ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Analysis of Human-Nature Interaction in the Persian Proverbs: An Ecolinguistics Perspective
The environmental crisis is one of the most important issues of the 21 st century. Eco linguistics explores the causes of this crisis in language. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effective linguistic factors in the eco - unfriendliness, to explore human interaction with nature, in Persian proverbs, which have high frequency in everyday conversations. The research was conducted using analytical, descriptive and library methods. In the first step, 373 proverbs, randomly and based on Morgan's table, as a suitable statistical society, from the total population of 10, 000 cases, were educed from the e-book “Ten thousand Persian proverbs and twenty five thousand equivalents”, the compilation of Dr. Ibrahim Shakour zadeh Bolouri. Then, the two concepts of anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism, based on the Eco linguistics criteria, were examined. The results of the research showed that the majority of the studied samples transmitted the anthropocentric concept, with negative affective meaning. anthropomorphism, is sometimes referred to as a way to avoid anthropocentric insight to nature, but this study showed that in Persian proverbs, human beings in the attribution of their own characteristics to nature allocate negative ones to non-human species. This insight to nature divides the world into “us” and “others” poles. The bipolar view of the world in this age may be the source of many important global issues. Part of the proverbs referred to other concepts, except for the two above- mentioned concepts, such as specialism, eco centrism, and environmental metaphors, which were used in statistical sections. Using the same pronouns for human and non-human beings, collocations of verbs such as (know, believe, etc) with non-human species and the concept of eco centrism with positive affective meaning, were observed in Persian proverbs. The use of proverbs of this kind can have a positive effect on human attitude toward nature. Language speaker should consider negative dimensions of language use. Therefore, it can be said that speakers need to identify the harmful aspects of using language and be careful in using it.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78692_3cb850348a9a7ac15ee9708b1a24d967.pdf
2021-01-20
1
24
10.22059/jolr.2020.307695.666628
Ecolinguistics
Anthropocentrism
anthropomorphism
Proverbs
environment
Tahereh
Afshar
t85.afshar@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor in Linguistics Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Maryam
Abdi Bloukani
mim.abdi.bl@gmail.com
2
M. A in Linguistics Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
AUTHOR
استیبی، آرن (2015). زبانشناسی زیستمحیطی، فردوس آقاگلزاده و گروه مترجمان، تهران، نشرنویسه فارسی.
1
بزی حسین زاده، فاطمه (1388). تحلیل گفتمان زیست محیطی در زبان فارسی، اصفهان، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه اصفهان.
2
بوئل، لارنس (2005). اصطلاحات نقد بومگرا، عبدالله نوروزی و حسین فتحعلی، تهران، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
3
پارساپور، زهرا (1392 الف). درباره نقد بومگرا، نسخه گردآوری، مقدمه و ویرایش، تهران، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
4
پارساپور، زهرا (1392 ب). نقد بومگرا، تهران، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
5
حجارلیب، لیندا (1396). حقوق بشر و محیطزیست (دورنمای فلسفی، نظری و حقوقی)، رضا امینی، تهران، انتشارات سمت.
6
راکعی، فاطمه و فاطمه نعیمی حشکوایی (1395). استعاره و نقد بومگرا- مطالعه موردی دو داستان «گیله مرد» و «از خم چمبر»، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، سال هفتم، شماره 1، 89-103.
7
شاه ناصری، شادی (1388). نقش زبان علم در تشدید بحرانهای محیطی از منظر زبانشناسی زیست محیطی. مجله زبان و زبانشناسی، سال پنجم، شماره 10، 1-27.
8
شکورزاده، ابراهیم (1372). ده هزار مثل فارسی و بیستوپنج هزار معادل آنها، مشهد، مؤسسه چاپ و انتشارات آستان قدس رضوی.
9
غیاثیان مریمآباد و اکبر شیرینی (1395). انسانمداری و بازنمود آن در تعریف حیوانات در فرهنگ فارسی معین، نشریه پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، سال هشتم، شماره 1، 53-70.
10
قطره، فریبا و حمیده پشتوان و مهناز طالبی دستنایی (1394). رویکرد زیست محیطی در پژوهشهای زبان، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، دوره ششم، شماره 1، 231-243.
11
Berman, T., 1994. The Rape Of Mother Nature: Women in the Language of Environmental Discourse, the trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, Vol 11, No. 4. pp. 258-269.
12
Bezi Hosseinzadeh, F., 2009. Ecolinguistic Discourse Analysis in Persian. MA thesis, Isfahan: Isfahan University. [In Persian]
13
Boel, L., 2005. Expressions of Ecocriticism, Nourozi, A., Fathali, H., Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
14
Chawla, S., 1991. linguistic and philosophical roots of our environmental crisis, Environmental Ethics, Vol 13, Issue 3, pp. 115-123.
15
Chen, S., 2016. Language and ecology a content analysis of ecolinguistics as an emerging research field. Ampersand, Vol 3, pp 108-116.
16
Fill, A., 1998. Ecolinguistics: state of the art, Language Sciences, Vol 23, No 1, pp. 3-16.
17
Ghatreh, F & Poshtvan, H & Talebi- Dastenaei- M., 2015. Ecological Approach in Linguistic Research, Journal of Zabanshenakht. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Vol 11, No 6, pp 231-243. [In Persian]
18
Ghiasian, M.A & Shirini, A., 2016. An Ecolinguistic Approach to Anthropocentrism in Defining Animals in Moin Persian Dictionary. Journal of Researches in Linguistics. Vol 1, No 8, pp 53-10. [In Persian]
19
Goatly, A., 1996. Green grammar and grammatical metaphor, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol 25, Issue 4, pp 537-560.
20
Hajjar leib, L., 2017. Human Rights and the Environment (Philosophical, theoretical and Legal Perspectives), Reza Amini, Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]
21
Halliday, M., 1990. New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics, Journal of applied linguistics, Vol 6, pp 7-36.
22
Haugen, E., 1972. The ecology of language, Stanford: Stanford University press.
23
Heuberger, R., 2017 .Overcoming Anthropocentrism With Anthropomorphic and Physiocentric Uses of Language. In A. Fill, & H. Penz, The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. London: Routledge.
24
Jung, M. , 1996. ecological criticism of language, in A. Fill, & P. Mühlhӓusler, The ecolinguistics reader: language, ecology and environment . London and New York: Continuum. retrieved .2001
25
Le Vasseur, T., 2015 . Difining ecolinguistics: Challenging emic issues in an evolving environmental discipline, J Environ stud sci, Vol 5, pp21-28.
26
Lindo A & Simonsen s., 2000 . The dialectics and varieties of agancy - the ecology of subject, person and agent, The symposium 30 years of language and ecology, Graz: university of odense.
27
Norenzayan, Ara & Hansen, Ian G & Cady, Jasmine., 2008. An Angry Volcano: Reminders Of Death And Anthropomorphizing Nature, Social Cognition, Vol 26, No 2, pp 190-197.
28
Parsapour, Z., 2013a. About Ecocriticism. Compilation, Introduction and Editing, Nourozi, A & Fathali, H., Tehran, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studie. [In Persian]
29
Parsapour, Z., 2013b. Ecocriticism. Tehran, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
30
Rakei, F & Naeimi, H, F., 2016. Metaphor and Ecocriticism- case study "Gileh Mard" & "Az Khame Chamber". Tehran, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. Vol 1, No 7, pp 89-63. [In Persian]
31
Sealey, A & Okley, L., 2013. anthropomorphic grammar: some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series life, De Gruyter mouton, Vol 33, No 3, pp 399-420.
32
Serpell, J. A., 2002. Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection—Beyond the “Cute Response, ”Society and Animales, Vol 10, No 4, pp.437-454
33
Shahnaseri, Sh., 2009. The Role of the Language and Science in Intensifying Environmental Crisis: An Ecolinguistics Perspective, Journal of Language and linguistics. Vol 10, No 5, pp 1-27. [In Persian]
34
Shakourzadeh, A., 1993. Ten Thousand Persian Proverbs and Twenty- Five Equivalent, Mashhad, Astan-e Qods-e Razavi. [In Persian]
35
Stibbe, A., 2015. Ecolinguistics, Ferdos Aghagolzadeh & Translation group, Tehran, Neveeseh- parsi. [In Persian]
36
Stibbe, A., 2017. A story of ecolinguistics,The second international symposium of ecolinguistics. Beijing, China.
37
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
There is no Stem: the Distribution of Verbal Allomorphs, a Distributed Morphology Analysis
It is widely accepted by traditional grammarians and linguists that Persian verbal roots fall into two forms depending on their tense feature: present stem and past stem. In contrast to this traditional view, the present study considers an alternative notion of allomorphy, indicating that a few verbs use a basic form, called “morph”, in all morphosyntactic contexts while some other roots allow for having two or more allomorphs. Within the framework of Distributed Morphology, especially on the basis of underspecification condition, I will review the empirical evidence adduced in favor of the hypothesis that the tense feature has no role in producing and selecting the so-called present and past stems. In this approach, the systematic distribution of verbal allomorphs like /suz/ and /sux/ (derived from “ÖSUZ” = burn) is constrained by some other formal features, such as adjacency to the morphophoneme {D}, absorbing the causative suffix (“-ān” or its free variation “-un”) or appearing in the boundary of a word. Finally, to avoid terminological and empirical confusion, I will suggest that we should avoid the use of the term “stem” altogether and speak of root, morph and allomorphs only. It should be added that the different variations in phonetic shape of lexical roots are divided into two classes: the first one follows from the phonological rules and the second one is affected by the morphophonological (or readjustment) rules. Phonological changes are predictable and produce automatic alternations, but unpredictable morphophonological changes lead to non-automatic alternations. Following the general trend of DM, I restrict the term “allomorphy” to those cases in which the variation in phonetic shape of a morpheme does not follow from the automatic phonological rules of the language. This analysis raises the theoretical question of whether language-specific readjustment rules (i.e. the alteration of root or affix phonology) are needed for morphological theory. Rejecting readjustment rules, I show that allomorphs of verbal roots are independently stored in Vocabulary.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78102_53a74b661b7d291888053875639962c4.pdf
2021-01-20
25
48
10.22059/jolr.2020.294729.666564
Present and past stems
tense suffix
allomorph
morphophoneme
underspecification
readjustment rule
Mazdak
Anushe
mazdakanushe@ut.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
اسلامی، محرم (1398). ساختمان صرفی فعل در زمانهای کامل، پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، د 11، ش 1 (20): 1-14.
1
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1367). دستور زبان فارسی 1، تهران، مؤسسۀ انتشارات فاطمی.
2
انوشه، مزدک (1394). فرافکنهای نمود و زمان در صفتهای فاعلی مرکب، برپایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی، جستارهای زبانی، د6، ش5 (26): 49-72.
3
انوشه، مزدک (1396). جایگاه فرافکن نفی و مجوزدهی به هیچواژهها در فارسی، برپایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی، پژوهشهای زبانی، س8، ش1: 1-20.
4
انوشه، مزدک (1397). بازنگری در تصریف زبان گذشته در زبان فارسی، برپایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی، جستارهای زبانی، د9، ش1 (43): 57-80.
5
درزی، علی و مزدک انوشه (1389). حرکت فعل اصلی در زبان فارسی، رویکردی کمینهگرا، فصلنامۀ علمی ـ پژوهشی زبانپژوهشی، 2(3): 21-55.
6
صادقی، علیاشرف (1358). دستور، سال دوم فرهنگ و ادب، تهران، انتشارات آموزش و پرورش.
7
طباطبایی، علاءالدین (1395). فرهنگ توصیفی دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، فرهنگ معاصر.
8
غلامحسینزاده، غلامحسین، میسا جبر، نجمه دری، و زهرا عباسی (1397)، ساخت واژۀ فعل در زبان فارسی، پژوهشهای ادبی، د 15، ش 59: 63-86.
9
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1382). دستور مفصل امروز برپایۀ زبانشناسی جدید، تهران، انتشارات سخن.
10
کردزعفرانلو کامبوزیا ، عالیه، فرزانه تاجآبادی، مصطفی عاصی، فردوس آقاگلزاده (1394). بررسی واژ ـ واجی ستاک گذشته در زبان فارسی، جستارهای زبانی، 6، 4 (25)، 201-228.
11
ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1351). دستور زبان فارسی [چاپ اول]. تهران: انتشارات بنیاد فرهنگ ایران
12
Alexiadou, A., 2016. Building words. In: D. Siddiqi and H. Harley (Eds). Morphological Metatheory (223-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
13
Anushe, M. 2015. Aspect and Tense Projections in the Complex Agentive Adjectives: A Distributed Morphology Approach. Language Related Research, Volume 6, issue 5 (26). P. 49-72. [In Persian].
14
ـــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2017. The Position of NegP and Licensing N-words in Persian: A Distributed Morphology Approach. Language Research. Volume 8, issue 1. P. 1-20. [In Persian].
15
ـــــــــــــــــــــ. 2018. “A Revision of Persian Past Tense Inflection a Distributed Morphology Approach”, Language Related Research, volume 9, issue 1. P. 57-80. [In Persian].
16
Anvari, H. & H.A. Givi (1988). Persian Grammar 1. Tehran: Fatemi [In Persian].
17
Blevins, J.P., 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18
Bobaljik, J., 2011. Distributed Morphology. Ms, University of Connecticut.
19
Booij, G. 2007. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
21
Darzi, A., & Anoushe, M. 2010. Main verb movement in Farsi. Zabanpazhuhi, volume 2, issue 3. P. 21-55. [In Persian].
22
Deal. A.R. and Wolf, M. 2017. Outward-sensitive Phonologically-Conditioned Allomorphy. In: V. Gribanova and S.S. Shih (Eds). The morphosyntax-phonology connection: locality and directionality at the interface (29-60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23
Embick, D. 2015. The Morpheme. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
24
Embick, D. and Halle, M. 2005. On the Status of Stems in Morphological Theory. In: T. Geerts, I. Ginneken and H. Jacobs (Eds). Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 (37-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
25
Embick, D. and Noyer, R. 2001. Movement Operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (4): 555–595.
26
Embick, D. and Noyer, R. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In: G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27
Eslami, M. 2019. Morphological Structure of Persian Verb in Perfect Tenses. Researchers in Linguistics. Volume 11, Issue 1, P 1-14 [In Persian].
28
Farshidvard, Kh. 2003. Today’s Detailed Grammar, based on new linguistics. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
29
Gholamhoseinzadeh G, Jabr M, Dorri N, Abbasi Z. 2018. Verb Construction in Persian Language. Language Related Research, Volume 15, issue 59. P 63-86. [In Persian].
30
Halle, M. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In: B. Bruening, Y. Kang and M. McGinnis(Eds). PF: Papers at the Interface (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30), (425–449). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
31
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (Eds). The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger (111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In: A. Carnie and H. Harley(Eds). Papers on Phonology and Morphology (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21), 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
33
Haugen, J.D. 2008. Morphology at the Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
34
Haugen, J.D. 2016. Readjustment: Rejected? In: D. Siddiqi and H. Harley (Eds). Morphological Metatheory (303-342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
35
Inkelas, Sh. 2016. The Role of Morphology in Generative Phonology, Autosegmental Phonology, and Prosodic Morphology. In: A. Hippisley and G. Stump (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (513-549). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36
Kord-e ZafaranluKambuziya A, Tajabadi F, Assi M, Aghagolzadeh F. 2015. Morpho-phonemic Analysis of Past Stem in Persian. Language Related Research, Volume 6, issue 4. P 201-228.
37
Kramer, R. 2016. Syncretism in paradigm function morphology and distributed morphology. In: D. Siddiqi and H. Harley (Eds). Morphological Metatheory (95-120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
38
McGinnis-Archibald, M. 2016. Distributed Morphology. In: A. Hippisley and G. Stump (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (390-423). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39
Natel-Khanlari, P. 1972. Persian Grammar [1st ed]. Tehran: Bonyade-e Farhang-e Iran.
40
Odden, D. 2013. Introducing Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41
Pfau, R. 2009. Grammar as Processor, A Distributed Morphology Account of Spontaneous Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
42
Plag, I. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43
Shih, S.S. 2017. Phonological Inluences in Syntactic Alternations. In: V. Gribanova and S.S. Shih (Eds). The morphosyntax-phonology connection: locality and directionality at the interface (223-252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44
Siddiqi, D. 2009. Syntax within the Word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
45
Siddiqi, D. 2014. The Morphology-Syntax Interface. In: A. Carnie, Y. Sato, and D. Siddiqi (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Syntax (345-364). NY: Routledge
46
Stewart, Th. and Stump, G. 2007. Paradigm Function Morphology and the Morphology–Syntax interface. In: G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (383–421). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47
Tabatabayi, A. 2016. A Descriptive Grammar of Persian. Tehran: Farhang-e Moaser [In Persian].
48
Taleghani, A.H. 2008. Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
49
Xu, Zh. 2016. The Role of Morphology in Optimality Theory. In: A. Hippisley and G. Stump (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (550-587). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Grammaticalization Process of engâr / engâri
In Modern New Persian, two adverbs “engâr” and “engâri” are used to represent irrealis modality when the speaker introduces a simile or a parable or expresses doubt and uncertainty about what he/she says. Some grammarians consider “engâri” as two other adverbs “guyi” and “pendâri”. They believe that these adverbs are originated in second-person singular verbs which have acquired adverbial function. In this article, we will discuss the process of grammaticalization of the two adverbs “engâr” and “engâri” using evidence from ancient texts written in Persian (either verse or prose post-Islamic texts) and Middle Persian, focusing on semantic changes the verb “hangār- / hangārd” has gone through: In Middle Persian, “hangār- / hangārd” is a lexical verb meaning “to consider”. After going through certain semantic changes, the verb obtains the meanings “to count” and “to assume”. Later on, the second-person singular imperative form of the verb shifts to the beginning of the clause which leads the noun phrase object to be replaced by a subordinate clause. Such changes speed up the progress of grammaticalization and make it easier for “engâr” to be reanalyzed as an adverb. After being decategorized, “engâr” is used as a modal adverb to indicate hypothetical actions and irrealis modality. On the other hand, there is a grammatical rule in Middle Persian according to which, the morpheme “ē” can be added to present stem of the verbs to construct the optative mood mainly functioning as a device to imply irrealis modality. This applies to “engâri” which is reanalyzed as an adverb indicating simile, allegory, doubt and uncertainty since in New Persian, modality is more expressed by linguistic devices such as modal verbs and adverbs than the verb moods. Phonological changes lead speakers to reanalyze “engâri” and consider it to be originated from second-person singular verb due to resemblance in orthography and pronunciation.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78374_4611b4936fb53758527fdc8475e6a234.pdf
2021-01-20
49
72
10.22059/jolr.2020.295879.666571
“engâr”
“engâri”
grammaticalization
Middle Persian
Early New Persian
Fahimeh
Tasalli Bakhsh
fahim.tbk@gmail.com
1
Ph. D. Graduate in Ancient Culture and Languages, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ehsan
Changizi
ehsan.changizi@atu.ac.ir
2
Assistant Professor of Department of linguistics, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
ابنسینا، حسین بن عبدالله (1383). رسالۀ منطق دانشنامۀ علایی، با مقدمه و حواشی و تصحیح محمد معین و محمد مشکوة، همدان، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، تهران، انجمن آثار و مفاخر فرهنگی.
1
ابوالفتوح رازی، حسین بن علی (1365-1376). روضالجنان و روحالجنان فی تفسیر القرآن، به کوشش و تصحیح محمدجعفر یاحقی و محمدمهدی ناصح، 20 ج، مشهد، آستان قدس رضوی و بنیاد پژوهشهای اسلامی.
2
ابوالقاسمی، محسن. (1385). مادههای فعلهای فارسی دری، تهران، ققنوس.
3
ـــــــــــــــــــ(1387). دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، چاپ هفتم، تهران، سمت.
4
ـــــــــــــــــــ (1389). تاریخ زبان فارسی. تهران: سمت.
5
ارجانی، فرامرز بن خداداد (1396). سمک عیار. با مقدمه و تصحیح پرویز ناتل خانلری، 6 ج، ویراست دوم. تهران، آگاه.
6
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1375). دستور زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، چاپ چهاردهم، ویرایش دوم، تهران، فاطمی.
7
انوری، حسن و دیگران (1382).فرهنگسخن، 6 ج، تهران، سخن.
8
بلعمی، محمد بن محمد (1373). تاریخنامۀ طبری (گردانیده منسوب به بلعمی، بخش چاپنشده)، به تصحیح و تحشیۀ محمد روشن، ج 3 و 4، تهران، البرز.
9
ـــــــــــــــــــ (1378). تاریخنامۀ طبری (گردانیده منسوب به بلعمی). به تصحیح و تحشیۀ محمد روشن. جلد 1 و 2. تهران: سروش.
10
بهار، محمدتقی (1373). سبکشناسی، جلد اول، چاپ ششم، تهران، امیرکبیر.
11
بیدل دهلوی، ابوالمعانی میرزا عبدالقاهر (1341). کلیات، 4ج، کابل، دپوهنی وزارت و دارالتألیف ریاست.
12
تفضلی، احمد (1398). «اندرز بهزاد فرخپیروز». مقالات احمد تفضلی. به کوشش ژاله آموزگار. تهران: توس. صص 341-346.
13
جامی، نورالدین عبدالرحمن (1370). نفحات الانس من حضرات القدس، مقدمه، تصحیح و تعلیقات: محمود عابدی، تهران، اطلاعات.
14
جمالزاده، محمدعلی (1339). یکی بود و یکی نبود، تهران، معرفت.
15
خاقانی شروانی، بدیل بن علی (1382). دیوان خاقانی شروانی، به تصحیح ضیاءالدین سجادی، تهران، زوار.
16
خیام، حکیم عمر (1372). رباعیات، با مقدمه و حواشی محمدعلی فروغی و قاسم غنی، تهران، عارف.
17
خیامپور، عبدالرسول (1389). دستور زبان فارسیّ چاپ پانزدهم، تبریز، ستوده.
18
دقیقی طوسی، ابومنصور محمد بن احمد (1373). دیوان دقیقی طوسی، به اهتمام محمدجواد شریعت، تهران، اساطیر.
19
راشد محصل، محمدتقی (1370)، زند بهمن یسن، تصحیح متن، آوانویسی، برگردان فارسی و یادداشتها، تهران، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
20
سعدی، مصلح الدین (1385). کلیات سعدی، به تصحیح محمدعلی فروغی، تهران، هرمس.
21
شریعت، محمدجواد. (1384). دستور زبان فارسی، چاپ هشتم، تهران، اساطیر [1364].
22
شفائی، احمد (1363). مبانی علمی دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، نوین.
23
عطار نیشابوری، فریدالدین محمد (1339). دیوان قصائد و ترجیعات و غزلیات، با تصحیح و مقابله و مقدمۀ سعید نفیسی، تهران، کتابخانۀ سنائی.
24
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ (1386 الف). مختارنامه، مجموعۀ رباعیات، تصحیح و مقدمه از محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی، ویرایش دوم، تهران، سخن.
25
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ (1386 ب). مصیبتنامه، مقدمه، تصحیح و تعلیقات، محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی، تهران، سخن.
26
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ (1387)، منطقالطیر، مقدمه، تصحیح و تعلیقات: محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی، تهران، سخن.
27
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ (1398). تذکرة الاولیاء، مقدمه، تصحیح و تعلیقات: محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی، 2ج، تهران، سخن.
28
فردوسی، ابوالقاسم (1373). شاهنامة فردوسی. به کوشش جلال خالقی مطلق، زیر نظر احسان یارشاطر، 8 ج، کالیفرنیا، بنیاد میراث ایران.
29
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1388). دستور مختصر امروز بر پایة زبانشناسی جدید، تهران، سخن
30
فرهوشی، بهرام. (1354). کارنامۀ اردشیر بابکان، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
31
قریب، بدرالزمان (1379). «تحول وجه تمنایی به ماضی استمراری در زبانهای ایرانی»، یادنامة دکتر احمد تفضلی، به کوشش علیاشرف صادقی، تهران، سخن، صص 245ـ278.
32
گیوی، حسن (1380). دستور تاریخی فعل، دو جلد، تهران، قطره.
33
لازار، ژیلبر (1384). دستور زبان فارسی معاصر،مترجم، مهستی بحرینی، تهران، هرمس.
34
ماهوتیان، (1387). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه ردهشناسی، ترجمة مهدی سمائی، تهران، نشر مرکز.
35
منشی، نصرالله (1361). کلیله و دمنه، با تصحیح مجتبی مینوی، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
36
میبدی، ابوالفضل رشیدالدین (1371). کشفالاسرار و عدةالابرار، به سعی و اهتمام علیاصغر حکمت، 10 ج، تهران، امیرکبیر.
37
ناتلخانلری، پرویز (1377). تاریخ زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، تهران، فردوس.
38
ناصرخسرو (1357). دیوان اشعار حکیم ناصرخسرو قبادیانی، به اهتمام مجتبی مینوی و مهدی محقق. دانشگاه مکگیل، موسسۀ مطالعات اسلامی شعبۀ تهران با همکاری دانشگاه تهران.
39
ـــــــــــ (1363). جامع الحکمتین، به تصحیح و مقدمۀ فارسی و فرانسوی هانری کربن و محمد معین، تهران، طهوری.
40
نظامی گنجهای، الیاس بن یوسف (1380). هفتپیکر نظامی گنجوی (متن علمی و انتقادی از روی قدیمیترین نسخههای خطی قرن هشتم با ذکر اختلاف نسخ و شرح ابیات و معنی لغات و کشف الابیات)، به تصحیح برات زنجانی، ویرایش دوم، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
41
نظامی گنجهای، الیاس بن یوسف (1384). خسرو و شیرین، با حواشی و تصحیح متن وحید دستگردی، به کوشش سعید حمیدیان، تهران، قطره.
42
نغزگویکهن، مهرداد (1395). زبان فارسی در گذر زمان (مجموعه مقالات)، تهران، کتاب بهار.
43
نجفی، ابوالحسن (1378). فرهنگ فارسی عامیانه، جلد اول، تهران، نیلوفر.
44
یاسمی. رشید و همکاران (1371). دستور زبان فارسی (پنج استاد)، چاپ دوم، تهران، نگاه و علم.
45
Abolghasemi, M., 1994. Stems of Dari Persian Verbs, Tehran: Ghoghnus, [In Persian].
46
Abolghasemi, M.,1995. Etymology, Tehran, Ghoghnus, [In Persian].
47
Abolghasemi, M., 2010. A Historical Grammar of the Persian Language. Tehran, Samt, [In Persian].
48
Abu Alfotuh Razi, H. A.,1986-1997. Rowz Al-jenan fi Tafsir-e Qor'an, M. J. Yahaqi and M. M. Naseh (Eds.), 20 Vol, Mashhad, The Islamic research foundation of Astan Quds Razavi, [In Persian].
49
Anklesaria, T. D.,1913. Dânâk-u Mainyô-i Khard, Bombay.
50
Anvari, H. and Ahmadi Givi, H.,1996. Persian Grammar, Vol 2, Tehran, Fatemi, [In Persian].
51
Anvari, H. et al.,2002. Sokhan Dictionary, Tehran, Sokhan, [In Persian].
52
Arrajani, F. Kh., 2017. Samak-e Ayyar, P. Natel Khanlari (Ed.), 6 Vol, Tehran, Agah, [In Persian].
53
Attar Neishabouri, F.,1960. Divan e Ghasaed, Tarji’at va Ghazaliyat, ed, by Nafisi, S. Tehran, Sana’i Library, [in Persian].
54
Attar Neishabouri, F.,2007a. Mokhtarnameh, ed, by Shafi’i Kadkani, M. 2nd edition. Tehran, Sokhan, [in Persian].
55
Attar Neishabouri, F.,2007b. Mosibatnameh, ed, by Shafi’i Kadkani, M. Tehran: Sokhan, [in Persian].
56
Attar Neishabouri, F., 2008. Mantegh-ul-Tair, ed, by Shafi’i Kadkani, M. Tehran: Sokhan, [in Persian].
57
Attar Neishabouri, F., 2019. Tazkirat-al-Awliya, ed, by Shafi’i Kadkani, M. 2 Vol, Tehran, Sokhan, [in Persian].
58
Bal'mi, M. M.,1994. Târixnâme-ye Tabari, M. Rowshan (Ed.), Vol. 3-4, Tehran, Alborz, [In Persian].
59
Bal'mi, M. M.,1999. Târixnâme-ye Tabari, M. Rowshan (Ed.), Vol. 3-4, Tehran, Sorush, [In Persian].
60
Bartholomae, C.,1961 Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Berlin, W. De Gruyter.
61
Bidel Dehlavi, A. M. A.,1962. Koliyât, 4 Vol, Kanol, Riyâsat, [In Persian].
62
Brunner, Ch. j.,1977. A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian, Delmar, New York, Caravan Books.
63
Boyce, M.,1975. A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Acta Iranica 9), Leiden, E.J. Brill.
64
Bussmann, H.,2006. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, Translated and edited by G. P. Trauth and K. Kazzazi, London and New York, Routledge.
65
Cereti, C. G.,1995. The Zand Wahman Yasn (A Zoroastrian Apocalyose), Roma, Instituto Italiano per Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
66
Daqiqi Tusi, A. M. A.,1994. Divân, M. J. Shari'at, Tehran, Asatir, [In Persian].
67
Dehkhoda, A. A.,1998. Dictionary, Tehran, Tehran University, [In Persian].
68
Dhabhar, E. B. N.,1927 Zand-I Khūrtak Avistāk, Trustees of the Parsee Panchayet Funds and Properties.
69
Ebne Sina, H. A.,2004. A Treatise on Logic 'Ala'I's Encyclopedia, M. Mo'in and M. Meshkāt (Eds.), Hamadan, Hamedan University, [In Persian].
70
Farahvashi, B.,1999. Ardeshir Babakan’s Report Card, Tehran, Tehran University Press, [In Persian].
71
Farshidvard, K.,2009. Today's Concise Grammar Based on Modern Linguistics, Tehran, Sokhan, [in Persian].
72
Ferdowsi, A.,1994. Shahnameh, ed, by Jalal Khaleghi Motlagh, California, Iran Heritage Foundation, [in Persian].
73
Gharib, B., 2000. “The Evolution of Optative Mood into Past Continuous" in Iranian Language”, In Festschrift of Prof. Ahmad Tafazzoli, ed, by Sadeghi, A. Tehran, Sokhan, Pp. 245-278, [in Persian].
74
Givi, H.,2001. Historical Grammar of Verb, 2 Vol,Tehran, Ghatreh, [in Persian].
75
Heine, B.,2003. “Grammaticalization”. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (eds). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Oxford Blackwell, 575-601.
76
Hopper, P.,1991. “On Some Principles of Grammaticalization”, In E. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization Vol.1, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
77
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E., 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press.
78
Jamalzadeh, M. A.,1960. Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud, Tehran, Ma'refat, [In Persian].
79
Jamasp-Asana, J.M. (ed).,1987. Pahlavi Texts, Bombay, Fort Printing Press.
80
Jâmi, N. A.,1991. Nafahât Alons Men Hazarât Alqods, M. Abedi (Ed.), Tehran, Etela'at, [In Persian].
81
Khâqâni Shervâni, B. A., 2003. Divân, Z. Sajadi, Tehran, Zavvar, [In Persian].
82
Khayyam, H. O., 1993. Robâ'iyyat, M. A. Foruqi and Q. Qani, Tehran, Aref, [In Persian].
83
Khayyampur, R., 2010. Persian Grammar, Tabriz, Sotude, [In Persian].
84
Lazard, G., 2005. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Translated by Bahreini, M, Tehran, Hermes, [in Persian].
85
Lehmann, Ch.,1992. "Word order change by grammaticalization", In M. Gerritsen & D. Stein (eds), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, Berlin-New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 395-416.
86
MacKenzie, D. N.,1971. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, Routledge Curzon. Madan, D. M.,1911. The Complete Text of Pahlavi Dinkard, 2 parts, Bombay.
87
Mahootian, Sh.,2008. Persian Language Grammar from a Typological Perspective, Translated by Sama’i, M. Tehran, Markaz, [in Persian].
88
Meybodi, A.,1992. Kashf-ul-Asrar va Oddat-ul-Abrar. ed. by Hekmat, A. 10. Vol, Tehran, Amirkabir, [in Persian].
89
Monshi, N.,1982. Kelileh va Demneh, ed, by Minavi, M, Tehran, University of Tehran Press, [in Persian].
90
Naghzguy Kohan, M.,2016. Persian Language Through Time, Tehran, Ketab-e Bahar, [in Persian].
91
Najafi, A.,2008. Folklore Persian Dictionary. Vol. 2. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].
92
Naser Khosrow.,1978. Divan e Ash’ar e Hakim Naser Khosrow Ghobadiani, ed, by Minavi, M. & Mohaghegh, M. Mcgill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, in collaboration with University of Tehran, [in Persian].
93
Naser Khosrow.,1984. Jami' al-Hikmatayn, ed, by Corbin, H. & Moein, M, Tehran, Tahouri, [in Persian].
94
Natel Khanlari, P.,1998. A History of the Persian Language, Vol. 2, Tehran: Ferdows, [In Persian].
95
Nezami Ganje’i, E.,2001. Haft Peykar. ed. by Zanjani, B., 2nd edition, Tehran, University of Tehra press, [in Persian].
96
Nezami Ganje’i, E.,2005. Khosrow va Shirin, ed, by Vahid Dastgerdi, Hamidian, S. Tehran, Ghatreh, [in Persian].
97
Palmer, F. R.,2001. Mood and Modality, Second Edition, Cambridge, University Press.
98
Rezai, V., & Neisani, M., 2016. “Differentiating Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality Based on the Behavior of Persian Adverbials”, In Journal of Language Research, Vol 7, Issue 1, p 37-56, [in Persian].
99
Rashed-Mohassel, M. T.,1991. Zand-e Bahman Yasn, Tehran, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, [In Persian].
100
Sa'di, M.,1385. Koliyât, M. A. Foruqi, Tehran, Hermes, [In Persian].
101
Shafai, A.,1984. Scientific Basics of Persian Grammar, Tehran, Novin, [in Persian].
102
Shaked, Sh., 1979. The Wisdom of Sasanian Sages (Dēnkard VI), Boulder, Colorado.
103
Shari’at, M.,2005. Persian Grammar, Tehran, Asatir, [in Persian].
104
Skjærvø, P. O.,2010. "Middle West Iranian", In G. Windfuhr(ed). The Iranian Languages, London and New York, Routledge, 196-278.
105
Tafazzoli, A.,2019. “Andarz-e Behzad Farox Piruz”, In The Articles of Ahmmad Tafazzoli. Zh. Amuzgar (Ed). Tehran, Tus, p 341-346, [In Persian].
106
Williams, A. V., 1990. The Pahlavi Rivāyat Accompanying the" Dādestān Ī Dēnīg, The Royal Danish Academy of sciences and letters.
107
Yasemi, R., et al.,1992. Grammar of Persian Language (Five-Masters), Tehran, Negah va elm, [in Persian].
108
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Apology or Non- apology: An Interfacial Approach to the Discourse Analysis of Official Apologies in the Iranian Media
Apology has been mostly studied from a pragmatics standpoint and as a frequent speech act, especially in Persian language. This paper, however, aims at a discourse analysis of apology, taking as its framework, the interdisciplinary approach introduced in Lakoff (2015). The data are collected form official apologies in the Iranian media between 2015- 2018. The results show that firstly, without taking an interdisciplinary stance many interactional aspects of this speech act is neglected. This is because apology is one of the face- saving speech acts in the representation of which contextual and interpersonal factors, and the speaker’s and addressee’s perspective play an important role in the ways preferred by the speaker to apologize. Moreover the nature of public and political discourse multiplies the complexities and forces the speakers get the benefit of all linguistic and extra- linguistic means at different levels to achieve their communicative goals. Secondly, the prototypical explicit apologies in public discourse are rare, so that most of the cases studied are instances of non- apology rather than apology. The reason behind this fact can be traced back to the nature of public and political discourses in which apology would bring about negative consequences for the apologizer. Also, one of the main presuppositions of this speech act is that the apologizer implicitly accepts the responsibility of the wrongdoing and her reluctance to apologize explicitly in public and political discourse is a conscious or unconscious attempt to avoid the negative consequences of shouldering the responsibilities in these formal settings. Accordingly, different representations of apology can be placed somewhere on a continuum with prototypical apology at one end and non- apology at the other one. This paves the way for considering apology as a radial category at the level of discourse and for adding a cognitive level of analysis to the framework at hand.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_79102_9fb05f8a890b8fb60b14430fe57bf82d.pdf
2021-01-20
73
95
10.22059/jolr.2020.306113.666621
apology
Non- apology
Discourse analysis
speech act
Inter-facial Approach
Hadaegh
Rezaei
hadaeghrezaei@fgn.ui.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor, Linguistics Department, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
سجادی، سید نصرالله. (1385). آشنایی با جنبش المپیک. تهران، کمیته ملی المپیک جمهوری اسلامی ایران.
1
وودز، نیکلا. (1396). توصیف گفتمان: راهنمایی کاربردی برای تحلیل گفتمان. ترجمۀ برقعی مدرس، محمدباقر و نخعی، مریم. تهران، نشر نویسه پارسی.
2
یول، جورج. (1383). کاربردشناسی زبان. ترجمۀ عموزاده مهدیرجی، محمد و توانگر، منوچهر. تهران، سمت..
3
Afghari, A., 2007. A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech communication, 49(3), 177-185.
4
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E., 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5. 196–213.
5
Bergman L. Mark and Kasper, G., 1991. The interlanguage of apologizing: Cross- cultural evidence. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 139-176.
6
Brown, Penny & Levinson S., 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7
Cohen, A. & Elite O., 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, pp. 113–134.
8
Eslami-Rasekh, Z., 2004. Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14: pp. 181–197.
9
Fraser, B., 1981. On apologizing. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversationalroutine, pp. 259–273. The Hague: Mouton.
10
Goffman, E., 1971. Relations in public: microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
11
Hart, C. and Cap, P., 2014. Contemporary critica discoursel studies. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Co.
12
Jeffries, L., 2007. Journalistic constructions of Blair’s apology for the intelligence leading to the Iraq war. In Johnson Sally & Ensslin Astrid (eds.), Language in the media, 48–69. London: Continuum.
13
Kampf, Z., 2009. Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, pp. 2257–2270.
14
Lakoff, R., 2015. Nine ways of looking at apologies. In Schiffrin Deborah, Tannen Deborah & Hamilton Heidi (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, pp. 293–307. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
15
Murphy, J., 2014 Apologies in the discourse of polititians: A pragmatic approach. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester.
16
Murphy, J. 2015 Revisiting the apology as a speech act: The case of parliamentary apologies. Journal of Language and Politics, 14 (2), pp. 175-204.
17
Murphy, J., 2019. I’m sorry you are such an arsehole: (non)canonical apologies abd their implications for (im)politeness. Journal of pragmatics, 142: pp. 223- 232.
18
Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A., 1983. Apology: a speech act set. In Wolfson, N. and Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistic and Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. (pp. 18-36).
19
Pejman Fard, M., 2004. Politeness principles: requests and apologies in Spoken Persian. Unpublished MA Thesis. Allame Tabatab’i University, Tehran.
20
Sajadi, N., 2007. The Olympic movement. Tehran: National Olympic Committee of Iran (NOCI). [In Persian].
21
Shariati, M. and Chamani, F., 2010. Apology strategies in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, pp. 1689–1699.
22
Tajvidi, G R., 2000. Speech acts in second language learning process of Persian speakers: communicative and pragmatic competence in crosscultural and cross-linguistic perspective. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran.
23
Woods, N., 2017. Describing discourse: A practical guide to discourse analysis. (Borghaei, M. B., Nakhaei, M. and Arabzadeh, A. Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-e-Neviseh. [In Persian].
24
Yule, G., 2004. Pragmatics. (Amouzadeh, M. and Tavangar, M. Trans.). Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
25
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Cognitive Semantics of "GAH" from the Perspective of Semantic Conflict and Resolution Hypothesis
The aim of this study is to carefully examine the morpheme "GAH" in order to enumerate the concepts contained in and to discover the mechanism of conversion between these concepts from the perspective of Cognitive Semantics in the context of Talmy’s Semantic Conflict and Resolution hypothesis. To achieve this, we extracted all the entries of this morpheme from the Two Volume Persian Dictionary of Sadri Afshar et al. (2009). We examined each of them in an analytical-research way from a qualitative perspective presented in the introduced theoretical framework. After the autopsy of the nature of the open and closed classes and creating a correspondence between their concepts and types of uses of the morpheme "GAH" and proving that this morpheme does not follow a fixed pattern in belonging to the open or closed class, followed by dissection of the Semantic Conflict and Resolution hypothesis under the presentation of a series of Cognitive processes under the headings of shifts, blends, juxtaposition, juggling and blocking and their exact subsets, we put the body of research in the benchmark of these criteria to determine with which morphemes, via which processes and by which functions, the morpheme of “GAH” is combined, and the final output belongs to which Cognitive process and what conceptual domain it includes. The concept of "basicness" was recognized as TIME and the cognitive process through which this concept converts to "SPACE", as a new achievement in this research was established as “Replacement of whole the basicness concept of a spectrum (open/closed) class by a component of open-class side features.” Also, the cause of this gradation in the nature of "GAH" was identified through another Cognitive process called Reification. In addition, according to what we obtained in the data analysis, the outputs of "GAH"’s compounds were not out of 4 modes: location of the process, location of the effect of the process, location of an object/mass, and location of the effect/direction/extension of an object. A commixture of the modes also appeared.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_79643_f45775110585e0794738b474637dc5fa.pdf
2021-01-20
97
119
10.22059/jolr.2021.314951.666676
GAH in Persian
Cognitive linguistics
Cognitive Semantics
Semantic Conflict and Resolution
Space and Time
Ali
Alizadeh
aalizadeh236@gmail.com
1
Associate Professor Linguistics Department Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
AUTHOR
Hamed
Akbarpour
hamedakbarpour81@gmail.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate of Linguistics Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Faranak
Jamaleddin
faranak.jamaleddin@gmail.com
3
Ph.D. Candidate of Linguistics Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
AUTHOR
Mohammad Reza
Dehghanzadeh
dehghanreza19@yahoo.com
4
Ph.D. Candidate of Linguistics Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
AUTHOR
ابوالقاسمی، محسن. (1388). راهنمای زبانهای باستانی ایران؛ جلد دوم: دستور و واژهنامه، تهران، سمت.
1
اکبرپور، حامد. (1394). بررسی و توصیف معنای برخی واژههای قیدی فارسی از دیدگاه معنیشناسی شناختی؛ پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد، مشهد، دانشگاه فردوسی.
2
انوری، حسن. (1367).دستورزبانفارسی، تهران، فاطمی
3
انوری، حسن. (1381). فرهنگبزرگسخن، تهران، سخن.
4
خیام پور، عبدالرسول. (1347).دستورزبانفارسی، چاپ ششم، تبریز، کتابفروشی تهران.
5
دهخدا، علیاکبر. (1370). لغتنامه، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
6
ذالنّور، ر. (1343). دستورزبانپارسی درصرفونحوزبانفارسی، تهران، ارغنون.
7
رضایی، حدائق. رفیعی، عادل. (1395). «بررسی شبکه معنایی پسوند مکانساز «گاه» با رویکردی شناختی»، زبانپژوهیدانشگاهالزهراء، سال هشتم، شمارۀ 18، بهار 95.
8
زیدطوسی، احمد بن محمد. (1356). تفسیرسورۀیوسف، تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.
9
شریعت، محمدجواد. (1372). دستورزبانفارسی، تهران، اساطیر.
10
شفایی، احمد. (1363). مبانیعلمیدستورزبانفارسی، تهران، نوین.
11
صادقی، علیاشرف. (1371). «شیوهها و امکانات واژهسازی در زبان فارسی معاصر»، نشردانش، فروردین و اردیبهشت، 1377، شمارۀ 69.
12
صدری افشار، غلامحسین؛ حکمی، نسرین و حکمی، نسترن. (1388). فرهنگ فارسی دوجلدی، تهران، معاصر.
13
ضیاءحسینی، محمد. (1388). مبانی زبانشناسی، تهران، رهنما.
14
عمید، حسن. (1389). فرهنگفارسی، تهران، آگاه.
15
فخرالدینی، فرهاد. (1394). تجزیهوتحلیل و شرح ردیف موسیقی ایران، تهران، نشر معین.
16
فرشیدورد، خسرو. (1384). دستورمفصلامروز، تهران، سخن.
17
قریب، عبدالعظیم. (1378). دستورپنجاستاد، تهران، جهان دانش.
18
کشانی، خسرو. (1371). اشتقاقپسوندیدرزبانفارسیامروز، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
19
کلباسی، ایران (1371).ساختاشتقاقیواژهدرفارسیامروز، تهران، آرین.
20
مصباح یزدی، محمدتقی. (1398). آموزش فلسفه؛ جلد دوم، تهران، شرکت چاپ و نشر بینالملل.
21
معین، محمد. (1371). فرهنگفارسی، تهران، امیرکبیر.
22
مشکور، محمدجواد. (1342). دستورنامه: درصرفونحوزبانپارسی، تهران، شرق.
23
ناتل خانلری، پرویز. (1355).دستورزبانفارسی، تهران، نشر بابک.
24
همایونفرّخ، عبدالرحیم. (1337). دستور جامع زبان فارسی. تهران، علمی.
25
Abolghasemi, M., 2009. A Manual of Old Iranian Language; Part 2: Grammar and Lexicon, Tehran, SAMT, [In Persian].
26
Akbarpour, H., 2015. Examining and Describing the Meaning of Some Adverbial Words from the Perspective of Cognitive Semantics, M.A, Thesis, Mashhad, Ferdowsi University, [In Persian].
27
Amid,H., 2010. Amid Dictionary, Tehran, Agah, [In Persian].
28
Anvari,H.,1988. The grammar of Persian Language, Tehran, Fatemi, [In Persian].
29
Anvari, H.,1992. Farhang-e Bozorg-e Sokhan: The great dictionary of Sokhan, Tehran, Sokhan, [In Persian].
30
Dehkhoda, A. A.,1991. Dehkhoda Dictionary, Tehran, Tehran University Press, [In Persian].
31
Fakhreddini, F., 2015. Analysis and Description of Iranian Music (Radif), Tehran, Moeen, [In Persian].
32
Farshidvard, Kh., 2005. Modern Detailed Grammar, Tehran, Sokhan, [In Persian].
33
Ghareeb, A.,1999. Dastoor-e Panj Ostad: five- masters- Grammar, Tehran, Jahan-e Danesh, [In Persian].
34
Homayoun farrokh, A.,1958. Comprehensive Persian Grammar, Vol.2. Tehran, Elmi, [In Persian].
35
Kalbasi, I., 1992. The Derivational Structure of Word in Modern Persian, Tehran, Ariyan, [In Persian].
36
Keshani, Kh.,1992. Suffix Derivation in Modern Persian, Tehran, Markaz-e Nashr-e Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
37
Khayyampur, A.,1968. The Grammar of Persian Language, 6th Ed, Tabriz, Tehran Bookstore, [In Persian].
38
Mashkour, M. J.,1963. astourname: In the Morphology and Syntax of Persian Language, Vol.3,Tehran, Shargh, [In Persian].
39
Mesbah Yazdi, M. T., 2019. Training Philosophy; Volume II, Tehran, Sherkat-e Chap-o Nashr-e Bein-Al-mellal, [In Persian].
40
Moin, M. (1992). Moin Dictionary, Tehran, Amir Kabir,[In Persian].
41
Natel Khanlari, P. (1976). Persian Language Grammar, Tehran, Nashr-e Babak,[In Persian].
42
Rezaei, H. & Rafiei, A. (2016). "investigating the Semantic Network of Locator Suffix '-gah': a Cognitive Approach", Journal of Zabanpazuhi. 8(18), Pp. 107-123, [In Persian].
43
Sadeghi, A. A.,1992. "Methods and possibilities of word formation in contemporary Persian". Nashre Danesh Journal, 69. Pp. 20-25, [In Persian].
44
Sadri Afshar, G.H.; Hakami, Nasrin & Hakami, Nastaran., 2009. Persian Dictionary Two Volumes. Tehran, Moaaser, [In Persian].
45
Shafaee, A.,1984. Scientific Basics of Persian Grammar, Tehran, Novin. [In Persian].
46
Shariat, M. J.,1993. The Grammar of Persian Language. Tehran, Asatir, [In Persian].
47
Talmy. L., 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol I, Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
48
ـــــــــــــــــــــ. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol II, Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
49
ـــــــــــــــــــــ.,2017. The Targeting System of Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
50
Zeyd Tusi, A.,1977,. Interpretation of Surat 'Yusuf', Tehran, The Institute of Book Translating and Publishing, [In Persian].
51
Ziyaa Hoseini, Mohammad. (2009). ABC of Linguistics, Tehran, Rahnama, [In Persian].
52
Zonnour,R.,1964,. The Grammar of Parsi in Persian Morphology and Syntax, Tehran, Arganun, [In Persian].
53
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Role of Syntactic Head and Constituent Position in Processing Root Compound Nouns: Evidence from People with Broca Aphasia
This study investigates the way head initial and head final root compound nouns comprising of noun-noun constituents are processed. It also investigates the role of their syntactic head and constituent position in processing through confrontation naming and auditory repetition tasks in people with Broca aphasia. Three people with Broca aphasia (two men and one woman) named the pictures in the naming task while confronting with them and they repeated the simple and compound nouns after hearing them in the repetition task. The stimuli include 40 nouns (20 simple and 20 compounds) and their black and white related drawing pictures. Nonparametric Kruskal Wallis H. Test showed that statistically there was no significant difference between the ranks of patients' errors in naming and repeating compound nouns, while there was a significant difference between the error patterns of initial, final and both constituents (the whole compound) in naming task and also between the error patterns of the constituents in repetition. Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was no significant difference between the naming errors of head initial and head final compound nouns as well as their repetition errors. The significant difference between the mean rank of naming simple and compound nouns as well as the repetition of simple and compound nouns showed the role of word structure in processing. The errors of head initial and head final root compound nouns and their patterns showed that syntactic head plays no role in naming and repetition processing of head initial and head final root compound nouns while the constituent position has a role in their naming and repetition. Moreover, the processing of head initial root compound nouns is different from head final ones. Naming and repetition processes of head initial and head final root compound nouns in Persian are also processed through the dual routes.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_77590_44005d16543327b89c37c26af36fcc25.pdf
2021-01-20
121
145
10.22059/jolr.2020.299780.666593
Broca aphasia
compound nouns
constituent position
processing
syntactic head
Mousa
Ghonchepour
m_ghonchepour@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor of Farhangiyan University, Department of Language and Literature, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Shahla
Raghibdoust
neishabour@hotmail.com
2
Associate Professor of Allame Tabataba'i University, Department of Linguistics, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
انوری، حسن (1386). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن، تهران، انتشارات سخن، چاپ چهارم.
1
خباز، مجید (1385). ترکیب غیرفعلی در زبان فارسی، رساله دکتری، تهران، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
2
نیلیپور، رضا (1372). آزمون زبانپریشی. تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران.
3
Alyahya, R. S., Halai, A. D., Conroy, P., & M. A. L. Ralph. 2018. Noun and verb processing in aphasia: Behavioural profiles and neural correlates. NeuroImage: Clinical, 18, 215-230.
4
Anvari, H. 2007. Farhang-i buzurg-i Sukhan (4nd ed.). Tehran: Soxan Pbulication, [In Persian].
5
Bakhtiar, M., Nilipour, N., & B. S. Weekes. 2013. Predictors of timed picture naming in Persian. Behav Res, 45, 834-841. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0298-6
6
Bertram R., & J. Hyönä. 2003. The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphological structure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3):615–634.
7
Bijankhan, M., Sheykhzadegan, J., Bahrani, M., & M. Ghayoomi. 2011. Lessons from building a Persian written corpus: Peykare. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45, 143–164. doi:10.1007/ s10579-010-9132-x.
8
Butterworth, B. 1983. Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production: Vol. 2 (pp. 257–294). London: Academic Press.
9
Bybee, J. 1995. Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and cognitive processes, 10(5), 425-455.
10
Cuetos, F., Ellis, A. W., & B. Alvarez. 1999. Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 650–658. doi:10.3758/BF03200741
11
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & M. Carreiras. 2007. The role of the frequency of constituents in compound words: Evidence from Basque and Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1171-1176.
12
El Yagoubi, R., Chiarelli, V., Mondini, S., Perrone, G., Danieli, M., & C. Semenza. 2008. Neural correlates of Italian nominal compounds and potential impact of headedness effect: An ERP study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(4), 559-581.
13
Gagné, C.L. & T.L. Spalding. 2014. Conceptual composition: The role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun-noun compounds. In Ross, B. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 97–130. New York: Elsevier.
14
Garman, M. 1990. Psycholinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15
Ghonchepour, M., &, M. Pakzad Moghaddam. 2019. The role of semantic transparency in processing compound nouns: evidence from people with Broca’s Aphasia. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 1-23.
16
Goldman, R. 2007. Compounding in Aphasia: A crosslinguistic review (BA Thesis). Swarthmore College, Department of Linguistics, Swartmore, PA. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10066/10186
17
Güenther, F., Marelli, M., & J. Bölte. 2020. Semantic transparency effects in German compounds: A large dataset and multiple-task investigation. Behavior Research Methods, 1-17.
18
Janssen, N., Bi, Y., & A. Caramazza. 2008. A tale of two frequencies: Determining the speed of lexical access for Mandarin Chinese and English compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1191–1223.
19
Jarema, G., Busson, C., Nikolova, R., Tsapkini, K., & G. Libben. 1999. Processing compounds: A cross-linguistic study. Brain and Language, 68, 362–369.
20
Juhasz, B. J., Starr, M. S., Inhoff, A. W., & L. Placke. 2003. The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 223-244.
21
Katamba, F. & J. Stonhan. 2006. Morphology, England: Macmillan Press LTD.
22
Koester D., Gunter T.C., & S. Wagner. 2007. The morphosyntactic decomposition and semantic composition of German compound words investigated by ERPs. Brain and Language, 102:64–79.
23
Koester D., Holle H., & T.C. Gunter. 2009. Electrophysiological evidence for incremental lexical–semantic integration in auditory compound comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 47:1854–1864.
24
Kornfeld, L. 2009. “IE, Romance: Spanish”. In R. Lieber and P. štekauer(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press,436-453.
25
Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & R. H. Baayen. 2009. Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Toward a multiple route model of lexical processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876–895.
26
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y., & D. Sandra. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50– 64. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5
27
Lieber, R. 2009. “A Lexical Semantic Approach to Compounding”. In R. Lieber and P. štekauer(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press,78-105.
28
Lorenz, A., & P. Zwitserlood. 2016. Semantically transparent and opaque compounds in German noun-phrase production: Evidence for morphemes in speaking. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1943.
29
Lorenz, A., Mädebach, A., & J. D. Jescheniak. 2017. Grammatical-gender effects in noun-noun compound production: Evidence from German. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (just-accepted), 1-33.
30
Marelli, M., & C. Luzzatti. 2012. Frequency effects in the processing of Italian nominal compounds: Modulation of headedness and semantic transparency. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 644-664.
31
Marelli, M., Aggujaro, S., Molteni, F., & C. Luzzatti. 2012. The multiple-lemma representation of Italian compound nouns: A single case study of deep dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 852–861.
32
Marelli, M., Crepaldi, D., & C. Luzzatti. 2009. Head position and the mental representation of nominal compounds: A constituent priming study in Italian. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 430-454.
33
Marelli, M., Zonca, G., Contardi, A., & C. Luzzatti. 2014. The representation of compound headedness in the mental lexicon: A picture naming study in aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31(1-2), 26-39.
34
Mondini S., Luzzatti C., Zonca G., Pistarini C., & C. Semenza. 2004. The mental representation of verb-noun compounds in Italian: evidence from a multiple single-case study in aphasia. Brain Lang. 90, 470–477. 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00458-9
35
Nilipour, R. 1994. Diagnostic Aphasia Test. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences Press, [In Persian].
36
Nilipour, R., Bakhtiar, M., Momenian, M., & B.s. Weekes. 2016. Object and action picture naming in brain-damaged Persian speakers with aphasia. Aphasiology, 31 (4), 388-40. DOI: 10. 1080 / 02687038. 2016. 1234583
37
Ralli, A. 2009. “IE, Hellenic: Modern Greek”. In R. Lieber and P. štekauer(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press,453-464.
38
Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & B. New. 2004. The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090-1098.
39
Schmidtke, D., Kuperman, V., Gagné, C.L. & T.L. Spalding. 2015. Competition between conceptual relations affects compound recognition: The role of entropy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication.
40
Semenza, C., & S. Mondini. 2006. Neuropsychology of compound words. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 71–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41
Semenza, C., De Pellegrin, S., Battel, I., Garzon, M., Meneghello, F., & V. Chiarelli. 2011. Compounds in different aphasia categories: A study on picture naming. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33, 1099–1107.
42
Severens, E., Van Lommel, S., Ratinckx, E., & R. J. Hartsuiker. 2005. Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119, 159–187. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.002
43
Stockall, L., & A. Marantz. 2006. A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1(1):85–123.
44
Taft, M. 2006. A localist-cum-distributed (LCD) framework for lexical processing. In S.M. Andrews. From ink marks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp.76-94). Psychology Press.
45
Taft, M., & K. I. Forster. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 14, 638-647.
46
Taft, M., & K. I. Forster. 1976. Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 15(6), 607-620.
47
Xabbaz, M. 2006. Root compounding in Persian (Ph.D. thesis), Allame Tabataba'I University, Tehran, Iran, [In Persian].
48
Xu J. & M. Taft. 2015. The effects of semantic transparency and base frequency on the recognition of English complex words. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 41, 904–910. 10.1037/xlm0000052.
49
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Agglutinative-Analytic Morphology of Persian: A Distributed Morphology Approach
The present research is aimed to analyses the morphological typology of Persian on the basis of the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM). According to the findings of DM, the predominant tendency of Persian's morphological type is defined here on a two-dimensional chart; a chart provided by Aikhenvald (2007) from the conjugation typology of languages, which itself was defined on the basis of the criteria proposed by Sapir. The horizontal axis in this diagram deals with the degree of internal complexity of words and its horizontal axis includes the transparency of morphological boundaries between the morphemes within a grammatical word. Accordingly, the main research questions are to determine: the position of Persian language on the basis of “degree of internal complexity of words”, as well as, its typology on the basis of “border transparency criteria”. To analyses the grammatical structures of Persian, a variety of diverse structures, among different Persian text types, including stories, textbooks, scenarios, and research papers was gathered, which contained a total number of nine thousand and six hundred words. The investigation on the first question on the basis of Greenberg’s quantitative standards illustrates that, by achieving a number of one thousand and five hundred and six words from the above-mentioned index, the orientation of today’s Persian language, according to the “degree of internal complexity of words” or what is called as “word combinability criteria”, is towards “analytic” language type. Considering the second question, the research demonstrates that in view of the “border transparency criteria” for morphemes which indicates ways to connect morphemes, Persian language is more inclined towards “agglutinating” language type. Finally, it can be concluded that based on the findings of DM, the dominant tendency of morphosyntactic structures of Persian is towards “agglutinating-analytic” languages. Therefore, the research findings in considering Persian within the DM framework approves its grouping within agglutinating-analytic language types, though in comparison to the previous studies, the reduction of the statistical results here illustrates the main tendency of Persian's morphological type towards analytic languages and its movement towards becoming more analytic.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78892_abc0de68cb95e21a753cb10bc439d221.pdf
2021-01-20
147
172
10.22059/jolr.2020.304807.666611
Distributed Morphology
morphological typology
quantitative approach
analytic language
agglutinating languages
Shabnam
Majidi
majidishabnam@yahoo.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate of Linguistics, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
Mahinnaz
Mirdehghan
mahinnaz.mirdehghan@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor Linguistics, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
آلاحمد، جلال، (1345). مدیر مدرسه، سازمان کتابهای پرستو، چاپ سوم.
1
انوشه، مزدک، (در دست چاپ). صرف در نحو: از کمینهگرایی تا صرف توزیعی، تهران،دانشگاه تهران.
2
انوشه، مزدک، (1397). «بازنگری در تصریف زمان گذشته در زبان فارسی بر پایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی»، جستارهای زبانی، د 9، ش 1 (پیاپی43)، صص 57-80.
3
بیضایی، بهرام، (1380). سگکشی، نشر روشنگران و مطالعات زنان، چاپ اول.
4
پایگاه دادگان زبان فارسی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
5
پرسپولیس نیوز، هفتم شهریور (1398). «اطلاعیۀ باشگاه پرسپولیس: هواداران برای حمایت از پرسپولیس به ورزشگاه بیایند».
6
ثمره، یدالله، (1369). «تحلیلی بر ردهشناسی زبان: ویژگیهای ردهشناختی زبان فارسی»، مجلۀ زبانشناسی، س 7، ش 1، صص 61-80.
7
خبرگزاری تسنیم، دهم شهریور (1398). «مراسم رونمایی از پیراهن تیم اسکواش بانوان مهرسان با حضور مسئولان فدراسیون برگزار شد».
8
خبرگزاری فارس، دهم شهریور (1398). «دانشگاهها به سمت تغییر سرفصلهای درسی پیش میروند» و «جلسۀ نمایندگان آموزشگاههای آزاد هنری» و «بازدید سرپرست دفتر آموزش و توسعۀ فعالیتهای هنری از روند برگزاری آزمونهای جامع و ادواری».
9
خبرگزاری مهر، دهم شهریور (1398). «بیخوابی با افزایش ریسک بیماری قلبی و سکته مرتبط است».
10
دولتآبادی، محمود، (1369). روزگار سپریشدة مردم سالخورده، کتاب اول، اقلیم باد، نشر چشمه، تهران، چاپ اول.
11
سازمان پژوهش و برنامهریزی آموزشی، (1398). تاریخ 3، ایران و جهان معاصر، پایة دوازدهم، دورة دوم متوسط، رشتة علوم انسانی، شرکت چاپ و نشر کتابهای درسی ایران، چاپ دوم.
12
سازمان پژوهش و برنامهریزی آموزشی، (1396). زیستشناسی 1، پایة دهم، دورة دوم متوسط، رشتة علوم تجربی، شرکت چاپ و نشر کتابهای درسی ایران، چاپ دوم.
13
شریفی، شهلا. الهام اخلاقی، (1392). «بررسی ساختواژۀ زبان فارسی امروز بر پایۀ رویکرد کمّی ردهشناسی»، هشتمین همایش بینالمللی انجمن ترویج و زبان و ادب فارسی ایران، دانشگاه زنجان، 13 تا 15 شهریور.
14
دبیرمقدم، محمد، (1392). ردهشناسی زبانهای ایرانی، جلد اول، سمت، چاپ اول.
15
رضایی، والی، فاطمه بهرامی، (1394). مبانی ردهشناسی زبان، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، چاپ اول.
16
روزنامۀ ابتکار، دهم شهریور (1398). «مستاجران از اینجا مانده، از آنجا رانده».
17
روزنامۀ جوان، دهم شهریور (1398). «احتمال توقف تولید پراید و ۴۰۵».
18
روزنامۀ جمهوری اسلامی، دهم شهریور (1398). «برای ماندگاری مکتب عاشورا».
19
روزنامۀ خراسان، دهم شهریور (1398). «بورس 11 میلیون نفری شد» و «چالشهای پس از جدایی» و «مسمومیت ۳۳۲ نفر در شاندیز».
20
روزنامۀ کیهان، دهم شهریور (1398). «ماهوارههای آمریکا را چه کسی منهدم کرد؟» و «سوداگری در بازار مسکن نتیجه انفعال در اخذ مالیات از خانههای خالی».
21
روزنامۀ مردمسالاری، دهم شهریور (1398). «رایزنی با مجامع هواداران برای حضور زنان در ورزشگاهها و تماشای لیگ فوتبال» و «آغاز عملیات بازار باز در شهریورماه».
22
روزنامۀ همدلی، دهم شهریور (1398). «بعد از مرمت و احیای خانه جلال، این بار خانه همسایه او یعنی نیما یوشیج چشمانتظار بازسازی است» و «تعریفی از مردم».
23
هدایت، صادق، (1321). سگ ولگرد: تاریکخانه، امیرکبیر، چاپ پنجم، تهران.
24
Aikhenvald, A.Y., 2007. Typological Distinctions in Word-Formation. In Language Typology and Syntatic Description Vol III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, T. Shopen (Ed.), 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p 1-65.
25
Al-e-Ahmad, J.,1966. Headmaster (modir-e madrese), sazman-e ketabha-ye parastu, Third Edition.[In Persian].
26
Anushe, Mazdak, (in press). Morphology in Syntax: From Minimalist Program to Distributed Morphology, Tehran: University of Tehran.[In Persian].
27
Anushe, M., 2018. “A Revision of Persian Past Tense Inflection a Distributed Morphology Approach”, Language Related Research, volume 9, issue 1. P. 57-80.[In Persian].
28
Bayzai, B., 2001. Killing Mad Dogs (Sagkoshi), Roshangaran and Women Studies publication, First Edition.[In Persian].
29
Bloomfield, L.,1933. Language, New York: Henry Holt.
30
Chomsky, N., 1995. The Minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge.
31
Comrie, B.,2001. Different Views of Language Typology. In M. Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals (pp. 25-39). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
32
Dabir Moghaddam, M., 2013. Typology of Iranian Languages, Volume 1, Tehran: SAMT, First Edition.[In Persian].
33
Dolat Abadi, M., 1990. Time spent on older people; Book I: (climate, wind), Tehran: Cheshmeh Publishing, First Edition.[In Persian].
34
Ebtekar Newspaper, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
35
Educational Research and Planning Organization, 2019. History 3: Iran and the contemporary world, Twelfth grade, Secondary high school, Field of Humanities, Iran Textbook Publishing Company, second edition.[In Persian].
36
Educational Research and Planning Organization,2017. Biology 1, tenth grade, Secondary high school, Field of Experimental Sciences, Iran Textbook Publishing Company, second edition.[In Persian].
37
Embick, D., 2015. The Morpheme, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
38
Fars News Agency, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
39
Greenberg, J.H.,1954. “A Quantitative Approach to the morphological Typology of Language”, in Spencer, R. (Ed), Method and Perspective in Anthropology, Minneapolis.
40
Greenberg, J.H.,1974. Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview. The Hague, Paris: Mounton.
41
Halle, M. & A. Marantz.,1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds). The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p111–176.
42
Hamdeli Newspaper, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
43
Hedayat, S., 1942. The Stray Dog (Sag-e velgard): Darkroom (tarikkhane), Tehran: Amir Kabir, Fifth Edition.[In Persian].
44
Hockett, Ch. ,1958. Two models of grammatical description. In: M. Joos (Ed). Readings in linguistics [2nd Ed], Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p386-399.
45
Humboldt, W. v.,1825. Über das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideeentwiccklung. Abhandlungen der hist. phil. Klasse, Berlin: königliche Akademi der Wissenschaften, 401-30.
46
Humboldt, W. v.,1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus (Vol. I of Über die Kawispache auf der Insel Java). Berlin: königliche Akademi der Wissenschaften.
47
Javan Newspaper, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
48
Jomhouri-e Eslam Newspaper, 1 September 2019. [In Persian].
49
Kayhan Newspaper, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
50
Khorasan Newspaper, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
51
Marantz, A., 1997. No Escape from Syntax; Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In: A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark, and A. Williams (Eds). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 201-225.
52
Mardomsalari Newspaper, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
53
Mehr News Agency, 1 September 2019. [In Persian].
54
Nida, E.,1949. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words,Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
55
Nida, E.,1965. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words [2nd Ed], Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (First published 1949).
56
Noyer, R.,1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure, NY: Garland.
57
Persian Linguistic Database (PLDB), Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies.[In Persian].
58
PerspolisNews Agency, 29 August 2019. [In Persian].
59
Rezaei, vali. Bahrami, F., 2015. Fundamentals of Linguistic typology, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University, First Edition.[In Persian].
60
Samareh, Y., 1990. “An analysis of the typology of language: typology features of Persian language”, Iranian journal of linguistics, volume 7, issue 1. P. 61-80. [In Persian].
61
Sapir, E., 1921. Language, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
62
Schlegel, A.W.v.,1818. Observations sur la langue et la littérature provinçales. Parise.
63
Schlegel, K. W. F. v., 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Heidelberg: Mohr and Zimmer.
64
Sharifi, Shahla. Akhlaghi, e., 2013. “A study of the Morphology of Persian Language Today Based on a Quantitative Approach to Typology”, The 8th International Conference of the Association for the Promotion of Persian Language and Literature of Iran, University of Zanjan. [In Persian].
65
Shopen, T., 2007, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume 3: Complex Constructions (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press.
66
Siddiqi, D.,2009. Syntax within the Word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
67
Tasnim News Agency, 1 September 2019.[In Persian].
68
Thompson, L. C.,1987. A Vietnamese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
69
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Syllable Structure in Central Kurdish Language Revisited
In this study, the syllable structure in Central Kurdish (Sorani) language has been phonologically investigated. In this investigation, the syllable structure has been compared with the views which are based on orthography believe in CGVCC, CCVC and CCVCCC syllable structures (based on the frequency of occurrence in previous studies). This study examines the presence of a high front lax vowel /I/ in underlying representation or its epenthesis in surface representation during derivational stages. For this purpose, both internal and external linguistic evidences are employed. An audio corpus of the speakers of Mariwan and Sulaimani, along with a questionnaire for determining the native speakers’ intuition in counting the word syllables have been employed as the research data. Evidences from vowel changes in cognate and borrowed words, diachronic data, the application of phonological rules in the syllable domain, sonority sequencing principle and selection of the most sonorous element as syllable nucleus and consonants as onset and coda, along with acoustic cues for the presence of this vowel in phonetic representation explain the phonological syllable structure in Central Kurdish. Basic tenets of generative phonology like referring to two levels of representation, and the phonotactic rules on the distribution of building blocks of syllable form the theoretical framework of this study. The results show that from two opponent hypotheses regarding vowel /I/ existence in phonetic form: 1) existence in UR and faithfulness mapping to SR; 2) lacking in UR and emergence in SR as result of vowel epenthesis rule, regarding above-mentioned phonological arguments, the former is confirmed. By accepting the presence of vowel /I/ in underlying representation and the similarities between glides and other consonants as the second member of the onset, the syllable structure in Central Kurdish, like standard Persian, is CV(C)(C). In phonetic representation onset clusters of consonant-glide is the result of vowel deletion due to the shared place of articulation with the following glide.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_79861_d18875e694fb8efb51c0b6cf924bd737.pdf
2021-01-20
173
198
10.22059/jolr.2021.303522.666606
Kurdish language
Central (Sorani) Kurdish
syllable structure
high front lax vowel
phonological representation
Azad
Mohammadi
azad.mohammadi@ut.ac.ir
1
Ph.D Candidate of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mahmood
Bijankhan
mbjkhan@ut.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
حاجی مارف، ئهوڕهحمان (1976). زمانی کوردی له بهر ڕۆشنایی فۆنۆتیکدا. بهغدا: کۆڕی زانیاری کورد.
1
حاجی مارف، ئهوڕهحمان (2002). بهرههمه زمانهوانییهکانم: نووسین و وهرگێڕان. بهرگی یهکهم. سلێمانی: نووسینگهی فهرههنگ.
2
خلیقی، شهلا (1380). بررسی دوگانگی سطح تحلیل واجی در گویش کردی سقزی. پایاننامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه تهران.
3
خۆشناو، نهریمان عهبدوڵڵا. (۲۰۱۳). دهنگسازی. ههولێر: ئاوێر.
4
رخزادی، علی (1390). آواشناسی و دستور زبان کردی. سنندج: انتشارات کردستان.
5
رضایی، آرش و محمدی، آزاد (139۳). بررسی صوتشناختی واکههای سادۀ کردی سورانی. مجموعه مقالات دومین همایش ملی آواشناسی فیزیکی. ۱۱۷-۱۳۲. تهران: نویسه.
6
ساحێبقران، عبدالرحمنبگ (١٣٨٤). دیوانی سالم. سنه: ئاڵای رووناکی.
7
فهتاح، موحهمهد مهعرووف (٢٠١٠). ڕێنووسی کوردی لە ڕوانگەی فۆنەتیکەوە. لە:شێروان حسێن خۆشناو و شێروان میرزا قادر (کۆکردنەوە)، لێکۆڵینە زمانەوانییەکان.(٤١-٦٧). ههولێر: ڕۆژهەلات.
8
فهتاح، موحهمهد مهعرووف (٢٠١١). زمانهوانی. چاپی سێیهم. ههولێر: حاجی هاشم.
9
قانع، محمد (١٣٨٤). دیوانی قانع. کۆکردنەوە بورهان قانع. تاران: پانیز.
10
کریمیدوستان، غلامحسین (۱۳۸۰). کردی ایلامی: بررسی گویش بدره. سنندج: انتشارات دانشگاه کردستان.
11
کریمیدوستان، غلامحسین (۱۳۸۱). ساختمان هجا در زبان کردی. مجله تخصصی زبان و ادبیات دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی مشهد (دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی (مشهد)). ۳۵ (۲-۱ (پی در پی ۱۳۷-۱۳۶))، ۲۳۵-۲۴۸.
12
کلباسی، ایران (1362). گویش کردی مهاباد. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
13
محمدی، آزاد (1392). فرایندهای صرفی – واجی در کردی سورانی. پایاننامۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
14
مدرسی قوامی، گلناز (1392). آواشناسی: بررسی علمی گفتار. تهران: سمت.
15
مهحوی، موحهمهد (٢٠٠٨). فۆنهتیک و فۆنۆلۆژی: فۆنۆلۆژی. سلێمانی: زانکۆی سلێمانی.
16
موشیردزهیی، عهبدولواحید (2013). وشهسازی زمانی کوردی. ههولێر: ئاوێر.
17
موشیردزهیی، عهبدولواحید، تهحسین محهمهد، دانا و عهبدولڕهحمان ساڵح، دهرون (2013). فۆنهتیک و فۆنۆلۆجی. ههولێر: ئاوێر.
18
وهیس، غازی (١٩٨٤). فۆنهتیک. بهغداد: الادیب.
19
ئهمین، وریا عومهر (٢٠٠٣). ئاسۆیەکی تری زمانەوانی. بهرگی یهکهم. ههولێر: ئاراس.
20
Ahmad, A. R. (1986). The phonemic system of modern standard Kurdish. PhD thesis. The University of Michigan.
21
Ahmed, Z. (2019). The Application of English Theories to Sorani Phonology. PhD thesis. Durham University.
22
Amin, Waria Omer. (2003). Âsoyakî tirî zimânawânî [Another Horizon to Linguistics]. Vol 1. Erbil: Aras Press.[in Kurdish].
23
Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, (pp. 206-244). Oxford: Blackwell.
24
Bosch. R. K., Anna. (2011). Syllable-internal Structure. In Van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. V., & Rice, K. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 5 Volume Set (Vol. 2). (pp. 781-798). John Wiley & Sons.
25
Clements, G. N., & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllabe. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs Cambridge, Mass., (9), 1-191.
26
Dell, F., & Elmedlaoui, M. (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African languages and linguistics, 7(2), 105-130.
27
Fattah, Muhammed Maruf. (2010). Řênûsî kurdî la řwângay fônatîkawa [Kurdish Orthography from the Phonetics Perspective]. In: Sherwan Husein Khoshnaw and Sherwan Mirza Qadir, eds. Lêkôɫînawa zimânawânîjakân [The Linguistics Researches]. Erbil: Rojhalat Press. pp. 41-68.[in Kurdish].
28
Fattah, Muhammed Maruf. (2011). Zimânawânî [Linguistics]. 3rd ed. Hawler: Haji Hashim.[in Kurdish].
29
Gussenhoven, C., & Jacobs, H. (2011). Understanding phonology. Routledge.
30
Haji Marif, Ewrehman. (1976). Zimânî Kurdî la bar řošnâyî fônatîk dâ [Kurdish Language in the Light of Phonetics]. Baghdad: Kurdish Language Academy.[in Kurdish].
31
Haji Marif, Ewrehman. (2002). Barhama Zimânawanîjakanim: Nusîn u wargeřân [My Linguistic Works: Writing and Translation]. Vol 1. Silemanî: Farhang Publication.[in Kurdish].
32
Hall, T. A. (2000). Typological generalizations concerning secondary palatalization. Lingua 110. pp. 1-25.
33
Hamid, T. S. (2016). The prosodic phonology of Central Kurdish. PhD thesis. Durham Newcastle University.
34
Hayes, B. (2009). Introductory phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwel.
35
Jakobson, R., & Halle, M. (2010). Fundamentals of language (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.
36
Kalbasi, Iran. (1362 [1983]). Guyeš-e Kordi-ye Mæhabad [Kurdish Dialect of Mahabad]. Tehran: IHCS.[in Persian].
37
Karimi Doostan, Gholamhossein. (1380 [2002]). Saxteman-e heja dær zæban-e Kordi [The Structure of the Syllable in the Kurdish Language]. Quarterly Journal of Language and Literature Faculty of Letters and Humanities (Mashhad), 35 (1-2). pp. 235-248.[in Persian].
38
Karimi Doostan, Gholamhossein. (1381 [2003]). Kordi-ye Ilami: Bærresi-ye Guyeš-e Bædre [Ilami Kurdish: A Survey of Badre Dialect]. Sanandaj: University of Kurdistan Publication.[in Persian].
39
Kenstowicz, M. J. (2004). Phonology in generative grammar (Vol. 7). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
40
MacKenzie, D. N. (1961). Kurdish Dialect Studies I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41
Mahwi, Muhammed. (2008). fônatîk u fônôložî: fônôlôžî [Phonetics & Phonology: Phonology]. Slemani: University of Sulaimani.[in Kurdish].
42
McCarus, Ernest. N. (1958). A Kurdish Grammar: Descriptive Analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
43
Modarresi Ghavami, Golnaz. (1392 [2013]). Avašenasi: bærresi-ye elmi-ye goftar [Phonetics : The Scientific Study of Speech]. Tehran: Samt.[in Persian].
44
Mohammadi, Azad. (1392 [2014]). Færayændhaye særfi-vaji dær Kordi-ye Sorani [Morphophonological Processes in Sorani Kurdish]. M.A. thesis. Allameh Tabataba'i University.[in Persian].
45
Mushir Dezey, Ebdulwahed. (2013). Wišasâzî zimânî kurdî [Kurdish Language Morphology]. Hawler: Awer.[in Kurdish].
46
Mushir Dezey, Ebdulwahed, Tahsin Mihemmed, Dana. & Ebdulrehman Salih, Derun. (2013). Fônatîk u fônôložî [Phonetics & Phonology]. Hawler: Awer.[in Kurdish].
47
Ohala, J. J. (1986). Consumer's guide to evidence in phonology. Phonology, 3, 3-26.
48
Qanie, Mohammad. (1384 [2006]). Diwânî Qânie [The Divan of Qânie]. Taran: Paniz.[in Kurdish].
49
Rezaee, Arash., & Mohammadi, Azad. (1393 [2015]). bærresi-ye Sowtšenaxti-ye Vakehaye Sade-ye Kordi-ye Sorani [The Acoustic Study of Monophthongs in Sorani Kurdish]. Proceedings of the Second National Acoustic Phonetics. Tehran: Neveeseh. pp. 117-132.[in Persian].
50
Roca, I. (2003). Generative phonology. Routledge.
51
Rokhzadi, Ali. (1390 [2011]). Avašenasi væ dæstur-e zæban-e Kordi [Phonetics and Grammar of Kurdish]. Sanandaj: Kurdistan Publication.[in Persian].
52
Sahebqiran, Ebdurrahamn bag. (1384 [2006]). Diwânî Sâlim [The Divan of sâlim]. Sina: Alay Roonaki.[in Kurdish].
53
Steriade, D. (2002). The syllable. In Bright., W. (Ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Linguistics. OUP.
54
Taylor, M. (1985). Some patterns of geminate consonants. The University of Chicago working papers in linguistics, 1, 120-129.
55
Wais, Ghazi. (1984). Fonetic [Phonetics]. Baghdad: Adib.[in Kurdish].
56
Warner, N., Jongman, A., Cutler, A., & Mücke, D. (2001). The phonological status of Dutch epenthetic schwa. Phonology, 387-420.[in Persian].
57
Xaliqi, Shahla. (1380 [2002]). Bærresi-ye doganegi-ye tahlil-e vaji dær Guyeš-e Kordi-ye Saqezi [The Study of Duality of Phonological Analysis Level in Saqezi Dialect of Kurdish]. M.A. thesis. University of Tehran.[in Persian].
58
Xošnaw, Nariman Abdulla. (2013). Dangsâzî [Phonetics]. Hawler: Awer.[in Kurdish].
59
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Cognitive Study of the Construction of Euphemistic Meaning Via the Process of Negation in Persian
The aim of this article is to explain the construction of euphemistic meaning via the process of negation from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. The main question of the present study is how the cognitive mechanism of negation acts for constructing euphemistic meaning and consequently for motivating euphemistic linguistic structures. The present research explains euphemism in Persian by a descriptive-analytical method. Data were also collected manually from mostly library resources containing several Persian-language dictionaries. In this study, it is shown that the cognitive process of negation is volitionally applied to a conceptual content by the conceptualizer and consequently a pleasant conceptual content is activated and attention is drawn toward it. Based on the negation process, the negated pleasant concept is represented phonetically and the strength of attention over the unpleasant content which has not been represented at the linguistic level will decrease. Due to the representation of the negated pleasant concept at the linguistic level and based on the type of guided attention distribution pattern encoded in the negative linguistic forms, the speaker tries to distribute a portion of the listener's attention sources over the pleasant content and he/she tries to decrease the strength of attention on the unpleasant concept. In fact, instead of directly encoding an unpleasant concept at the linguistic level, the speaker uses indirect methods and encodes "the negated pleasant concept". By this indirect reference, lesser attention is assigned to the unpleasant concept than when the concept is directly represented in the language. Therefore, linguistic negations structure the concepts in such a way that the window of attention does not open on the unpleasant aspects of the entity in question and does not put them at the center of attention, and through this way, euphemistic meaning will be constructed. It should be noted that the present study re-emphasizes on the interaction and overlap of language and other general cognitive abilities.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78707_e3ee159979837ece0f6c5ae33ad53907.pdf
2021-01-20
199
222
10.22059/jolr.2020.296445.666574
Euphemism
negation
Meaning Construction
attention
Conceptualization
Cognitive linguistics
Sadjad
Mousavi
sadjad.mousavi@yahoo.com
1
Ph.D. Graduated of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
Arsalan
Golfam
golfamarsalan@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ferdows
Aghagolzadeh
aghagolz@modares.ac.ir
3
Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
Aliyeh
Kambuziya
akord@modares.ac.ir
4
Associate Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
امینی، امیرقلی (1369). فرهنگ عوام. چاپ دوم. اصفهان، دانشگاه اصفهان.
1
انزابینژاد، رضا و منـصور ثروت (1366). فرهنگ لغات عامیانه و معاصر، شامل لغات و ترکیبات عامیانه و واژههای نو و متداول در آثار نویسندگان معاصر فارسی، چاپ اول، تهران، انتشارات امیرکبیر.
2
انوری، حسن و دیگران (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن، تهران، سخن.
3
انوشه، حسن و دیگران (1381). فرهنگنامه ادب فارسی. جلد دوم: اصطلاحات، مضامین و موضوعات ادب فارسی. تهران، انتشارات وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی.
4
بیاتی، لیلا (1389). بررسی ساختاری حسن تعبیر در فارسی، پایاننامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکز.
5
جمالزاده، محمدعلی (1382). فرهنگ لغات عامیانه، به کوشش محمدجعفر محجوب، چاپ دوم، تهران، سخن.
6
داد، سیما (1378). فرهنگ اصطلاحات ادبی (واژهنامه، مفاهیم و اصطلاحات ادبی فارسی/ اروپایی)، تهران، مروارید.
7
شاملو، احمد (1377، 1378، 1381). کتاب کوچه، جامع لغات، اصطلاحات،تعبیرات، ضربالمثلهای فارسی، تهران، مازیار.
8
عمید، حسن (1381). فرهنگ عمید، چ 23، تهران، امیرکبیر.
9
فراروی، جمشید (1389). فرهنگ طیفی (تزاروس فارسی)، نسخۀ رقومی شورای عالی اطلاعرسانی.
10
معین، محمد (1371). فرهنگ فارسی، چ 8، تهران، امیرکبیر.
11
میرزاسوزنی، صمد (1385). کاربرد حسنتعبیر در ترجمه، فصلنامۀ مطالعات ترجمه، س 4.ش14، تهران، دانشگاه علامۀ طباطبایی.
12
نجفی، ابوالحسن (1392). فرهنگ فارسی عامیانه، چاپ دوم، تهران، انتشارات نیلوفر.
13
Allan, K. & K., Burridge. 1991. Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.
14
Allwood, J. S., & Gärdenfors, P. (Eds.). 1999. Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition. John Benjamins Publishing.
15
Amid, H. 2002. Amid's Dictionary. 23 th Edition. Tehran: Amir Kabir. [InPersian].
16
Amini, A. 1990. Folklore Dictionary. second edition. Isfahan: University of Isfahan.[In Persian].
17
Anousheh, H& et al. 2002. Dictionary of Persian Literature. Volume 2: Terms, themes and topics of Persian literature. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance Publications. [In Persian].
18
Anvari, H and et al. 2002. Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].
19
Anzabinejad, R, and Mansour Sarvat. 1987. Dictionary Of Slang And Contemporary Words, Including Slang Words And Compounds And New And Common Words in The Works of Contemporary Persian Writers. First Edition. Tehran. Amir Kabir Publications. [In Persian].
20
Bayati, l. 2010. The Structural Analysis of Euphemism in Persian. M.A. Thesis. Islamic Azad University. Central Tehran Branch. [In Persian].
21
Chang, S. J. 1996. Korean (Vol. 4). John Benjamins Publishing.
22
Crespo-Fernández, E. 2013. Euphemistic Metaphors in English and Spanish Epitaphs: A Comparative Study/Metáforas eufemísticas en epitafios ingleses y españoles: Un estudio contrastivo. Atlantis, 99-118.
23
Dabrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.). 2015. Handbook of cognitive linguistics.Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
24
Dad, Sima. 1999. Dictionary of Literary Terms (Glossary, Persian / European Literary Concepts and Terms). Tehran: Morvarid. [In Persian].
25
Dominguez, P. J. 2005. Some Theses on Euphemisms and Dysphemism. Studia Anglica Resoviensia 25, 9-16.
26
Evans, V. & M., Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
27
Evans, V. 2006. Cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
28
Evans, V. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics. In Chipman, S. E. (Ed.).. The Oxford handbook of cognitive science. Oxford University Press.
29
Fan, Z. 2006. The Mechanism of Euphemism: A Cognitive Linguistic Interpretation. US-China Foreign Language, Volume 4, No. 7 (Serial No. 34).
30
Fararoy, J. 2010. Persian Thesaurus. Digital Version of Supreme Council of Information. [In Persian].
31
Geeraerts, D. (Ed.). 2006. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Walter de Gruyter.
32
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. 2007. Introducing cognitive linguistics. In The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. OUP USA.
33
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar (Vol. 379). New York: Academic Press.
34
Givon, T,. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
35
Gradecak-Erdeljic, T. & G., Milic. 2011. Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Case of Euphemisms and Dysphemisms. In: Beczes, Reka, Antonio Barcelona and Francisco Ruize de Mendeza (eds. ), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 147-66.
36
Hammad, O. 2007. Euphemism: Sweet Talking or Deception?. D-Essay in Linguistic, Hogskolan Dalarna.
37
Izanlou, H. & H., Gholami. 2012. Death Euphemism and Dysphemism in Persian Language. Young Scientist. No8 (43), 180-185.
38
Jamalzadeh, M,. 2003. Folk Dictionary. By the efforts of Mohammad Jafar Mahjoub. second edition. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].
39
Kermer, F. 2016. A cognitive grammar approach to teaching tense and aspect in the L2 context. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
40
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago press.
41
Lakoff, G. 2014. The all new don't think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
42
Langacker, R. W. 2013. Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press.
43
Lanham, R. A. 1991. A handlist of rhetorical terms (p. 108). Berkeley: University of California Press.
44
Leech, G. N. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press, USA.
45
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 1996. Depth of negation: A cognitive semantic study. Łódź University Press.
46
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 1998. Negativity as a cognitive and interactional concept. SAP 33, 265-280.
47
Linfoot-Ham, K. 2005. The Linguistics of Euphemism: A Diachronic Study of Euphemism Formation. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 227-263.
48
Łyda, A., & Warchał, K. 2011. Ethnic and Disciplinary Cultures and Understatement: Litotic Constructions in Polish and English Linguistics and Biology Research Articles. In Aspects of Culture in Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning (pp. 193-216). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
49
Martin, E. (Ed.). 2015. Concise colour medical dictionary. Oxford University Press.
50
Mazzon, G. 2004. A History of English Negation. Pearson Education
51
Mirza Suzani, S. (2006). Euphemism in Translation. Translation Studies. 4(14). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University. [In Persian].
52
Mirzasuzni, Samad. 2006. Application of Euphemism in Translation. Journal of Translation Studies.issue 4. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University. [In Persian].
53
Moin, M,. 1992. Persian Dictionary. Ch 8. Tehran: Amirkabir. [In Persian].
54
Moritz, I. 2018. Metonymy-based euphemisms in war-related speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In Linguistic Taboo Revisited Novel Insights from Cognitive Perspectivess. Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
55
Munteano, M.B. 1953. "Les implications esthe´tiques de l’euphe´misme en France au XVIIIesie`cle". Cahiers de l’AssociationInternationale.des E´ tudesFranc_aises 3–5, 153–166.
56
Nyakoe, D. G., Matu, P. M., & Ongarora, D. O. 2012. Conceptualization of'Death is a Journey'and'Death as Rest' in EkeGusii Euphemism. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(7).Oxford E-reference edition
57
Pearsall, J., & Hanks, P. (Eds.). 1998. The new Oxford dictionary of English (Vol. 16). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
58
Peters, H., 2006 Litotes. In: Sloane Th-O (ed) Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press.
59
Rawson, H., 1981. A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Doubletalk. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
60
Redfern, W.D., 1994. Euphemism. In: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford .Volume 3, S. 1180-1181.
61
Shamlou, A., 1998, 1999, 1999, 2002. The Book of Alley: Comprehensive Words, Idioms, Interpretations, Proverbs. Tehran: Maziyar. [In Persian].
62
Silaški, N., 2011. Metaphors and euphemisms–the case of death in English and Serbian. Filološki pregled, 38(2), 101-114.
63
Talmy, L., 2007. Attention phenomena. In The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics.
64
Talmy, L., 2018. Ten lectures on cognitive semantics. Brill.
65
Tyler, A., 2012. Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge.
66
Wilson, R. A., & Keil, F. C. (Eds.)., 2001. The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. MIT press.
67
Zhao, X., 2010. Study on the Features of English Political Euphemism and its Functions. English Language Teaching. Vol. 3, No. 1.
68
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Electrophysiological Evidence of Neurological Representations of the Phonological and Phonetic Properties of Persian Vowels in the Auditory Cortex
How the brain encodes the speech acoustic signal into phonological representations is a fundamental question for the neurobiology of language. The following paper is aimed to investigate the relationship between the phonological and phonetic properties of Persian simple vowels and neurophysiological events corresponding to them. To achieve such goal, we employed electroencephalography to map the Persian vowel system onto cortical sources using the N1 auditory evoked component. We found evidence that the N1 is characterized by asymmetrical indexes in the auditory areas of the cortex, structuring vowel representations. Properties of these ERPs were analyzed and modelled on one hand by the landmarks in the spectral window of their respective stimulus (such as F1, F2 and F2-F1) and on the other hand by the phonological distinctive features categorizing them (namely, height and place). The results revealed that the responses contain at least two distinguishable modulations of N1 components: a symmetric N1a which peaked between 113 to 149 milliseconds after the onset of the stimulus and a heavily left-leaning N1b which peaked between 149 to 170 milliseconds thereafter. Both N1a and N1b subcomponents showed strong correlations with a variety of parameters of both phonological and acoustic nature of the respective stimuli. However, N1a was significantly better modelled by acoustic factors while N1b displayed a better fit to a model based on phonetic factors. Based on such results, this paper argues that firstly the perceptual procedure of vowel categorization is a gradient process starting from demarcation of the stimulus signal according to acoustic landmarks which is done almost symmetrically then the processing load shifts significantly to the left hemisphere for the categorization of the input based on its perceived distinctive features. And secondly, that such information can be exploited to draft a ‘tonochronic’ map of such perceptual processes and define a perceptual field for every vowel and distinctive feature in the tonochronic space.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_79450_70ac24c74ef582fb5a8b083f4fef4a29.pdf
2021-01-20
223
245
10.22059/jolr.2021.313724.666663
auditory cortex
neurology of language
distinctive feature
Electroencephalography
perceptual representation
vowel system
Abbas
Nasri
a.nasri@ut.ac.ir
1
Ph. D Candidate of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Gholamhosain
Karimi doustan
gh5karimi@ut.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
بیجنخان، محمود (1384). واج شناسی: نظریه بهینگی، تهران، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.
1
Ahlfors, S. P., J. Han, J.W. Belliveau and M. S. Hamalainen. 2010. Sensitivity of MEG and EEG to source orientation. Brain Topography, 23:227-232.
2
Baillet, S. 2017. Magnetoencephalography for brain electrophysiology and imaging. Nature Neuroscience, 20:327-339.
3
Bijankhan, M. 2005. Phonology: Optimality Theory, Tehran: SAMT. [in Persian].
4
Boersma, P., and D. Weenink 2011. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Computer program), Version 5.2.
5
Campbell, T., I. Winkler and T. Kujala 2007. N1 and the mismatch negativity are spatiotemporally distinct erp components: disruption of immediate memory by auditory distraction can be related to N1. Psychiphysiology, 44:530-540
6
DeWitt, I. and J. P. Rauschecker. 2012. Phoneme and word recognition in the auditory ventral stream. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America, 109:505-514.
7
Diesch, E., C. Eulitz, S. Hampson and B. Ross. 1996. The neurotopography of vowels as mirrored by evoked magnetic field measurements. Brain Language, 53:143-168.
8
Diesch, E., and T. Luce. 1997. Magnetic fields elicited by tones and vowel formants reveal tonotopy and nonlinear summation of cortical activation. Psychophysiology, 34: 501-510.
9
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2000.Topographic and temporal indices of vowel spectral envelope extraction in the human auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12: 878–893.
10
Embick, D. and D. Poeppel. 2015. Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, integrated, and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, 30:357-366.
11
Eulitz, C., J. Obleser, and A. Lahiri. 2004. Intra-subject replication of brain magnetic activity during the processing of speech sounds. Cognitive brain research 19:82-91.
12
Gage, N., D. Poeppel, T. Roberts and G. Hickok. 1998. Auditory evoked M100 reflects onset acoustics of speech sounds. Brain Research 814: 236-239.
13
Gage, N., T. Roberts and G. Hickok. 2006. Temporal resolution properties of human auditory cortex: reflections in the neuromagnetic auditory evoked M100 component. Brain Research 1069:166-171.
14
Grimaldi, M. 2012. Toward a neural theory of language: Old issues and new perspectives. Journal of Neurolingusitics, 25:304-327.
15
Grimaldy, M., F. Sigona and F. di Russo. 2016. Electroencephalographic evidence of vowels computation and representation in human auditory cortex, In A.M. di Sciullo (Ed.) Biolinguistic Investigations on the Language Faculty (79-100), Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
16
Halle, M. 2002. From memory to speech and back: papers on phonetics and phonology 1954–2002. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17
Hickok, G., and D. Poeppel. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92:67-99.
18
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2007. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8:393-402.
19
Hoonhorst, L., C. Collin, E. Markessis, M. Radeau, P. Deltenre and W. Sernicales. 2009. The N100 component: an electrophysiological cure of voicing perception, In S. Fuchs, H. loevenbruck, D. pape and P. Perrier (Eds.) Some aspects of speech in brain (5-34) Bern: Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe.
20
Kaas, J.H., and T.A. Hackett. 2000. Subdivisions of auditory cortex and processing streams in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97: 11793-11799.
21
Ladefoged, P. 2006. a course in phonetics (5th Ed.) Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.
22
Mäkelä, A.M., P. Alku, and H. Tiitinen. 2003. The auditory N1m reveals the left-hemispheric representation of vowel identity in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 353:111-114.
23
Manca A.D., F. Di Russo, F. Sigona and M. Grimaldi. 2019. Electrophysiological evidence of phonemotopic representations of vowels in the primary and secondary auditory cortex,Cortex, 121:385-398.
24
Manca, A. D., and M. Grimaldi. 2016. Vowels and consonants in the brain: Evidence from magnetoencephalographic studies on the N1m in normal-hearing listeners. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1413.
25
May, P.J.C., and H. Tiitinen. 2010. Mismatch negativity (MMN), the deviance-elicited auditory deflection, explained. Psychophysiology, 47:66–122.
26
Mesgarani, N., C. Cheung, K. Johnson and E.F. Chang. 2014.Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science, 343:1006-1010.
27
Näätänen, R. and T. Picton. 1987. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and analysis of the component structure. Journal of Psychophysiology, 24: 375-425.
28
Obleser, J., T. Elbert, A. Lahiri and C. Eulitz. 2003a. Cortical representation of vowels reflects acoustic dissimilarity determined by formant frequencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 15: 207-213.
29
Obleser, J., A. Lahiri and C. Eulitz. 2003b. Auditory-evoked magnetic field codes place of articulation in timing and topography around 100 milliseconds post syllable onset. Neuroimage, 20: 1839-1847.
30
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2004a. Intra-subject replication of brain activity during the processing of speech sounds. Cognitive Brain Research, 19:82-91.
31
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2004b. Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16:31-39.
32
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2006. Now You Hear It, Now You Don’t: Transient Traces of Consonants and their Non-Speech Analogues in the Human Brain. Cerebral Cortex, 16:1069-1076.
33
Obleser, J. and F. Eisner. 2009. Pre-lexical abstraction of speech in the auditory cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13:14-19.
34
Ohl, F.W. and H. Scheich. 1997. Orderly cortical representation of vowels based on formant interaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 94: 9440-9444.
35
Oldfield, R.C. 1971. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9:97–113.
36
Pantev, C., O. Bertrand, C. Eulitz, C. Verkindt, S. Hampson, G. Schuierer and T. Elbert. 1995. Specific tonotopic organizations of different areas of the human auditory cortex revealed by simultaneous magnetic and electric recordings. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology, 94:26-40.
37
Poeppel, D., C. Phillips, E. Yellin, H.A. Rowley, T.P.L. Roberts and A. Marantz. 1997. Processing of vowels in supratemporal auditory cortex. Neuroscience Letters, 221: 145-148.
38
Rauschecker, J.P. and S.K. Scott. 2009. Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: Nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12:718-724.
39
Romani, G.L., S.J. Williamson and L.Kaufman. 1982. Tonotopic organization of the human auditory cortex. Science, 216:1339-1340.
40
Roberts, T.P.L. and D. Poeppel. 1996. Latency of auditory evoked M100 as a function of tone frequency. NeuroReport ,7:1138-1140.
41
Roberts, T.P.L., P. Ferrari and D. Poeppel. 1998. Latency of evoked neuromagnetic M100 reflects perceptual and acoustic stimulus attributes. NeuroReport, 9:3265-3269.
42
Roberts, T.P.L., P. Ferrari, S.M. Stufflebe, and D. Poeppel. 2000. Latency of the auditory evoked neuromagnetic field components: stimulus dependence and insights toward perception. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 17:114-129.
43
Roberts, T.P.L., E.J. Flagg and N.M. Gage. 2004. Vowel categorization induces departure of M100 latency from acoustic prediction. NeuroReport 15:1679-1682.
44
Saenz, M. and D.R.M Langers. 2014. Tonotopic mapping of human auditory cortex. Hearing Research, 307: 42-52.
45
Scharinger, M., W.J. Idsardi, and S.Poe. 2011. A Comprehensive Three-dimensional Cortical Map of Vowel Space. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23:3972-3982.
46
Scott, S.K., and I.S. Johnsrude. 2003. The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception. Trends in Neurosciences, 26: 100-107.
47
Scott, S.K and C. McGettigan. 2013. Do temporal processes underlie left hemisphere dominance in speech perception? Brain and Language, 127:36-45.
48
Shestakova, A., E. Brattico, A. Soloviev, V. Klucharev and M. Huotilainen. 2004. Orderly cortical representation of vowel categories presented by multiple exemplars. Cognitive Brain Research, 21:342-350.
49
Stevens, K.N. 2002. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 111:1872-1891.
50
Talavage, T.M., M.I. Sereno, J.R. Melcher, P.J. Ledden, B.R. Rosen, and A.M. Dale. 2004. Tonotopic organization in human auditory cortex revealed by progressions of frequency sensitivity. Journal of neurophysiology, 91:1282-1296.
51
Woods, D.L. 1995. The component structure of N1 wave of the human auditory evoked potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 44:102-109.
52
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Clausal Complements of Noun in Persian
Clausal dependents of noun in Persian are divided into two groups: relative clauses (restrictive relative clause /RRC and non-restrictive relative clause /NRRC), and clausal complements of noun (CCN). By mentioning the semantic and syntactic differences between these two groups, Iranian researchers often consider them as independent and distinct clauses. In this study, we show that the so-called CCN is a kind of RC and for some reason they cannot be complements. First, like RCs, these clauses are optional and adjunctive. Second, those few nouns that can accept a clausal dependent, unlike their corresponding verbs, do not semantically indicate an event or process or action. Third, the behavior of these clauses happens to be remarkably similar to that of NRRCs, mainly because the head nominal in both clauses are definite. The necessity of definiteness arises from the information structure of the clause and its being discourse-bound. On the other hand, contrary to what has been described in the literature, the head N of the clauses is not necessarily a predicative noun; however, semantically it necessarily does contain an event descriptor. That is why not every noun can be the head N of these clauses. The seeming CCNs are in fact RCs that are the product of relativization of an event argument. Since this element is hidden and located in one of the functional projections, CCNs seem to have no gap/resumptive pronoun. Thus, it is better to use the term “event-relative clauses” to refer to these clauses. The syntactic analysis of these clauses –in a manner similar to the syntactic analysis of RCs– will justify the impossibility of extraction, because according to Phase Theory, CP and DP are the phases that the extracted item must first move to their edges; However, the specifier of these two phrases is filled in by the relative operator and the DP, and no element can be extracted from it.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_79103_bb1c40e41e6d184302efa124b81e469f.pdf
2021-01-20
247
269
10.22059/jolr.2020.304147.666609
Complex NPs
relative clause
Clausal complement of noun
Gap
Resumptive pronoun
extraction
Mona
Valipour
m_valipour@sbu.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
َAli
Darzi
alidarzi@ut.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
انوشه، مزدک (۱۳۹۳)، «ضمیر پوچواژهای پنهان در زبان فارسی: رویکردی کمینهگرا»، زبانشناسی و گویشهای خراسان، ش۱۱، صص۲۹-۵۴.
1
درزی، علی و شجاع تفکری رضایی (۱۳۸۹)، «پوچواژه در زبان فارسی»، پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، س۲، ش۳، ص ۵۷-۷۳.
2
طبیبزاده، امید (۱۳۹۱)، دستور زبان فارسی بر اساس نظریه گروههای خودگردان در دستور وابستگی، تهران، مرکز.
3
طبیبزاده، امید (۱۳۹۳)، «بندهای وابستۀ اسم در زبان فارسی و روابط وابستگی در درون آنها»، دستور، ش۱۰، ۱۱۷-۱۴۵.
4
غلامعلیزاده، خسرو (۱۳۸۲)، ساخت زبان فارسی، چ ۴، تهران، احیاء کتاب.
5
Anoushe, M. 2015, Null Expletive Pronoun: A Minimalist Approach, Linguistics and Khorasan Dialects, 6: 11, 29-53. [In Persian].
6
Arsenijevic, B. 2009, Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua, 119: 39-50.
7
Cha, J.-Y. 1998, Relative clause or noun complement clause: some diagnoses. In: Park, B.S., Yoon, J.H.-S. (ed.), Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Korean Linguistics, University of Hawaii, 6–9 July 1998. International Circle of Korean Linguistics, Seoul, 73–82.
8
Chinque, G. and Krapova, I. 2012, Finite clausal “complements” of nouns as (non-restrictive) reduced relative clauses, Paper given at GIST5. Generalizing relative strategies. University of Ghent, March 22, 2012. <https://tildeweb.au.dk/au132769/clauses-nominals/worksh12-hand-outs/ho-cinque12.pdf>.
9
Chomsky, N. 1986, Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
10
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. A. Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (ed.), Step by step: Essayson minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 89-155.
11
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In K. L. Hale, and Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1-52.
12
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In C. P. O. Robert Freidin, Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (ed.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 133-166
13
Citko, B. 2014, Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14
Darzi, A. and Sh. Tafakkori Rezayi, 2010, Expletives in Persian, Researches in Linguistics, 2: 3. 57-73. [In Persian].
15
Darzi, A. 1996, Word order, NP movement, and opacity conditions in Persian, Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
16
Demirdache, H. 1991, Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives, and dislocation structures. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
17
Folli, R., H. Harley and S. Karimi, 2004, Determinants of Event Type in Persian Complex Predicates. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1, 101–125.
18
Gholamalizadeh, Kh. 2003. Persian Structure, Tehran: Ehyae Ketab. [In Persian].
19
Grimshaw, J. 1990, Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20
Haegeman, L. 2012, Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 8, New York: Oxford University Press.
21
Haegeman, L. 2014, Locality and the Distribution of Main Clause Phenomena, In Enoch Oladé Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti, and Ian Roberts (ed.), Locality. New York: Oxford University Press. 186-222.
22
Hegarty, M. 1992, Familiar complements and their complementizers: On some determinants of A’-locality. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.
23
Hooper, J. and S. Thompson, 1973, On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 4: 465–497.
24
Hornstein, N., J. Nunes and K. K. Grohmann, 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.
25
Karimi, S. 2001, Persian complex DPs: How mysterious are they? Canadian Journal of Linguistics. No. 46: 63-96.
26
Karimi-Doostan, G. 1997. Light Verb Constructions in Persian. Ph.D. diss., University of Essex.
27
Kayne, R. 1994, The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press
28
Kayne, R. 2010, Comparisons and Contrasts. New York: Oxford University Press.
29
Kempson, R. 1975, Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30
Kiparsky P., and C. Kiparsky, 1970, Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph (ed.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 73-143.
31
Koster, J. 1978, Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Samuel J. Keyser (ed), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–64.
32
Matushansky, O. 2005, Going through a Phase. In M. McGinnis & N. Richards (ed.), Perspectives on Phases. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: 81-157.
33
Megerdoomian, K. 2002, Beyond Words and Phrases: A Unified Theory of Predicate Composition. Ph.D. diss. University of Southern California
34
Melvold, J. 1991, Factivity and definiteness. In Lisa Cheng and Hamida Demirdache (ed.), More Papers on Wh-Movement, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 97–117.
35
Miller, P. 2001, Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics, 39: 683–701.
36
Nichols, L. 2003, Attitude evaluation in complex NPs. In A. Carnie & H. Harley & M. Willie (ed.), Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 155-164.
37
Rizzi, L. 1990, Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
38
Stowell, T. 1981, Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
39
Tabibzadeh, O. 2012, Persian Grammar: a Theory of Autonomous Phrases Based on Dependency Grammar, Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian].
40
Tabibzadeh, O. 2015, Clausal Dependents of noun in Persian, Grammar, 10: 117-145. [In Persian].
41
Taghvaipour, M. A. 2005, Persian relative clauses in head-driven phrase structure grammar. Ph.D. diss., University of Essex, England.
42
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Evolution of Verbal Prefix mi in Persian Language
This paper explores the evolution of the inflectional verbal prefix mi and its diverse roles from the Old Persian through the Middle Persian language, to the New Persian. In the earlier stages of Persian, verbal prefixes played varied roles, such as the adverbial function. Verbal prefixes could extend or restrict the principal meaning of the verb, or even change it altogether. The majority of verbal prefixes could originally be used both as adverbs and prepositions. However, the middle period of the Persian language witnessed a gradual reduction in the functional roles verbal prefixes played, as the language drifted toward analyticity. For this reason, verbal prefixes were no more able to change the verb meaning as they used to in the earlier stages. In other words, they changed to be fixed prefixes which were not generative anymore in middle Persian and the later stages of the language. In fact, verbal prefixes were grammaticalized and accepted various grammatical roles. This prefix is the contemporary Persian mi that represents the durative or habituative aspect. This inflectional prefix mi originates from old *ham-aiwa through the middle Persian hamē which means “always” in Middle Persian. Hamē also represents continuity and habits, while it does not have a fixed place in the sentence having been attested in a variety of places. In classical Persian literature texts, hamē is attested in the forms of hami and mi. The two classical Persian forms gradually moved closer to the verb, and were finally attached to the verb to be grammaticalized as an inflectional prefix. Contemporary mi represents not only continuity and habit, but also plays a modal role to signify unfulfilled wishes and unrealized assumptions by prefixing a past verb. Thus, the adverbial *ham-aiwa has gone through a long process of grammaticalization, and has become an inflectional prefix to signal continuity and habits aspect and also irreal modality.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_78708_66d8836ad401fb95821ef9f3086160f8.pdf
2021-01-20
271
285
10.22059/jolr.2020.310217.666642
durative/habituative aspect
adverb
verbal prefix
grammaticalization
irreal modality
ّFataneh
Yousefi
fa.yosefi1234@gmail.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate in Ancient Iranian Languages Branch, Azad University, Tehran, Iran.Central Branch of Islamic Azad University, the literature Faculty, Persian Literature Group.
AUTHOR
Mojtaba
Monshizade
monshizadeh30@yahoo.com
2
Professor of Historical Linguistics, in faculty of literature and foreign Languages, Allameh Tabatba'i University, Tehran. Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Farah
Zahedi
zahediut@gmail.com
3
Research Assistant Professor of National Library, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
ابوالقاسمی، محسن (1387). دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، تهران، سمت.
1
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدیگیوی (1375). دستور زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، تهران، فاطمی.
2
شفایی، احمد (1363). مبانی علمی دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، نوین.
3
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1386). فرهنگ پیشوندها و پسوندهای فارسی، تهران، زوار.
4
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1392). دستور مفصل امروز، چاپ چهارم، تهران، سخن.
5
ماهوتیان، شهرزاد (1387). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه ردهشناسی، ترجمة مهدی سمایی، چاپ پنجم، تهران، نشر مرکز.
6
ناتلخانلری، پرویز (1377). تاریخ زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، تهران، فردوس.
7
وحیدیان کامیار، محمدتقی و غلامرضا عمرانی (1387). دستور زبان فارسی (1)، چاپ یازدهم، تهران، سمت.
8
Asha, R. 2017. Prsg Language (The so-called Pahlavi), Tehran, Sade.
9
Brunner, Ch. j. 1977. A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian, Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
10
Jackson, A. 1892, An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit. Stuttgart: W Kohlhammer.
11
Kent. R. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
12
Skjærvø, P. O. 2010. Middle West Iranian,In G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages (43-195), London and New York: Routledge.
13
Abolghasemi, M. 2010. A Historical Grammar of the Persian Language. Tehran: Samt. [In Persian].
14
Anvari, H. and Ahmadi Givi, H. 1995. Persian Syntax 2. Tehran: Fatemi. [In Persian].
15
Farshidvard, Kh. 2007. A Dictionary of Prefixes and Suffixes. Tehran: Zavvar. [In Persian].
16
Farshidvard, Kh. 2013. A detailed grammar of Persian Language. 4th Edition. Tehran: Sokhan, [In Persian].
17
Mahutiyan, Sh. 2008. Persian Grammar: A Typological Approach. M. Sama'i (trans). Tehran: Markaz, [In Persian].
18
Natel Khanlari, P. 1986. A History of the Persian Language. Vol. 2. Tehran: Nashre No, [In Persian].
19
Samsami, M. 1967. Postpositions and Prepositions of Persian Language. Esfahan: Masha'l, [In Persian].
20
Shafa'i, A. 1984. Scientific Principle of Persian Grammar. Tehran: Novin, [In Persian].
21
Vahidiyan Kamyar, M. & Omrani, Gh. 2008. Persian Grammar 1. Eleventh edition. Tehran: Samt. [In Persian].
22