ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Orthographic depth of Persian
The present study clarifies the difference between orthographic words and their phonological correspondents in Persian writing system via computing orthographic depth of Persian writing system. In this article, first, the relationship between orthographic forms of the words and their phonological correspondents is formalized by using context free and context sensitive grapheme-phoneme rules. Then, the phonological bases of diacritics are studied. Finally, a method for computing orthographic depth of Persian writing system is introduced regardless of linguistic knowledge. The results indicate that it is possible to reduce the depth of Persian writing system by phonological, morphological and syntactic knowledge of the native speakers.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35921_fb5c925311e91f626f06c3d82872d8ee.pdf
2013-04-21
1
19
10.22059/jolr.2013.35921
orthographic depth
orthographic form
phonological form
grapheme
diacritics
Linguistic knowledge
Mahmoud
Bijankhan
mbjkhan@ut.ac.ir
1
Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran
AUTHOR
Elham
Alaee Abouzar
elham_alaee2000@yahoo.com
2
PhD student, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran
AUTHOR
دانای طوس، مریم. 1384. اثرات شفافیت و تیرگی خط فارسی بر مهارت زبان خواندن کودکان طبیعی و خوانشپریش رشدی فارسی زبان. رساله دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
1
Buckwalter,T. 2004. Issues in Arabic orthography and morphology analysis. In computational approaches to Arabic script-based languages in conjunction with COLING 2004. Switzerland.
2
El_Imam,Y. 2003. Phonetization of Arabic: rules and algorithms. Computer speech and language.18(2004):339-373. Elsvier Ltd.
3
Esfahbod,B. 2004. Persian computing with unicode.
4
In 25th internationalization and unicode conference,
5
Washington, DC.
6
Gibson, E.J., A. Pick, H. Osser, and M. Hommond, 1962. The role of grapheme-phoneme correspondence in the perception of words. The American journal of psychology, Vol.75, No.4: 554-570.
7
Megerdoomian, K. 2004. Finite state morphological analysis of Persian. In computational approaches to Arabic script-based languages. Switzerland.
8
Pisowicz, A. 1985. Origins of the new and middle Persian phonological system. Nakladem Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.
9
Rogers,H. 2005. Writing systems: A linguistics approach. MA: Blackwell textbooks in linguistics. Blackwell publishing.
10
Sproat,R. 2000. A computational theory of writing systems. Cambridge University Press. Stanford, CA.
11
Trammel, R.L. 1990. Varieant grapheme-phoneme correspondences in unfamiliar polysyllabic words. Language and speech. 33(4): 293-323.
12
Van den Bosch, A., A. Content, W. Daelemans, and B. De Gelder, 1994. Analysing orthographic depth of different languages using data-oriented algorithms. In 2nd international conference on quantitative linguistics. Moscow.
13
Venezky, R.L. 2004. In Search of the perfect orthography. Written language and literacy :139-163. Amsterdam. John Benjamins publishing company.
14
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Persian modal verbs and the expression of modality
Modal verbs and their different meanings can be investigated on the basis of various theoretical frameworks. In this paper, Persian modal verbs are examined and analyzed in terms of degrees and kinds of modality proposed by Palmer (1990). Our analysis shows that although bǎyad ‘must’ does not entail the proposition, it is used to express three degrees of epistemic modality, two degrees of dynamic modality and a degree of deontic modality. tavǎnestan ‘can’ and šodan ‘to become’, on the other hand, behave rather differently; they are used in expressing two degrees of epistemic modality, two degrees of deontic modality and a degree of dynamic modality. According to this research, Persian modals have the capacity to express all degrees and kinds of modality proposed by Palmer.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35922_5cf906967bbdb042c0a845f5c5d8061a.pdf
2013-04-21
21
40
10.22059/jolr.2013.35922
Modal Verbs
degree and kind of modality
epistemic
deontic and dynamic modalities
Jalal
Rahimian
jrahimian@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
1
Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Shiraz
AUTHOR
Mohammad
Amouzadeh
amouzadeh3@fgn.ui.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Isfahan
AUTHOR
منابع
1
باطنی، محمد رضا، 1348 . توصیف ساختمان دستوری زبان فارسی. تهران: امیرکبیر.
2
باطنی، محمد رضا، 1354. مسائل زبانشناس نوین (ده مقاله). تهران: آگاه.
3
رحیمیان، جلال، 1381. دستور زبان فارسی: صورت، نقش و معنا. شیراز: مرکز نشر دانشگاه شیراز.
4
_________، 1385. تحلیل نحوی و معنائی ادات در زبان فارسی. دستور: ویژهنامهی فرهنگستان، جلد 2. شماره 2.
5
_________،1386. ارتباط صوری و معنایی «نمود» در گروههای فعلی فارسی. مجموعه مقالات هفتمین همایش زبانشناسی ایران. جلد 1، صص 260-244
6
عموزاده، محمد و حدائق رضایی، 1389. ابعاد معناشناختی «باید» در زبان فارسی. پژوهشهای زبانی، شماره 1 صص 78-57.
7
عموزاده، محمد و شاه ناصری، شادی، 1390. بررسی پیامدهای ترجمه از انگلیسی بر مقوله وجهیت در فارسی، پژوهشهای زبانی، جلد اول، شماره دوم، صص 21-50.
8
غلامعلی زاده، خسرو، 1374. ساخت زبان فارسی. تهران: احیاء کتاب.
9
گیوی، احمد و حسن انوری، 1370. دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: فاطمی.
10
مشکوهالدینی، مهدی، 1379. دستور زبان فارسی برپایة نظریة گشتاری. مشهد: انتشارات دانشگاه فرودسی مشهد.
11
نقی زاده، محمود، محمد عموزاده و منوچهر توانگر، 1390. بررسی مفهوم ذهنیت در افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی. در پژوهشهای زبانی. سال سوم، شماره اول، بهار و تابستان 1390. صص 20-1.
12
وحیدیان کامیار، تقی و غلامرضا عمرانی، 1379. دستور زبان فارسی (1). تهران: سمت
13
منابع انگلیسی
14
Amouzadeh, M. and Tavangar, M. and Shahnaseri 2012. Subjective modality in Persian and English parallel texts, in Subjectivity in Language and Discourse, Nicole Baumgarten, Inke Du Bois and Julian House (eds. PP. 245-266. East Sussex: Emerald Group Publishing.
15
Butler, J. 2003. A minimalist Treatment of Modality. Lingua 113, 967-996.
16
Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar:Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17
Bybee, J. L. 1998. Irrealis as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40, 257–271.
18
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. Croom Helm, London.
19
Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case. In: Bach, E., Harms, R.T. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. 1–88. Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc, New York.
20
Fintel, K. V. 2006. Modality and language. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2ndedition), D. M. Borchart (ed.). 1-16. Detroit: MacMillan
21
Givo´n, T., 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
22
Halliday, M. A. K. 2002. On Grammar. In: Webster, J. (Ed.). In: Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. I. London and New York: Continuum.
23
Hare, R., 1970. Meaning and speech acts. Philosophical Review. 79, 3–24.
24
Hengeveld, K. 1988. Illocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics. 6, 227–269.
25
Huddleston, R. D. and G. K. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26
Lazard, G. 1995. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. (Translation from the French version (1957) by A. L. Shirely). New York: Mazda.
27
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28
Mace, John 2003. Persian Grammar. New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
29
Mahootian, Shahrzad 1997. Persian Grammar. London: Routledge.
30
Narrog, H. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences. 27, 165–192.
31
Nuyts, J. 2006. Modality: overview and linguistic issues. In The expression of modality, W. Frawley (ed.), 1-26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33
Palmer, F.R. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, second ed. London: Longman.
34
Palmer, F.R. 1998. Mood and Modality: basic principles.In: Brown, K. and J. Miller (Eds.). Oxford: Elsevier, 229-235. Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories.
35
Rahimian, J. 1995. Clause Types and other Aspects of Clause Structure in Persian: a Study Oriented towards Comparison with English. Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University, Brisbane.
36
_________ 2007. How complements differ from adjuncts in Persian. RASK Vol. 26, 33-55.
37
Tavangar, M. and M. Amouzadeh 2009. Subjective modality and tense in Persian. Language Sciences. 31, 853–873
38
Traugott, E.C., 2003. Approaching modality from the perspective of relevance theory. Language Sciences. 25, 657–669.
39
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Production of English be-passive by Farsi-speaking EFL learners: A cognitive-construction grammar approach
English passive has always been regarded as a challenge by Farsi-speaking EFL learners. Despite the presence of many linguistic and pedagogical approaches in studying and teaching English passive, there still appears to be a pedagogical gap facing Farsi-speaking EFL learners dealing with this construction. Taking up the cognitive-construction grammar perspective, the present article aims to investigate some aspects of the Farsi learners' errors emerged in forming English be-passive. In the present article, while investigating the linguistic behavior of Farsi-speaking EFL learners in forming English be-passive through designing and implementing a writing experiment on a group of 30 subjects of intermediate proficiency level, we found that subjects show a variety of performance errors which can be analyzed in terms of cognitive-construction grammar approach, and consequently, several suggestions can be put forth for teaching English be-passive to Farsi-speaking EFL learners.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35923_01fba7769b0081602494c95a8f296677.pdf
2013-04-21
41
60
10.22059/jolr.2014.35923
passive construction
construction grammar
cognitive grammar
cognitive-construction grammar
Error Analysis
Houshang
Besati
ah.homayounfar@gmail.com
1
PhD student, Department of Linguistics, Allameh Tabtaba’i University
AUTHOR
Shahla
Raghibdoost
2
Assistant professor, Department of Linguistics, Allameh Tabtaba’i University
AUTHOR
منابع
1
Arnett, L.1995. The passive in German: The view from cognitive grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.
2
Fillmore, C.1988. The mechanisms of "construction grammar". Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 35-55.
3
Fillmore, C.1989. Grammatical Construction Theory and the Familiar Dichotemies. In R. Dietrich and C. F. Graumann (eds.), Language Processing in Social Context, (17-38). Amsterdam: North- Holland/ Elsevier.
4
Goldberg, A.1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5
Goldberg, A.2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, v. 7, No. 5: 219-224.
6
Goldberg, A.2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7
Haiman, J.1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56: 514-540.
8
Lakoff, G.1977. Linguistic gestalts. CLS, 13: 236-87.
9
Lakoff, G.1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10
Langacker, R.1982. Space, grammar, analysability, and the English Passive. Language, 58: 59-80.
11
Langacker, R.1987a, b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: I, II, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
12
Langacker, R.2002. Concept, image and symbol. 2nd ed. Berlin New York: Mouton.
13
Murphy, P.2004. Passive prototypes, topicality and conceptual space. Ph.D. dissertation, Chapel Hill.
14
Rice, S.1987a. Towards a Transitive Prototype: Evidence from Some Atypical English Passives. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13: 422-434.
15
Rice, S.1987b. Towards a cognitive Model of Transitivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
16
Slobin, D.1993. Adult Language Acquisition: A View from child language study. In C. Perdue (ed.), Adult language acquisition: cross linguistic perspectives. V, 2 (pp. 239-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17
Wierzbicka, A.1995. Metaphors linguists live by: Lakoff & Johnson Contra Aristotle. Review of Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Papers in Linguistics, 19: 287-313.
18
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Passive suffix *-i̭á- in Iranian languages
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35925_b79f4cb7f1e6d176d280a4fda4e8aec4.pdf
2013-04-21
61
74
10.22059/jolr.2013.35925
passive stem
passive suffix *-i̭á-
Iranian languages
old
middle
new
Hosein
Solgi
h.solgi66@gmail.com
1
MA, Department of Ancient Iranian Culture and Languages, Bu-Ali Sina University of Hamedan
LEAD_AUTHOR
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Causative alternation in Persian
In this article, the causative alternation in Persian is discussed. First, it is shown that Persian anticausative verbs involve a CAUSE component and an implicit external argument. Second, we claim that causative alternation arises when a single change-of-state verb invokes more than one semantic frame (Fillmore, 1985): causative frame and anticausative frame. These semantic frames are the result of focusing a special part of the schematic scene described by the verb and together with the relevant syntactic frame, they are represented as lower level constructions (Iwata, 2008). Third, the role of arguments in participation in causative alternation can be accounted in a usage-based model of grammar. Based on this view, constructions sanction linguistic expressions as a whole.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35928_60d7cf87df928c92fed36db9b19e8a7b.pdf
2013-04-21
75
94
10.22059/jolr.2013.35928
causative alternation
anticausative
lexical-constructional approach
Frame Semantics
usage-based model
Ali
Safari
alisafari228@gmail.com
1
Hazrat Masoumeh University
AUTHOR
Gholamhosain
Karimi doustan
gh5karimi@ut.ac.ir
2
ادبیات و علوم انسانی
AUTHOR
منابع
1
جباری، محمدجعفر (1382). تفاوت مجهول در زبانهای فارسی و انگلیسی.مجلةزبانشناسی 78.78-94
2
حقبین، فریده (1383). جهت میانه در زبان فارسی. مجلةدانشکدةادبیاتدانشگاهفردوسی146. 141- 154
3
راسخمهند، محمد (1386). ساخت ناگذرا در فارسی. مجله زبان و زبانشناسی 1 . 1-20
4
رضایی، والی (1389). نگاهی تازه به ساخت مجهول در زبان فارسی. مجله پژوهشهای زبانشناسی. س 2. ش 1. 34-19
5
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1364). مجهول در زبان فارسی. مجلهزبانشناسی. س 2. 1. 45-31
6
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1384) .ساختهای سببی در زبان فارسی. پژوهشهای زبانشناختی فارسی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. 82-18
7
طبیبزاده، امید (1385) .ظرفیتفعلوساختهایبنیادینجملهدرفارسیامروز؛پژوهشیبراساسنظریهدستوروابستگی. تهران: نشر مرکز.
8
کریمی، سیمین (1376). از ژرف ساخت تا ساخت منطقی و نظریه مینیمالیست. مجله زبانشناسی 24. 95-47
9
نوبهار، مهرانگیز (1372). دستور کاربردیزبانفارسی.تهران: انتشارات رهنما.
10
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou and F. Schäfer. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (ed.). Phases of hnterpretation (187– 211). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11
Boas, H.C. 2003. A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. In Carmichael, L.C.H. Huang, and V. Samiian (eds.). Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference in Linguistics (13. 27-42).
12
Chierchia, G. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert(eds.). The Unaccusativity Puzzle (22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13
Comrie, B. 1992. Language universal and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. England: Blackwell; 2nd edn.
14
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quadernie di Semantica 6(2): 222-254.
15
Fillmore, C. J. and C. Baker. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds.). The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16
Fisher, C., G. Hall, S. Rakowitz, and L. Gleitman. 1991. When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. IRCS Report (91-41). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
17
Folli, R., Harley H. and S. Karimi. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115: 1365-1410.
18
Hale, L. & S. J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
19
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie and M. Polinsky (eds.). Causatives and Transitivity (87- 20). Amstrdam: John Benjamins.
20
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Approach. (Constructional Approaches to Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structure. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press
22
Kallulli, D. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38:770-780.
23
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. 1997. Light verb construction in Persian. Doctoral dissertation. University of Essex.
24
Koontz-Garboden, A. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:77-138
25
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical semantics interface. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
26
Megerdoomian, K. 2001. Primitive elements of verbal predicates: Evidence from Persian. Workshop on syntax of predication. Berlin: ZAS.
27
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
28
Pinker, S . 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge Mass: MIT press
29
Piñón, C. 2001. A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In
30
Hastings R., B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky (eds.). Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
31
Rappaport M. and B. Levin. 2011. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. in M. Everaert, M. Marelj, and T. Siloni, (eds.). The Theta system: argument structure at the Interface. Oxford University Press.
32
Reinhart, T. 2002. The theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290.
33
Schafer, F. 2009. The causative alternation. In Language and Linguistics Compass 3.2: 641- 681.
34
Taylor, J. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35
Tayyeb, S.M.T. 2001. A functional-typological approach to passive in contemporary Farsi. Paper presented at the Fifth Linguistics Conference in Iran. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University.
36
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Middle verbs and their study in Younger Avesta
Part II: Avestan verbs
Time, aspect, person, number and active and middle voices are the categories based on which the verbal structure of the ancient Iranian languages are studied. According to the prevailing viewpoint, middle voice is the means by which a transitive root is changed to an intransitive one. This viewpoint has its origin in the verbal roots transitive when conjugated in the active voice and intransitive when in the middle, whereas a closer study of the verbal structure of ancient Iranian languages displays features challenging the validity of the current viewpoint. This article analyzes the general structure of middle verbs as an introduction to the study and re-categorization of the Younger Avestan middle verbs is to appear in another article.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35929_41159c8b96c1803f345ff886647e3f25.pdf
2013-04-21
95
110
10.22059/jolr.2013.35929
voice
transitive
intransitive
Active
middle
Azhideh
Moqaddam
amoqadam@ut.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Ancient Iranian Culture and Languages, University of Tehran
AUTHOR
Narges
Ne’matollahi
2
PhD student, Department of Iranian Studies, University of Indiana
AUTHOR
Bartholomoae Ch. 1904. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Karl J
1
Trübner.
2
Gershevitch, I. 1995. Approaches to Zoroaster’s Gathas. Iran 33: 1-29.
3
Gnoli, Gh. 2000. Zoroaster in history. New York: Bibliotheca Persica
4
Humbach, H.- Pallan R. Ichapora 1998. Zāmyād Yasht, Yasht 19 of the
5
Younger Avesta. text, translation, commentary. Harrassowitz Verlag (Wiesbaden).
6
Kellens J. 1984. Le Verbe Avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
7
Kellens J. 1995. Liste du Verbe Avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
8
Kellens J. 2001. Zoroastre dans l’histoire ou dans le myth? À propos du
9
dernier livre de Gherardo Gnoli. Journal Asiatique: 171-184.
10
Kemmer S. 1993. The middle voice (Typological studies in language; 23).
11
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
12
Kulikov L.I. 2006. Passive and middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing
13
the early Vedic passive paradigm. In: W. Abraham & L. Leisiö
14
(eds.). Passivization and typology: form and function (62-81). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
15
Kulikov L.I. 2007a. The reflxive pronouns in Vedic: A diachronic and typ
16
ological perspectiv. Lingua 117/8: 1412-1433.
17
Kulikov L.I. 2007b. Reciprocal constructions in Vedic". In V.P. Nedjalkov
18
et al.(eds.). Reciprocal constructions (2: 709-738). Amsterdam:
19
Benjamins.
20
P’yankov, Ì.V. (1996). Zoroastr v istorii sredneì Azii: problema mesta i vremeni. Vestnik drevneI istorii: 3-23.
21
Shapur Shahbazi, A. (2002). Recent speculations on the traditional date of Zoroaster. Studia Iranica 31: 7-45.
22
Skjaervo, P.O. (1994). Hymnic Composition in the Avesta. Die Sprache 36: 199-243.
23
Skjaervo, P.O. (2003-2004). The Antiquity of Old Avestan. Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān 3:15-41.
24
Kulikov L.I. 2011[1]. Voice Typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.). The Oxford
25
handbook of linguistic typology (368-398). Oxford: Oxford University.
26
[1] نویسنده با بزرگواری این مقاله را پیش از چاپ در اختیار نگارندگان قرار دادند.
27
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Conceptual metaphor in a Khotanese text
Cognitive science has found out that languages typically make use of conceptual metaphors to concretize abstract meanings. Conceptual metaphor explains a target domain which is abstract via a source domain which is concrete. In other words, conceptual metaphor compares an abstract domain with a concrete one and thus makes it understandable for listeners/readers. This article studies the conceptual metaphors used in an ancient text in Khotanese language. Khotanese is an Eastern Middle Iranian language. The text is the 20th chapter of the book of Zambasta, which contains valuable Buddhist poems. The 20th chapter contains advices of Buddha to young monks. Buddha wishes to teach these monks his complicated teachings and thus he may have made use of various conceptual metaphors in order to concretize his teachings. This article primarily shows that Khotanese, like all other languages, has profited from conceptual metaphors. Also, this article attempts to render a better understanding of Buddha's teachings explained in this chapter.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_35930_0c5990aadbf9ec6975ac2b3217052248.pdf
2013-04-21
111
127
10.22059/jolr.2013.35930
Cognitive linguistics
conceptual metaphor
Khotanese language
Zambasta
Buddha's teachings
Seyyed Fatemeh
Musavi
sfatemehmusavi@ut.ac.ir
1
PhD student, Department of Ancient Iranian Culture and Languages, University of Tehran
AUTHOR
افراشی، آزیتا 1381. اندیشههایی در معنیشناسی (یازده مقاله). فرهنگ تهران: کاوش.
1
ـــــــــــــ و محمدمهدی مقیمیزاده 1392. استعاره های مفهومی در حوزۀ شرم با استناد به شواهدی از شعر کلاسیک فارسی. زبانشناخت. ش 7. پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
2
دیلمقانی، سمیرا 1391-92. استعارههای مفهومی در سمک عیار. پایاننامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم تحقیقات تهران.
3
راسخ مهند، محمد 1389. درآمدی بر زبانشناسی شناختی: نظریهها و مفاهیم. تهران: سمت.
4
معصومی، علی و مریم کردبچه 1389. استعارههای هستیشناختی در دستنوشتههای کودکان. پازند. سال ششم. شماره 22 و 23. 79-97.
5
میرفخرایی، مهشید 1388. اصل خلاٌ یا تهیگی بنابر آموزۀ بودا. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
6
ــــــــــــــــــ 1384. تمثیل پیل و خانة تاریک و خرد همهآگاه در شعری به زبان ختنی.نامه پارسی، سال دهم، شماره اول، بهار 1384، 3 – 12.
7
ـــــــــــــــــ 1371. رنج جهانی در آیین بودا. فرهنگ. شمارۀ 13. 217-238.
8
Abreu, J. L. 2010. Gathas: An ancient system of metaphors & poetry. Daena: International Journal of Good Conscience. 5(2): 277-297
9
Bailey, H. W. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10
Cruse. A. 2006. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
11
Emmerick, R. E. 1968. The book of Zambasta. London: Oxford University Press
12
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press
13
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mapping in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
14
Fedriani, C. 2011. Experiential Metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers. Movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philosophical Society. 109: 3; 307-326
15
Grady, J. E. 2007. Metaphore. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Edited by D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens. Oxford University Press: 188-213
16
Grady, J. E. et al. 1999. Blending and metaphor. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Steen, Gerard, Gibbs, Raymond W. (Eds.). John Benjamins. Philadelphia: 101–124
17
Jindo, J. Y. 2010. Biblical metaphor reconsidered. HARVARD SEMITIC MONOGRAPHS Series. no. 64. Indiana: Eisenbrauns
18
Konow, S. 1938. The late professor Leumann’s Edition of a New Saka Text NTS 11: 5-89.
19
Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor, A practical introduction. London: Oxford University Press
20
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and thoughts. 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
21
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We live by. Language. Thought and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
22