explores the relationship between responses to the Wednesday's Meeting question in two calendar and meta-language conditions. The second experiment examines the special cultural relations between space and time and the role of the Persian orthography direction in the time reasoning. In the third experiment, based on circular representations of time, the role of the analog clock in resolving the ambiguity is examined from the Noon's Meeting question. This was done by comparing the responses of the participants with the clockwise clock and counterclockwise clock. To this end, 40 Persian speakers were selected from the students of Sistan and Baluchestan University. Chi-square test (using SPSS software) was used for statistical analysis. The findings of this study show that the viewpoint of individuals about the motion of events in time is not only due to their experience in space movement, but also is rooted in their interactive patterns of cultural artifacts as well. In addition, the results show that in interpreting ambiguous metaphorical time expressions, individuals automatically access spatial representations of time and use them. The participants who encountered with reverse space-time mappings had an interference in their responses, reflected through their time reasoning. Consequently, they provide a more precise form of representations of time than merely symbolic speech. Hence, cultural artifacts play an important role in the cognitive process of embodiment, which not only help to recognize embodiment, but also affect it.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77715_ff9d058382a0ba34ed8e401e1d35b20e.pdf
2020-08-22
73
94
10.22059/jolr.2019.275105.666470
time
Metaphor
Moving Ego Metaphor
Moving Time Metaphor
Cultural Artifacts
Amir Ali
Khoshkhoonejad
amiralikhoshkhounejad@pgs.usb.ac.ir
1
Ph. D of Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran.
AUTHOR
Abbas Ali
Ahangar
ahangar@english.usb.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Pakzad
Yousefian
yousefian@lihu.usb.ac.ir
3
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran.
AUTHOR
Mehrdad
Mazaheri
mazaheri@hamoon.usb.ac.ir
4
Associate Professor of Phycology, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran.
AUTHOR
شرفزاده، محمدحسین؛ علوی، فاطمه و علیمردانی، آسیه (1392). یک رویکرد شناختی به مفهوم استعاری زمان در زبان فارسی. در دومین همایش ملی آموزش زبان فارسی و زبانشناسی، فارس، علوم تحقیقات فارس.
1
نصیبضرابی، فهیمه و پهلوان نژاد، محمدرضا (1393). تبلور مفهوم زمان: بر اساس حرکت استعاری دستان. پژوهشهای زبانی، سال پنجم، شمارۀ اول، بهار و تابستان: 109-127.
2
Nasib Zarraby, F., & Pahlavannezhad, M. 2014. Model for the concept of time in Persian speakers’ minds: based on metaphoric gestures. Journal of Language Researches, 5 (1), 109-127, [In Persian].
3
Sharafzadeh, MH, Alavi, F & Ali Mirdani, A. 2013. A cognitive approach to the metaphorical meaning of time in Persian language. Second National Conference on Persian Language Education and Linguistics, Fars, Research Sciences Azad University, [In Persian] .
4
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. 2010. Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently about time? Cognition, 118(1), 123–129.
5
Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. 2010. Remembrances of times east absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian aboriginal community. Psychological Science, 21, 1635–1639.
6
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–188.
7
Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. 2013. Mirror-reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi:10.1037/a0033297
8
Clark, H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York, NY: Academic Press.
9
Duffy, S. 2014. The metaphoric representation of time: a cognitive linguistic perspective. Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University.
10
Evans, V. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
11
Evans, V. 2006. Cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
12
Evans, V. 2013. Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13
Fedden, S., & Boroditsky, L. 2012. Spatialization of time in Mian. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 483–456.
14
Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. 2010. Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1430–1451.
15
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr., & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16
Jamalian, A., & Tversky, B. 2012. Gestures alter thinking about time. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles & R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 503–508). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
17
Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18
Kovecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
19
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
22
Lakoff, G. 2006. Conceptual metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin, 185-239.
23
McGlone, M. S., & Harding, J. L. 1998. Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language
24
comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1211–1223.
25
Núñez, R. Cooperrider, K., Doan, D., & Wassmann, J. 2012. Contours of time: Topographic construals of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of Papua New Guinea. Cognition, 124, 25–35.
26
Núñez, R., Motz, B., & Teuscher, U. 2006. Time after time: The psychological reality of the ego- and time reference point distinction in metaphorical construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 133–146.
27
Núñez, R., & Sweetser, E. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 401 450.
28
Ouellet, M., Santiago, J., Israeli, Z., & Gabay, S. 2010. Is the future the right time? Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 308–314.
29
Richmond, J., Wilson, J. C., & Zinken, J. 2012. A feeling for the future: How does agency in time metaphors relate to feelings? European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 813–823.
30
Stickles, E., & Lewis, T. N. 2018. Wednesday's Meeting Really Is on Friday: A Meta‐Analysis and Evaluation of Ambiguous Spatiotemporal Language. Cognitive science, 42(3), 1015-1025.
31
Tversky, B. 2011. Visualizing thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 499 535.
32
Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, W. 1991. Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 515–557.
33
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Relative Clauses in Arabic and Persian
Typology is a branch of linguistics which studies the structural similarities between languages, regardless of their history. Linguistic studies have proven that different languages in the world have similarities which called Language Universals. Study of Word Order is one of the most important topics in Typology of language, because of languages are more diverse in this respect, and this diversity is a tool for typological studies. One of these diversities is sequence of Relative Clause and Noun. Topologists have identified two types: Relative Clause – Noun (Rel N) and Noun - Relative Clause (N Rel). In their view, these two sequences correlate with the arrangement of the main constituents of language in particular (verb and object).Consequently, according to their predictions, (N Rel) sequence is predominantly in VO languages, and (Rel N) sequence in OV languages. In the present article, we study relative clause in Persian and Arabic languages in order to clarify what are the characteristics of relative clause in both languages and what are the similarities and differences between them. In addition, the research seeks to study the sequence of noun and relative clause in the light of the views of Topologists. The research method is descriptive-analytical and the sentences are collected from different official texts of both Persian and Arabic languages. Over ten thousand sentences were studied .The findings of the study showed that Persian and Arabic languages follow the dominant global pattern in the sequence of relative clause and noun, meaning that both languages have the sequence (N Rel). In this context, however, the Persian language does not follow the predictions made for the ending verbs or OV languages. While the Arabic language is consistent with the predictions presented for VO languages. Also another result of this study is that the phenomenon of relative clause movement in Persian language is possible but not in Arabic.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77587_3ed1af880d4b728cac530c2f6be0d2e9.pdf
2020-08-22
95
117
10.22059/jolr.2019.285133.666529
Typology
Language Universals
relative clause
Persian language
Arabic Langugae
Bassam
Rahma
1
PhD Candidate in Persian language and Literature, Tarbiyat Modares University, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Hayat
Ameri
h.ayatameri@yahoo.com
2
Associate Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiyat Modares University, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Najme
Dorri
3
Associate Professor of Persian language and Literature, Tarbiyat Modares University, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Gholamhosseyn
Gholamhosseynzade
4
Professor of Persian language and Literature, Tarbiyat Modares University, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Eessa
Mottaghizade
5
Associate Professor of Arabic language and Literature, Tarbiyat Modares University, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
قرآن مجید، ترجمۀ حسین انصاریان.
1
ابن جنی، ابوالفتح عثمان (2007). شرح اللمع فی النحو، تحقیق محمد خلیل مراد الحربی، بیروت، الکتب العلمیة.
2
ابن حاجب (2011)؛ کافیة؛ کراتشی، کتابخانه بشری.
3
ابن عقیل الهمدانی المصری (1980). شرح ابن عقیل، تحقیق محمد محیالدین عبدالحمید، قاهره، دار التراث.
4
اشرفی ریزی، حسن و زهرا کاظمپور (1386). جغرافیای سیاسی اطلاعات، تهران، چاپار.
5
ایمانی، محسن (1384). آسیبشناسی مطالعه، چ2، تهران، انجمن اولیا و مربیان.
6
بهار، محمدتقی (1385). سبکشناسی بهار، به کوشش سید ابوطالب میرعابدینی، چ2، تهران، توس.
7
بهرامی، کاوه (1392). بررسی ردهشناختی راهبردهای ساخت بند موصولی در زبانهای فارسی و آلمانی،پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی، ش 1 بهار و تابستان، صص 61 - 76.
8
پورعمرانی، روحالله مهدی (1388). چلچراغ: بازآفرینی چهل داستان از حکایتهای قابوسنامه، تهران، تیرگان.
9
حسن، عباس (1975). النحو الوافی، چ3، قاهره، دار المعارف.
10
خبرگزاری سانا، چهارشنبه 6/6/ 2018، محلیات، https://www.sana.sy/?p=763797.
11
خبرگزاری فارس، شنبه 2/4/ 1397، گروه حماسه و مقاومت، حوزه دفاع مقدس،
12
https://www.fars news.com/news/13970402000680
13
خبرگزاری فارس، شنبه 9/4/ 1397، گروه بینالملل، حوزۀ غرب آسیا
14
https://www.farsnews.com/news/13911121000902
15
دبیر مقدم، محمد (1393). ردهشناسی زبانهای ایرانی، چ2، تهران، سمت.
16
راسخ مهند، محمد و دیگران (1391). تبیین نقشی خروج بند موصولی در زبان فارسی، پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، ش6 بهار و تابستان، صص 21 - 40.
17
رضایی، والی و فاطمه بهرامی (1394). مبانی ردهشناسی زبان، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه بهشتی.
18
رفیعا، بزرگمهر (1384). ماهیت سینما، چ2، تهران، امیرکبیر.
19
رودی، کمیل (1388). دانشگاه و مرجعیت علمی، تهران، دانشگاه امام صادق.
20
روزنامه اهرام، س 142، ش 48028، سهشنبه، 5/6/ 2018.
21
روزنامه ایران، سال 24، ش 6805، سهشنبه 29 / 3 / 1397.
22
زمخشری (2011). شرح المفصل، با اهتمام امیل بدیع یعقوب، بیروت، الکتب العلمیة.
23
سامرائی، فاضل صالح (2000). معانی النحو، عمان: دار الفکر.
24
سامرائی، فاضل صالح (2007)؛ الجملة العربیة تألیفها و أقسامها، چ2، عمان: دار الفکر.
25
شبکه العالم، دوشنبه 7 / 5 / 2018،
26
شلق، علی (2006). الزمان فی الفکر العربی و العالمی، بیروت، دار الهلال.
27
صفوی، کوروش (1373). برخی از ویژگیهای بندهای موصولی فارسی، مجموعه مقالات دومین کنفرانس زبانشناسی نظری و کاربردی، سید علی میرعمادی (گردآورنده)، تهران، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، صص181- 197.
28
عبدالعزیز عبدالقادر، فراس و شیبان ادیب رمضان الحیالی (2012). الاسم الموصول و جملة صلته فی النحو العربی، آداب الرافدین، 1 - 28.
29
عزیزی پور، محمدرضا (1393). المصطلحات المتداولة فی الصحافةالعربیة؛ چ9، تهران، سمت.
30
علیآبادی، مرضیه شکوهی (1391). توصیف و آموزش بندهای موصولی در چهارچوب برنامههای درسی، پایاننامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
31
الغضبان، منیر محمد (2010). أخلاقیات الحرب فی السیرة النبویة، قاهره: دارالسلام.
32
غلامحسین زاده، غلامحسین (1391). مقدماتی نگارش زبان فارسی، چ 2، تهران، سمت.
33
غلایینی، مصطفی (1994). جامع الدروس العربیة، ویرایشگر عبد المنعم خفاجه، چ30، بیروت، کتابخانه عصریة.
34
قریب، عبدالعظیم و دیگران (1392). دستور زبان فارسی (پنج استاد)، چ6، تهران، انتشارات ناهید.
35
کریم ناشد، علی (2014). الاسم الموصول دراسة نحویة مقارنة بین اللغتین العربیة و الانجلیزیة؛ آداب المستنصریة، ش64، 249 - 279.
36
ماهوتیان، شهرزاد (1378). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه ردهشناسی، ترجمۀ مهدی سمائی، تهران، نشر مرکز.
37
مجلۀ موفقیت، سال 20، نیمه اول تیر 1397.
38
مشکور، محمدجواد (1368). دستورنامه در صرف و نحو پارسی، تهران، مؤسسه مطبوعاتی شرق.
39
نشریۀ چشمه، ش 59، فروردین 1397، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
40
وحیدیان کامیار، تقی و غلامرضا عمرانی (1392). دستور زبان فارسی (1)، چ14، تهران، سمت.
41
وفایی، عباسعلی (1392). دستور توصیفی بر اساس واحدهای زبان فارسی، تهران، سخن.
42
Abraham, R. D. 1950. Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. The Modern Language Journal 34(4): 276–287.
43
Anvari, H and Ahmadi Givi, H. 1995. Persian Syntax 2. Second Edition. Tehran: Fatemi, [In Persian].
44
Battistella, E. 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
45
Benor, S. B. & Levy, R. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2): 233–277.
46
Birdsong, D. 1982. Semantics of word order in co-ordination. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21: 25–32.
47
Cardona, G. 1970. Pāņini. A Survey of Research. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
48
Conley, K; Cooper, W.E. 1981. Conjoined Ordering of Color Terms by Children and Adults, Studies in language, 5:3, 305- 322.
49
Cooper, W. E. & Ross, J. R. 1975. World order. In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Robin E. Grossman, L. James San & Timothy J. Vance (eds), 63–111. ChicagoIL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
50
Dabirsiyaghi, M. 1966. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Elmi, [In Persian].
51
Farshidvard, Kh. 2003. Today’s Comprehensive Syntax. Tehran: Sokhan, [In Persian].
52
Farzi, A. 1996. A Contrastive study of the rule- governability of English and Persian irreversible binomials. Unpublished M. A thesis, Allameh Tabataba'ee University.
53
Fenk-Oczlon, G. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27(1): 517–556.
54
Gharib, A; Bahar M; Homa’ee; Foroozanfar, B & Yasemi, R. 1992. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Ashrafi, [In Persian].
55
Golfam, A & Mohiyodin Ghomshe’I, Gh. 2011. “The Iconicity of Persian Reduplications: A Semantic Classification”. Comparative Literature Research. Vol. 3. No. 1 (Tome 9). Pp: 153-172, [In Persian].
56
Golfam, A; Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B; Karbalaei Sadegh, M. 2014. The Study of the Irreversible Binominals in Persian: A Cognitive Morphology Approach, Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 136, 159 – 163.
57
Gustafsson, M. 1974. The phonetic length of the members in Present-Day English binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75: 663–677.
58
HomayounFarrokh, A. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of Persian Language. Tehran: Elmi, [In Persian].
59
Jespersen, O. 1905. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner.
60
Khanlari, P. 2002. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Toos, [In Persian].
61
Khatibzadeh, P; Sameri, M. 2013. Translation of Binomials in Political Speeches and Reports; A Contrastive Study of English and Persian. Journal of Translation and Interpretation, vol. 6, no. 1.
62
Khayampour, A. 1996. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Ketabforooshi Tehran, [In Persian].
63
Levelt, C, and Willemijn S. 2004. De normen en waarden van ‘normen en waarden’. Paper presented at TIN-dag (The Linguistic Society of the Netherlands annual meeting), Utrecht, February 2004.
64
Lohmann, A. Takada, T. 2014. Order in NP conjuncts in spoken English and Japanese. Lingua 152: 48-64.
65
Malkiel, Y. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8, 113–160.
66
Mashkour, M. 1971. A Grammar of Persian Morphplogy and Syntax. Tehran: Moassese Matbo’ati Shargh, [In Persian].
67
Mayerthaler, W. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
68
McDonald, J.L, Bock, K & Kelly, M. H. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25(2): 188–230. DOI: 10. 1006/ cogp. 1993. 1005
69
Mogharabi, M. 1993. Compound in Persian Language. Tehran: Toos, [In Persian].
70
Mollin, S. 2012. Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16(1): 81–103.
71
Mollin, S. 2013. Pathways of change in the diachronic development of binomial reversibility in Late Modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 168–203.
72
Mollin, S. 2014. The (Ir)reversibility of English binomials: Corpus, constraints and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
73
Moshiri, M. 2000. A Dictionary of Reduplication and Redoubling in Persian Language. Tehran: Aghahan Ide, [In Persian].
74
Pinker, S & Birdsong, D. 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18(4): 497–508. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90273-1.
75
Same’i, H. 1996. Word Formation in Persian. Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation in linguistics. Tehran University, [In Persian].
76
Shafa’ee, A. 1985. Scientific Foundations of Persian Syntax. Tehran: Novin. [In Persian].
77
Shari’at, Mo. 1985. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Asatir, [In Persian].
78
Tabataba’ee, A. 2003. Compound Noun and Adjective in Persian Language. Tehran: Markaz Nashr Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
79
Tanaka, M. 2003. Conceptual accessibility and word-order in Japanese Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
80
Wright, S. K. Hay, J. 2002. Fred and Wilma: A phonological conspiracy. Gender and linguistic practice, ed. by Sarah Benor, Mary Rose, Devyani Sharma, Julie Sweetland, and Qing Zhang, 175-191. Stanford: CSLI Press.
81
Wright, S. K. Hay, J & Bent, T. 2005. Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy. Linguistics 43(3): 531–561. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.531.
82
Yamashita, H., Chang, F. 2001. ‘‘Long before short’’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81, B45-B55.
83
Zakeri, M. 2002. Reduplication and Gingling Words in Persian. Tehran: Markaz Nashr Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
84
Zipf, G. K. 1936. The Psycho-Biology of Language. An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
85
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Ranking and Interaction of Mollin’s Constraints in Persian Irreversible Binomials
The term “binomials” in the literature refers to the sequence of two words pertaining to the same form-class, and ordinarily connected by some kind of lexical link. In this term, “nomi” (which means “name”) doesn’t refer to names only, but it is a cover term and can refer to names, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and conjunctions. One important point in binomials relates to the order of constituents. In this regard, there is a model called Constraints’ Model which was proposed by Mollin (2014). The Constraints’ Model has some constraints which determine the order of constituents in binomials. The constraints of this model are: semantic-pragmatic constraints, nonmetrical-phonological constraints, metrical-phonological constraints, and frequency and alphabetic order constraints. The constraints in the model compete with each other to determine the order of constituents in the binomials. In this model, there is the possibility that one constraint can determine the order of constituents in some binomials, but it is possible that it can’t determine the order of constituents in all binomials. The reason for separating these four constituents from each other is that they have differences from each other. In this model, the constituents interact with each other and they have often significant correlations with each other. The paper aims to analyze Persian binomials based on Constraints’ Model and to determine their interactions with each other and finally to rank the constraints. To do the research, the data, including 534 Persian binomials, were analyzed based on Constraints’ Model. Then the model’ constraints were ranked according to Persian binomials, finally the competition and interaction of the constraints were determined in the Persian language. The results showed that non-metrical-phonological constraints can explain the most of Persian binomials, so they rank first, but semantic-pragmatic constraints can explain the least of Persian binomials, so they rank last.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77586_4f7597f580196eea62e501a4ee1bd827.pdf
2020-08-22
119
140
10.22059/jolr.2020.263717.666398
binomial
irreversible
constraints
Ranking
interaction
Ali
Arabani Dana
arabani@gmail.com
1
Ph.D Candidate in linguistics, University of Isfahan , Isfahan, Iran.
AUTHOR
Adel
Rafiei
a.rafiei@fgn.ui.ac.ir
2
Assistant Professor in Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Batool
alinezhad
b.alinezhad@fgn.ui.ac.ir
3
Associate Professor in Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
AUTHOR
انوری، حسن؛ احمدی گیوی، حسن (1374). دستور زبان فارسی 2، ویرایش دوم، چاپ دوازدهم. تهران، مؤسسه انتشارات فاطمی.
1
خانلری، پرویز (1381). دستور زبان فارسی، چاپ هجدهم، تهران، توس.
2
خیامپور، عبدالرسول (1375). دستور زبان فارسی، چاپ دهم، تهران،کتابفروشی تهران.
3
دبیرسیاقی، محمد (1345). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، علمی.
4
ذاکری، مصطفی (1381). اتباع و مهملات در زبان فارسی، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
5
سامعی، حسین (1375). واژهسازی در زبان فارسی، پایان نامة دکتری، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
6
شریعت، محمدجواد (1364). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، اساطیر.
7
شفائی، احمد (1363). مبانی علمی دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، مؤسسه انتشارات نوین.
8
صدری افشار، غلامحسین؛ حکمی، نسرین و حکمی، نسترن. (1387). فرهنگ معاصر فارسی، تهران، نشر معاصر.
9
طباطبائی، علاءالدین ( 1382). اسم و صفت مرکب در زبان فارسی، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی
10
فرشید ورود، خسرو (1382). دستور مفصل امروز، تهران، سخن.
11
قریب، عبدالعظیم؛ بهار، ملکالشعرا؛ فروزانفر، بدیعالزمان؛ همایی، جلال و یاسمی، رشید (1371). دستور زبان فارسی، چاپ دهم، تهران، اشرفی.
12
گلفام، ارسلان؛ محیی الدین قمشهای، غلامرضا (1390). «تصویرگونگی دوگانساختها در زبان فارسی: طبقهبندی معنایی»، پژوهشهای زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، د 3. ش 1 (پیاپی 9)، صص 172-153.
13
مشکور، محمدجواد (1350). دستورنامه در صرف و نحو زبان پارسی، چاپ هفتم، تهران، مؤسسه مطبوعاتی شرق.
14
مشیری، مهشید (1379). فرهنگ اتباع و اتباعسازی در زبان فارسی، تهران، آگاهان ایده.
15
مقربی، مصطفی (1372). ترکیب در زبان فارسی، تهران، توس.
16
همایون فرخ، عبدالرحیم (1364). دستور جامع زبان فارسی، تهران، علمی.
17
Abraham, R. D. 1950. Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. The Modern Language Journal 34(4): 276–287.
18
Anvari, H and Ahmadi Givi, H. 1995. Persian Syntax 2. Second Edition. Tehran: Fatemi, [In Persian].
19
Battistella, E. 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
20
Benor, S. B. & Levy, R. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2): 233–277.
21
Birdsong, D. 1982. Semantics of word order in co-ordination. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21: 25–32.
22
Cardona, G. 1970. Pāņini. A Survey of Research. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
23
Conley, K; Cooper, W.E. 1981. Conjoined Ordering of Color Terms by Children and Adults, Studies in language, 5:3, 305- 322.
24
Cooper, W. E. & Ross, J. R. 1975. World order. In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Robin E. Grossman, L. James San & Timothy J. Vance (eds), 63–111. ChicagoIL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
25
Dabirsiyaghi, M. 1966. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Elmi, [In Persian].
26
Farshidvard, Kh. 2003. Today’s Comprehensive Syntax. Tehran: Sokhan, [In Persian].
27
Farzi, A. 1996. A Contrastive study of the rule- governability of English and Persian irreversible binomials. Unpublished M. A thesis, Allameh Tabataba'ee University.
28
Fenk-Oczlon, G. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27(1): 517–556.
29
Gharib, A; Bahar M; Homa’ee; Foroozanfar, B & Yasemi, R. 1992. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Ashrafi, [In Persian].
30
Golfam, A & Mohiyodin Ghomshe’I, Gh. 2011. “The Iconicity of Persian Reduplications: A Semantic Classification”. Comparative Literature Research. Vol. 3. No. 1 (Tome 9). Pp: 153-172, [In Persian].
31
Golfam, A; Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B; Karbalaei Sadegh, M. 2014. The Study of the Irreversible Binominals in Persian: A Cognitive Morphology Approach, Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 136, 159 – 163.
32
Gustafsson, M. 1974. The phonetic length of the members in Present-Day English binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75: 663–677.
33
HomayounFarrokh, A. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of Persian Language. Tehran: Elmi, [In Persian].
34
Jespersen, O. 1905. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner.
35
Khanlari, P. 2002. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Toos, [In Persian].
36
Khatibzadeh, P; Sameri, M. 2013. Translation of Binomials in Political Speeches and Reports; A Contrastive Study of English and Persian. Journal of Translation and Interpretation, vol. 6, no. 1.
37
Khayampour, A. 1996. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Ketabforooshi Tehran, [In Persian].
38
Levelt, C, and Willemijn S. 2004. De normen en waarden van ‘normen en waarden’. Paper presented at TIN-dag (The Linguistic Society of the Netherlands annual meeting), Utrecht, February 2004.
39
Lohmann, A. Takada, T. 2014. Order in NP conjuncts in spoken English and Japanese. Lingua 152: 48-64.
40
Malkiel, Y. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8, 113–160.
41
Mashkour, M. 1971. A Grammar of Persian Morphplogy and Syntax. Tehran: Moassese Matbo’ati Shargh, [In Persian].
42
Mayerthaler, W. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
43
McDonald, J.L, Bock, K & Kelly, M. H. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25(2): 188–230. DOI: 10. 1006/ cogp. 1993. 1005
44
Mogharabi, M. 1993. Compound in Persian Language. Tehran: Toos, [In Persian].
45
Mollin, S. 2012. Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16(1): 81–103.
46
Mollin, S. 2013. Pathways of change in the diachronic development of binomial reversibility in Late Modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 168–203.
47
Mollin, S. 2014. The (Ir)reversibility of English binomials: Corpus, constraints and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48
Moshiri, M. 2000. A Dictionary of Reduplication and Redoubling in Persian Language. Tehran: Aghahan Ide, [In Persian].
49
Pinker, S & Birdsong, D. 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18(4): 497–508. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90273-1.
50
Same’i, H. 1996. Word Formation in Persian. Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation in linguistics. Tehran University, [In Persian].
51
Shafa’ee, A. 1985. Scientific Foundations of Persian Syntax. Tehran: Novin. [In Persian].
52
Shari’at, Mo. 1985. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Asatir, [In Persian].
53
Tabataba’ee, A. 2003. Compound Noun and Adjective in Persian Language. Tehran: Markaz Nashr Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
54
Tanaka, M. 2003. Conceptual accessibility and word-order in Japanese Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
55
Wright, S. K. Hay, J. 2002. Fred and Wilma: A phonological conspiracy. Gender and linguistic practice, ed. by Sarah Benor, Mary Rose, Devyani Sharma, Julie Sweetland, and Qing Zhang, 175-191. Stanford: CSLI Press.
56
Wright, S. K. Hay, J & Bent, T. 2005. Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy. Linguistics 43(3): 531–561. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.531.
57
Yamashita, H., Chang, F. 2001. ‘‘Long before short’’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81, B45-B55.
58
Zakeri, M. 2002. Reduplication and Gingling Words in Persian. Tehran: Markaz Nashr Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
59
Zipf, G. K. 1936. The Psycho-Biology of Language. An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
60
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Agreement in Ergative Constructions in Hawrami; A Minimalist Approach
Accounting for the verbal agreement and its interaction with case marking in both accusative and ergative alignments have always been an interesting line of investigation in generative syntax. Two main approaches have been proposed in this regard within the general framework of Minimalism. The first one, referred to as the classic approach in the available literature, envisages agreement as a parallel mechanism with case marking, taking place in narrow syntax. The second approach, generally known as dependent case-marking approach, not only separates agreement from case marking, but also analyzes it as a two-step phenomenon being unfolded both in narrow syntax, through Agree-Link, and PF, through Agree-Copy. Employing the theoretical apparatus of the dependent case-marking approach, the present paper seeks to study the patterns of verbal agreement in ergative constructions in Hawrami. The explanatory adequacy of this very approach is specifically observed in the theoretical analysis of a special type of ergative constructions in which the direct object takes the form of a possessive NP. The manner through which the possessor of the direct object is overtly manifested in these ergative constructions can determine the outcome of the verbal agreement: if the possessor is expressed via person-marker clitics, the verb agrees in person and number with the possessor, however, if the possessor is realized as an overt NP, the verb agrees with the possessed element. With the intention of analyzing this pattern, it is argued that in both cases the potential targets which the head of T, and consequently the main verb, can agree with are determined in narrow syntax, through Agree-Link while the ultimate form of the agreement affix is determined post-syntactically via Agree-Copy. More specifically, we maintain that Agree-Copy has a direct access to the internal structure of potential targets, and this very fact plays a vital role in determination of agreement patterns.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78236_cbf4bad6c01a4d085d6543f271af921c.pdf
2020-08-22
141
164
10.22059/jolr.2020.306857.666626
Hawrami
ergative alignment
agreement
Dependent Case Marking
dependent Case
Possessive Constructions
KP
Zaniar
Naghshbandi
z.naghshbandi@uok.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Kurdish Language and Literature, ,Kordestan University, Sanandaj, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Behrouz
Chamanara
b.chamanara@uok.ac.ir
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Kurdish Language and Literature, Kordestan University , Sanandaj, Iran
AUTHOR
ارانسکی، ای ام(۱۳۵۸). مقدمهی فقه اللغه ایرانی، ترجمۀ کریم کشاورز، تهران، انتشارت پیام.
1
بدخشان، ابراهیم، یادگار کریمی و رزیتا رنجبر (۱۳۹۳). حالت نمایی در کردی سورانی (سنندجی و بانه ای)،زبان شناسی و گویش های خراسان، ۱۱: ۱-۲۸.
2
دبیرمقدم، محمد (۱۳۹۲). ردهشناسی زبانهای ایرانی، تهران، سمت.
3
راسخ مهند، محمد و زانیار نقشبندی (۱۳۹۲). تأثیر قدرت موضوعات فعلی بر حالتدهی افتراقی: شواهدی از گویش هورامی، مطالعات زبان و گویشهای غرب ایران، سال اول، شمارۀ اول: ۱-۲۰.
4
کریمی، یادگار (۱۳۹۰). بازبینی حالت مطلق در ساختهای کنایی. پژوهشهای زبانی، دورۀ دوم، شمارۀ دوم: ۹۵-۱۱۳.
5
نقشبندی، زانیار (۱۳۹۰). ساختهای کنایی در گویش هورامی، پایان نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، گروه زبانشناسی، دانشگاه کردستان.
6
نقشبندی، زانیار و لودویگ پاول (۱۳۹۷). نگاهی به برخی از تفاوتهای صرفی- نحوی هورامی کندولهای و هورامی پاوهای: گزارشی مستند از یک پروژۀ مستندسازی زبانی، در مجموعۀ مقالات دهمین همایش بینالمللی زبانشناسی ایران به کوشش مجتبی منشیزاده (۶۵۳-۶۶۵)، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه علامۀ طباطبایی.
7
نقشبندی زانیار و احسان میرکی (۱۳۹۸). ئاوڕدانەوەیەک لە بڕێک لە تایبەتمەندییە زمانییەکانی هەورامیی کرماشانی، پژوهشنامۀ ادبیات کردی، دورۀ پنجم، شمارۀ اول: ۱۸۹-۲۰۵.
8
Atlamaz, Ü, and M. Baker. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case, Syntax 21:195-237.
9
Badakhshan, E, Y.Karimi, and R. Ranjbar, 2014. Case Marking in Surani. Linguistics and Languages of Khorasan. 11:1-28, [In Persian].
10
Baker, M and N.Vinokurova. 2010. Two Modalities of Case Assignment: Case inSakha, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,28: 593-642.
11
Baker, M.2014. On Dependent Ergative Case (in Shipibo) and Its Derivation by Phase, Linguistic Inquiry,45.3: 341-379.
12
Baker, M. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13
Bittner, M, and K. Hale.1996b. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry, 27:1–68.
14
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework, In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (ed.), Step by Step (89-155), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
15
Chomsky, N.2001. Derivation by phase, In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (1–52), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
16
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 2013. Typology of Iranian Languages. Tehran: SAMT, [In Persian].
17
Haig, Geoffrey.2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: a construction grammar approach, Mouton de Gruyter. New York.
18
Hassanpour, A. 1998. The identity of Hewrami speakers: reflections on the theory and ideology of comparative philology, In A. Soltani (ed.), Anthology of Gorani Kurdish Poetry, London: Soane Trust for Kurdistan.
19
Karimi, Y.2010.Unaccusative Transitives and the Person-Case Constraint effects in Kurdish. Lingua, 120:693-716.
20
Karimi, Y.2011. Checking Absolutive Case in the Ergative Structure. Journal of Language Researches. 4: 95-113, [In Persian].
21
MacKenzie, D. N. 1966. The Dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn): Grammatical Sketch, Texts and Vocabulary, Københagen: Munksgaard.
22
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing, In G. F Westphal, B. Ao and H. Chae (ed.), ESCOL 91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (234–253).
23
McFadden, T. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
24
Minorsky, V. 1943. The Guran, BSOAS XIII: 75-103.
25
Naghshbandi, Z. 2011. Ergative Constructions in Hawrami. Unpublished MA Thesis. Sanandaj: Kurdistan University, [In Persian].
26
Naghshbandi, Z, and L. Paul. 2018. A Short Look at Some of the Morpho-Syntactic Characteristics of Gurani of Kandule and Paveh: A Report about an Ongoing Documentation Research Project. In M. Monshizadeh (ed.) the Proceeding of the 10th International Conference of Iranian Linguistics (653-665). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabeie University Press, [In Persian].
27
Naghshbandi, Z, and E. Miraki. 2019. A Short Glance at Some of the the Morpho-Syntactic Characteristics of Hawrami Kermanshahi. Journal of Kurdish Literature. 5,1: 189-205, [In Kurdish].
28
Oranskii, E, M. 1979. An Introduction to Iranian Philology. Translated by Karim Keshavarz. Tehran: Amir-Kabir, [In Persian].
29
Rasekh-Mahand, M, and Z. Naghshbandi. 2013. The Effects of Argument Strength on Differential Case Marking: Evidence from Hawrami. Journal of Language and Western Iranian Dialects. 1:1-20, [In Persian].
30