ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Relationship between Power Indicator and the Language of Politeness in the Process of Interrogation: A Discoursive and Legal Approach
The impact of power in the criminal court discourse and the interrogation process is manifested in many factors such as context-specific conditions and differences in social position between a police investigator and the accused. This study intends to use politeness strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) to explore and describe the role of politeness in the interrogation process. The aim of this study is to describe the relationship between power and politeness in promoting the interrogation process because politeness is embedded in power relations. Corpus consisted of eleven transcripts of the hearing randomly selected from criminal cases in public justice administration in Bushehr. The results showed that with the observance of politeness (Brown and Levinson's strategies), the interrogation route could not be well advanced, because the defendants refrain from answering questions due to lack of pressure and threat. But with pressure and harshness of the signs of power, the interrogation route can be well advanced.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65512_b61c70ee17aab644d5a72496c3cce814.pdf
2017-12-22
1
20
10.22059/jolr.2018.65512
power indicator
language politeness
interrogation
linguistic
discourse
Ghazal
Baghbani
g.baghbani83@gmail.com
1
M. A. Student of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Payame Noor University
AUTHOR
fatame
karampour
fateme.karampour@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Payame Noor University
AUTHOR
آقاگلزاده، فردوس (1391). زبانشناسی حقوقی (نظری و کاربردی) (ویراست دوم)، تهران، نشر علم.
1
آقاگلزاده، فردوس (1392). نقش دانش زبانی و زبان قدرت در کنترل و طبقهبندی و مدیریت اطلاعات در زبانشناسی حقوقی. مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش ملی زبانشناسی حقوقی: تحلیل گفتمان حقوقی (34-13)، تهران، نشر نویسه پارسی.
2
بیاتمختاری، آسیه (1391). بررسی پیچیدگیهای زبانی در خواندن و درک متون نوشتاری قوانین مالیاتی ایران. پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی، دانشگاه پیامنور واحد تهران.
3
جعفرزادهافشاری، زینب (1392). رعایت ادب در کنشهای بیانی کودکان فارسیزبان. پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه علّامه طباطبایی.
4
جعفریلنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1387). مبسوط در ترمینولوژی حقوق (جلد پنجم)، تهران، انتشارات کتابخانه گنج دانش.
5
جهانگیری، نادر (1378). گونههای احترام، سلطه و همبستگی در زبان فارسی. در زبان: بازتاب زمان، فرهنگ و اندیشه (مجموعه مقالات) (159-125)، تهران، نشر آگه.
6
حسینی، سیّدمحمد (1388). ادب و قدرت: نشانگرهای زبانی مخالفت در جلسات دفاع از پایاننامه. مجله پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، سال اول، شماره اول، پاییز و زمستان، 100-79.
7
شاکری، سپیدهسادات (1392). بازنمایی و توصیف مبانی و راهبردهای رعایت ادب بر اساس متغیر جنسیّت در داستانهای کوتاه فارسی از دیدگاه کاربردشناسی زبان. پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
8
صفارمقدم، احمد (1388). مقایسهی عناصر ادب در زبانهای کرهای و فارسی. فصلنامه تحقیقات فرهنگی، دوره دوم، شماره اول، بهار، 97-77.
9
طیب، سیّدمحمدتقی (1381). ریشههای گفتمانشناسی در ادب پارسی. فصلنامه مطالعات ملّی، 13، 49-67.
10
عزیزی، سیروس؛ نگار مؤمنی (1391). زبانشناسی حقوقی درآمدی بر زبان، جرم و قانون، تهران، سازمان انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی.
11
علینژاد، بتول (1384). «ما» ی تعاملی تجلّی «خود» اجتماعی ایرانی، در گرایشهای نوین در زبانشناسی و آموزش زبان (جلد اول). مجموعه مقالات ارائهشده در اولین همایش زبانشناسی و آموزش زبان در ایران (277-262)، تهران، انتشارات سمت.
12
فخر روحانی، محمدرضا (1382). کاربردشناسی ادوات تکریم در گفتمان دینی فارسی معاصر. رساله دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
13
محمدقاسمی، حامد، حقوق دفاعی متهم در مرحله بازجویی در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری،.sb.basij.law.ir
14
محمودیبختیاری، بهروز؛ سمیه سلیمیان (1395). بررسی بیادبی کلامی در نمایشنامه صیادان. دوماهنامهی جستارهای زبانی، دوره هفتم، شماره اول، بهار، 149-129.
15
مؤذنزادگان، حسنعلی (1389). تضمینات حقوق دفاعی متهمان و امر بازجویی در مرحله تحقیقات مقدماتی. پژوهش حقوق و سیاست، سال دوازدهم، شماره بیست و هشتم، بهار، 330-301.
16
نامورفرگی، مجتبی (1392). بررسی امکان استفاده از فضای واکهای زبان فارسی و جایگاه دقیق سازههای واکهای در گفتار سخنگویان فارسیزبان، در بازشناسی حقوقی سخنگو. مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش ملی زبانشناسی حقوقی: تحلیل گفتمان حقوقی (164-143)، تهران، نشر نویسه پارسی.
17
Aliakbari, M, and R. Moalemi. 2015. Variation of politeness strategies among the Iranian students, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5 (5), 981-988.
18
Amany, F, and M. Davoudi, M. O. Jaghi. 2014. A corpus- based study on the translation of politeness strategies with emphasis on address terms, International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics Words, 5 (1), 502-522.
19
Amouzadeh, M. 2001. Politeness in Persian, Language Forum, 27,131-141.
20
Brown, G, and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21
Brown, P, and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
Brown, P. 2015. Politeness and Language, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2thed Vol. 18.
23
Eelen, G. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester: St. Jerome.
24
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. 1993. A cross-cultural comparison of the requestive speech act realization patterns in Persian and English in L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Monograph Series, Vol. 4,75-90. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
25
Keshavarz, M. H. 2001. The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 81-5: 841.
26
Koutlaki, S. A. 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tæ'arof in Persian, Journal of Pragmatics, 65-3371: 43.
27
ــــــــــــــ. 2009. Two sides of the same coin: how the notion of ‘face is encoded in Persian communication in Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, Michael Haugh (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction, 115-133. London: Equinox Press.
28
Kuntsi, P. 2012. Politeness and impoliteness strategies used by lawyers in the ‘Dover trial’- A case study, English Language Pro Gradu- Thesis, 1-69.
29
Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of politeness; or minding your p's and q's, Chicago Linguistics Society, 8: 292-305.
30
ــــــــــــــــــ. 1975. Language and Woman's Place, New York: Harper & Row.
31
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.
32
Sadeghoghli, H, and M. Niroomand. 2016. Theories on politeness by focusing on Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3 (2), 26-39.
33
Sahragard, R. 2000. Politeness in Persian: A cultural pragmatic analysis Doctoral dissertation, Leicester University.
34
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. 2008. Iranian complainees' use of conversational strategies: A politeness study, Iranian Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 2 (2), 187-214.
35
Shahrokhi, M, and S. Bidabadi. 2013. An overview of politeness theories: Current status, future orientations, American Journal of Linguistics, 2 (2). 17-27.
36
Sharifian, F. 2005. The Persian cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi: A study of compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers, Pragmatics and Cognition, 13 (2), 61-337.
37
Sharifian, F. 2008. Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English, Journal of Politeness Research, 4, 55-80.
38
Wagner, L.C. 2010.Positive and negative politeness strategies: Apologizing in the speech community of Cuernavaca, Mexico university of Louisville, Spanish In Context, 7 (2), 254-278.
39
Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40
Watts, R. J, and S. Ide, K. Ehlich (Eds). 1992. Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (Eds). 2005. Politeness in Languag: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (2nd edn.), Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
41
Yarmohammadi, L. 1995. More on the analysis of politeness forms in English and Persian: A sociopragmatic approach, In Fifteen Articles in Contrastive Linguistics and the Structure of Persian: Grammar, Text and Discourse, 51- 139, Tehran: Rahnama Publication.
42
Yarmohammadi, N. 2003. Politeness strategies in English and Persian in contrast Doctoral dissertation, Allameh Tabataba'i University.
43
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Grammaticalization Process of the Preposition “az” in Persian Language
In modern Persian the preposition "az" signifies the concepts instrument, method, cause, nature, possession, part-whole relationship, source, path, separation, comparison and topic. "az" is the remainder of the preposition hača in Avesta and sačā in Sanskrit. This preposition has been taken from the root "sac/hak" meaning accompaniment and has been used in Middle Persian and Parthian as "az" and "až". In Sanskrit sacā has been used to convey accompaniment. This preposition has undergone two levels of grammaticalization over time: in the first step noun has been converted to preposition to mean “accompanied with” and other meanings derived from it, and in the second step it has been used to convey other meanings such as source and other related senses. The present paper is an attempt to investigate the polysemy of "az" based on the conceptual transfer model.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65513_4da1b5a3ca1a739ef6c9c2fbaf59424f.pdf
2017-12-22
21
38
10.22059/jolr.2018.65513
grammaticalization
polysemy
semantic role
az
bâ
Ehsan
Changizi
ehsan.changizi@atu.ac.ir
1
استادیار گروه زبانشناسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
AUTHOR
Sepideh
Abdolkarimi
s_abdolkarimi@sbu.ac.ir
2
Assistant Professor of Linguistics Department of Shahid Beheshti University
AUTHOR
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1375). دستور زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، چاپ چهاردهم، ویرایش دوم، تهران: فاطمی.
1
انوری، حسن و دیگران (1381).فرهنگسخن، چاپ اول، تهران: سخن.
2
راشد محصل، محمدتقی. (1385).وزیدگیهای زادسپرم، چاپ دوم، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
3
زاهدی، کیوان و عاطفه محمدی زیارتی (1390). شبکة معنایی حرف اضافة «از» در چهارچوب معنیشناسی شناختی. تازههای علوم شناختی، سال سیزدهم، شمارة 1: صص 67 ـ 80.
4
شریعت، محمد (1384). دستور زبان فارسی، چاپ هشتم، تهران: اساطیر.
5
صادقی، علیاشرف (1349). حروف اضافه در فارسی معاصر. نشریة دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی تبریز، دورة 22، شمارة 3 ـ 4: صص 441 ـ 470.
6
ماهوتیان، شهرزاد (1387). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه ردهشناسی، مترجم: مهدی سمائی، چاپ پنجم، تهران: مرکز، چاپ اول: 1378.
7
مشکوةالدینی، مهدی (1374). دستور زبان فارسی بر پایة نظریة گشتاری، چاپ چهارم، مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
8
ـــــــــــــ (1388). دستور زبان فارسی: واژگان و پیوندهای ساختی، چاپ اول، تهران: سمت.
9
وفایی، سید (1355). حروف اضافه در زبان فارسی معاصر: موارد استعمال و خصوصیات نحوی آنها. نشریة دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی تبریز، سال 28 (شمارة پیاپی 117): صص 49 ـ 86.
10
Bartholomae, C. 1961. Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Berlin: W. De Gruyter.
11
Blake, B. J. 2004. Case, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Boyce, M. 1975. A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Acta Iranica 9), Leiden: E.J. Brill.
13
Brinton, L. J. and E. C. Traugott 2005. Lexicalization and language change, Cambridge University Press.
14
Brunner, Ch. j. 1977. A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian, Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
15
Bubenik, V. 2006. Case and Prepositions in Iranian. In J. Hewson & V. Bubonic (eds.), From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages (131-158.), Amesterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
16
Creissels, D. 1979. Le comitatif, la coordination et les constructions dites ‘possessives’ dans quelques langues africaines, Annales de l’Université d'Abidjan, Série H: Linguistique, 12/1: 125-144.
17
Givón, T. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew, In E. C.Traugott and C. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (2/257-310), Amesterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
18
Heine, B. U. Claudi & F. Hűnnemeyer 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework, Chicago: University Press.
19
Heine, B.1997a. The Cognative Foundation of Grammar, Oxford: University Press.
20
ــــــــــــــــــ.1997b. Possession: Cognative Source, Forces, and Grammaticalization, Cambridge: university Press.
21
ــــــــــــــــــ. 2003. Grammaticalization, In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (575-601), Blackwell Publishing.
22
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, Cambridge: University Press.
23
Hopper, P.J. & Traugoot, E.C. 2003. Grammaticalization, Cambridge: University Press.
24
Jackson, A. V. W. 1892. An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
25
Kent. R. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
26
Luraghi, S. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek, Amesterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
27
Luraghi, S. 2015. Instrument and Cause in the Indo-European Languages and in Proto-Indo-European, ИНДОЕВРОПЕЙСКОЕ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЕ И КЛАССИЧЕСКАЯ ФИЛОЛОГИЯ, St. Petersburg, Nauka: 603-618.
28
Macdonell, A. A. 1917. A Vedic reader for students, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
29
ـــــــــــــــــ. 1968. Vedic Grammar, Delhi: Indological Book House.
30
Mayrhofer, M. 1976. Kurzgefaβtes Etymologisches Wőrterbuch des Altindischen, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.
31
Monier-Williams, M. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
32
Narrog, H. 2009. Varieties of Instrumental, In A. Malchukov and A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case (593-600), Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
33
Narrog, H. 2010. A Diachronic Dimension in Maps of Case Functions,Linguistic Discovery, 8/1: 233-254.
34
Reichelt, H. 1909. Awestisches Elementarbuch, Heidelberg: C. Winter.
35
Skjærvø, P. O. 2010. Old Iranian,In G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages (43-195), London and New York: Routledge.
36
Stolz, T. And C. Stroh and A. Urdze 2009. Varieties of Comitative, In A. Malchukov and A. Spencer (eds.), Case: The Oxford Handbook of Case (601-608), Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press...
37
Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher 2001. Regularity in Semantic Change, Cambridge: University Press.
38
Traugott, E. C. 2002. From Etymology to Historical Pragmatics. In D. Minkova and R. Stockwell (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective (19-49), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
39
Tyler, A. & Evans V. 2001. Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: the Case of over, Language, 77/4: 724-765.
40
Whitney, W. D. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar, London: Oxford University Press.
41
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Perception of a Synthetic Vowel Space by Persian Listeners
Vowels of a language can be characterized within an acoustically defined space according to native listeners’ perceptual intuition. This study investigated Persian listeners’ perception of a synthetic vowel space in which F1, F2, and F3 varied in a systematic manner. Our experimental design was based on the “Simple Target Model”. In an identification task thirty subjects heard each stimulus once in random order, and responded by choosing orthographic signs of Persian vowels. The identification of vowels depends on F1 and F2 (p<0.00001), but not on F3. Our results highlight the importance of F1 and F2 in distinguishing Persian vowels, in agreement with those obtained in previous production experiments.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65514_42f5492caaa080c41353efc3cc2602f6.pdf
2017-12-22
39
58
10.22059/jolr.2018.65514
vowel – speech perception – simple target model – synthetic stimulus – identification task – standard Persian
Hamed
Rahmani
h.rahmani@let.ru.nl
1
Ph.D. Candidate in Department of Phonetics Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands
AUTHOR
mahmmud
bejan khan
mbjkhan@ut.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics Laboratory of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Sajjad
Peyvasteh
master.lahij@gmail.com
3
M.A. Graduate in Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran
AUTHOR
بیجنخان، محمود (1378). یادگیری واکههای زبان فارسی بر اساس یک مدل شناختی. تازههای علوم شناختی. سال اول، شماره اول، 24-34.
1
بیجنخان، محمود (1384). واجشناسی: نظریة بهینگی، تهران، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.
2
Boersma, P, and D.Weenink. 2012. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program].
3
Delattre, P, A.M. Liberman, F.S. Cooper, and L.J. Gertsman. 1952. An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color; Observations on one- and two-formant vowels synthesized from spectrographic patterns, Word, 8(3): 195-211.
4
Di Benedetto, M. 1989. Vowel representations: Some observations on the temporal and spectral properties of the first formant frequency, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 86(1): 55-66.
5
Hawks, J, and M. Fourakis. 1995. The perceptual vowel spaces of American English and Modern Greek: A comparison, Language and Speech, 38 (3): 237-252.
6
Hawks, J, and J. Miller. 1995. A formant bandwidth estimation procedure for vowel synthesis, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 97(2): 1343-1344.
7
Johnson, K, P. Ladefoged, and J. Mc Donough. 1993. Do women listen to men's voices with men's mouths in mind? Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 93(4): 2298.
8
Johnson, K. 2000. Adaptive dispersion in vowel perception, Phonetica, 57: 181-188.
9
Klatt, D, J. Whalen, and J. Hillenbrand. 2005. KLSYN: A formant synthesizer program [Computer program].
10
Lindblom, B, and M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1967. On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 42(4): 830-843.
11
Lindblom, B. 1986. Phonetic Universals in vowel systems, Florida, Academic Press.
12
McMurray, B. 2009. KlattWorks: A [somewhat] new approach to formant-based synthesis [Computer program].
13
Morrison, G.S. 2008. L1-Spanish speakers’ acquisition of the English /i/-/I/ contrast: Duration-based perception is not the initial development stage, Language and Speech, 51: 285-315.
14
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2009. Logistic regression software for speech perception data [Computer program].
15
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2013. Tutorial on logistic-regression calibration and fusion: converting a score to a likelihood ratio, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(2): 173–197.
16
Nearey, T.M. 1990. The segment as a unit of speech perception, Journal of Phonetics, 18: 347–373.
17
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 1997. Speech perception as pattern recognition, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 101(6): 3241–3254.
18
Pols, L.C.W, R.J.J.H. van Son. 1993. Acoustics and perception of dynamic vowel segments, Speech Communication, 13: 135-147.
19
Scholes, R.J. 1967. Categorical responses to synthetic vocalic stimuli by speakers of various languages, Language and Speech, 10: 252-282.
20
Strange, W, J.J. Jenkins, and T.L. Johnson. 1983. Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 74(3): 695-705.
21
Strange, W, and O. Bohn. 1998. Dynamic specification of coarticulated German vowels: Perceptual and acoustical studies, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 104(1): 488-504.
22
Tiffany, W.R. 1953. Vowel recognition as a function of duration, frequency modulation and phonetic context, Journal of speech and hearing disorders, 18: 289-301.
23
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Force-dynamics and Polysemy in LVCs Formed by Gereftan
Light verbs are generally considered a special grammatical category which have little semantic contribution to verb phrases, and therefore few studies have explored the light-heavy verb semantic relationships. Drawing on Brugman’s version of force-dynamics, cognitive lexical semantics and examining around 130 compound and light verb constructions formed by gereftan, this paper showed that although this light verb is not as lexically rich as its heavy counterpart, there remain systematic semantic relationships between the two. Given the limited number of Persian simple verbs, heavy verbs allow the expression of new concepts by making complex predicates, and therefore it is expected that the heavy verb gereftan will participate in numerous compound and light constructions and lose aspects of its meaning in the process. However, this paper showed that the light verb gereftan not only maintains various aspects of meaning including force-dynamic ones, different light verb usages are also a function of the heavy verb’s polysemy.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65515_a0de64986a1a0ad52eeb4f97b8fe69a6.pdf
2017-12-22
59
78
10.22059/jolr.2018.65515
light verb
force-dynamics
polysemy
Cognitive Semantics
gereftan
Reza
Soltani
r.soltani.k@gmail.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate in General Linguistics, University of Isfahan
AUTHOR
Mohammad
Amouzadeh
amouzadeh@fgn.ui.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan
AUTHOR
Hadaegh
Rezaei
hadaeghrezaei@fgn.ui.ac.ir
3
Assistant professor in General Linguistics, University of Isfahan
AUTHOR
انوری، حسن (1382). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران، سخن.
1
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1376). فعل مرکب در زبان فارسی، مجلهی زبانشناسی، سال دوازدهم، 2-45.
2
دهخدا، علیاکبر (1377). لغتنامه، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
3
شریف، بابک (1394). بررسی شناختی افعال سبک در زبان فارسی، پایاننامهی دکتری، دانشگاه اصفهان.
4
صدری افشار، غلامحسین، حکیمی، نسرین و حکیمی، نسترن (1377). فرهنگ فارسی امروز، تهران، کلمه.
5
عموزاده، محمد و بهرامی، فاطمه (1391). ساخت افعال سبک بر اساس زبانشناسی شناختی. فصلنامهی پژوهشهای زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، سال سوم، شمارۀ چهارم، 169-191.
6
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1351). کلمۀ مرکب و معیارهای تشخیص آن در زبان فارسی، مجموعۀ سخنرانیهای دومین کنگرۀ تحقیقات ایرانی (ص. 169-217). مشهد، دانشگاه مشهد.
7
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1373). فعل مرکب و ساختمان آن، آشنا، 74-82.
8
کریمیدوستان، غلامحسین و روحی بایگی، زهرا (1395). بررسی چندمعنایی فعل سبک «زدن» از دیدگاه شناختی، دوماهنامۀ جستارهای زبانی، سال هفتم، شمارۀ سوم، 129-148.
9
نجفی، ابوالحسن (1387). فرهنگ فارسی عامیانه،تهران، نیلوفر.
10
وحیدیانکامیار، تقی (1351). در زبان فارسی فعل مرکب نیست، مجموعه سخنرانیهای دومین کنگرۀ تحقیقات ایرانی (ص. 264-268). مشهد، دانشگاه مشهد.
11
وحیدیانکامیار، تقی (1356). نقدی بر تاریخ زبان فارسی و نکاتی دربارۀ فعل مرکب، نشریۀ ادبیات دانشکدۀ ادبیات جندیشاپور اهواز.
12
Brugman, C. 1981. The story of 'over': Polysemy, semantics and the strudcture of the lexicon. MA thesis, University of California: Berkeley.
13
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences, 23, 551-578.
14
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547 619.
15
Family, N. 2006. Explorations of semantic space: The case of light verb constructions in Persian. PhD dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etude en Sciences Sociales: Paris.
16
ـــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2008. Mapping semantic spaces: A constructionist account of the “light verb” xordæn “eat” in Persian. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 139-161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
17
Foley, R., Harly, H., & Karimi, S. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua, 115(10), 1365-1401.
18
Goldberg, A. E. 1996. Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society.
19
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Words by default: The Persian complex predicate construction. In E. Francis, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 83-112). CSLI Publications.
20
Grimshaw, J., & Mester, A. 1988. Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(2), 205-232.
21
Jespersen, O. (1940). A modern english grammar on historical principles. London: Allen & Unwin.
22
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4(1), 3-18.
24
Johnson, M. 1993. Moral imagination: implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. 1997. Light verb constructions in Persian. PhD dissertation, University of Essex: Essex.
26
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2001. N + V complex predicates in Persian. In N. Dehe, & A. Warner (Eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs (pp. 277-292). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
27
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. Light verbs and structural case. Lingua, 115(12), 1737-1756.
28
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2008. Predicative nouns and adjectives. Grammar 3: The Journal of Iranian Academy of Persian Language and Literature, 3, 187-202.
29
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2011. Separability of light verb constructions in Persian. Studia Linguistica, 65(1), 70-95.
30
Karimi, S. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology, 3(2), 273-318.
31
Kövecses, Z. 2008. Metaphor and emotion. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 380-396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39-74.
34
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37
Mohammad, J., & Karimi, S. 1992. Light verbs are taking over: Complex verbs in Persian. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), (pp. 195-212).
38
Müller, S. 2010. Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics, 46(3), 601-655.
39
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology(104), 192-233.
40
ـــــــــــــــــ. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41
Rosch, E., & Mervis, B. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology (7), 573-605.
42
Samvelian, P., & Faghiri, P. 2013. Re-thinking compositionality in Persian complex predicates. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 39th Annual Meeting. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
43
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2014. Persian complex predicates: How compositional are they? Semantics‐Syntax Interface, 1(1), 43-74.
44
Talmy, L. 1985. Force dynamics in language and thought. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 293-337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
45
ــــــــــــــــ. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
46
ــــــــــــــــ. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, volume i: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47
Ullman, S. 1951. The principles of semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
48
Van Valin, R. D. 2005. Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
49
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Study of the Optimal Innovation Hypothesis in "a Poem for the War" from Qeisar Aminpur
According to optimal innovation hypothesis, pleasure hinges on recognizing the familiar in the novel. This is like deviation and foregrounding in the literature and language. This research is to test the hypothesis that pleasure in "a Poem for the War" by Qeisar Aminpur is due to innovation and familiarity not mere innovation. First, deviated samples of this poem were extracted according to Leach's template and two Persian literature experts adjusted reliability in form and content. Then, using questionnaires, the participants were asked to rate the familiarity of each expression on a 1-7 familiarity scale. The results showed that deviated expressions in the mentioned poem are not fully innovative and have some shades of familiarity. Therefore, the hypothesis was adjusted.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65516_730f977aa1c0629c1be61e1b9ccdd511.pdf
2017-12-22
79
96
10.22059/jolr.2018.65516
Deviation
foregrounding
optimal innovation
salience
familiarity
Leila
Erfaniyan Qonsuli
leilaerfaniyan@gmail.com
1
Assistant Professor. Kashmar Higher Education Institute
AUTHOR
Mostafa
Bahraman
2
Assistant Professor. Kashmar Higher Education Institute
AUTHOR
صفوی، کوروش (1390). از زبانشناسی به ادبیات، جلد اول، تهران: شرکت انتشارات سوره مهر.
1
شفیعی کدکنی، محمدرضا، (1368)، موسیقی شعر، تهران: آگاه.
2
ملاح، حسینعلی (1367). پیوند موسیقی و شعر، تهران: نشر فضا.
3
Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D., & Cappa, S. 2008. Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language, 107(1), 1-10.
4
Arzouan,Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. 2007. Brain waves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69–81.
5
Austerlitz, R., Parallelismus.1961. Poetics, Warsaw and the Hague.
6
Berlyne D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Century Psychology Series.
7
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. 2012. Old proverbs in new skins - an fMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(204).
8
Bornstein, R. F., & D'Agostino, P. R. 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545-552.
9
Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R. S. J. & Frith, C. D. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117, 1241–1253.
10
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. 2010. Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212 -236.
11
Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. 2012. From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. NeuroImage, 59(4), 3212–3221.
12
Eviatar, Z. and Marcel J. 2006. Brain Correlates of Discourse Processing: An fMRI Investigation of Irony and Metaphor Comprehension. Neuropsychologia 44:2348-2359.
13
Faust, M. and Nira M. 2007. The Role of The Right Cerebral Hemisphere in Processing Novel Metaphoric Expressions Taken From Poetry: A Divided Visual Field Study. Neuropsychologia 45: 860-870.
14
Giora, R. 1997, Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis,cognitive linguistics,8-3, 183-206
15
ــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2002c. Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock, C. Strapparava &A.Nijholt (Eds.), Proceedings of The April Fools’Day Workshop on Computational Humour, April 2002, ITC-itst, Trento (pp. 11–28).
16
ــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2003. On Our Mind:Salience, Context, and Figurative Language, Oxford University Press.
17
ـــــــــــــــــــــ. 2008. Is Metaphor Unique? In R. Gibbs, (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18
ـــــــــــــــــــــ. 2009. Irony. In: L Cummings (ed.) Pragmatics Encyclopedia (pp. 265-267). London: Routledge.
19
ـــــــــــــــــــــ. (in press) Literal vs. Nonliteral Language-Novelty Matters. In T. Holtgraves (ed.),Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. New york: Oxford University Press.
20
ـــــــــــــــــــــ., Ofer Fein, Ann Kronrod, Idit Elnatan, Noa Shuval, Adi Zur. 2004a. Weapons of Mass Distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings, Metaphor and Symbol,19(2),115-141.
21
ـــــــــــــــــــــ., Gazal, O., Goldstein, I., Fein, O., & Stringaris, K. A. 2012. Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1), 22-54.
22
ـــــــــــــــــــــ, Kronrod, A., Elnatan, 1., & Fein, O. 2001. The role of salience in aesthetic creativity. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of The Society for Text and Discourse. The University of California, Santa Barbara.
23
ـــــــــــــــــــــ,Nurit Kotler, Noa Shuval. 2004/2. Metaphor, Coherence, Optimal Innovation, and Pleasure,In: J. Andor and P. Pelyvas (eds) Empirical, Cognitive-Based Studies in Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
24
Giora, R. & Stringaris, K. A. 2010. Neural substrates of metaphor. In: P. C. Hogan (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (pp. 489-492). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
25
Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., Kasher, A. 2000. Differential effects of right and left hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor Symb. 15, 63–83.
26
Gibbs, R. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149-156.
27
Halliday, M. A. K. et al. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London.
28
Harrison, A. A. 1977. Mere exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 610-646). New York: Academic Press.
29
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. & van Wieringen, P. C. W. 2003. Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.
30
Kacinik N.A., Chiarello C. 2007. Understanding metaphors: Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved? Brain and Language, 100(2), 188-207.
31
Kana, R. K., Murdaugh, D. L. Wolfe, K. R. & Kumar, S. L. 2012. Brain responses mediating idiom comprehension: Gender and hemispheric differences. Brain Research, 1467, 18-26.
32
Keats, J. 1820. Ode on a Grecian urn. http : // www.eecs. harvard. Edu /~ keith / poems / urn.html
33
Leach, G. N. 1969. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, Longman, London.
34
Kronrod, A., Giora, R, & Fein, O. 2000. Creative writing: The optimal creative innovation in fixed expressions. The EARLI special interest group writing conference 2000. University degli Studi di Verona.
35
Kunst-Wilson, W. R & Zajonc, R B. 1980. Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 1019-1024.
36
Mashal, N., & Faust, M. 2008. Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the Signal Detection Theory. Brain and Language, 104, 103–112.
37
Mashal, N., Faust,M., & Hendler, T. 2005. The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI Data. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2084–2100.
38
Mashal, N., Faust,M., Hendler, T. & Jung-Beeman, M. 2007. An fMRI Investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100, 115–126.
39
Mashal, N., Gavrieli, R., & Kavé, G. 2011. Age-related changes in the appreciation of novel metaphoric semantic relations. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 18(5), 527–543.
40
Mashal, N. & Kasirer, A. 2012. Principal component analysis study of visual and verbal metaphoric comprehension in children with autism and learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 274–282.
41
Mashal, N., and M. Faust. 2009. Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14.6: 573-589.
42
Maslow A. H. 1937. The influence of familiarization on preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 536–552.
43
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R. A.,&Lowell, E. L. 1953. The achievement motive.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
44
Mukarovsky, J. 1932-1964. Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
45
Mukarovsky, J. 1978. Structure, sign and function. Yale University Press.
46
Pobric, G., Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. 2008. The causal role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: A TMS study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20, 170-181.
47
Sampson, G. 1980. Schools of Linguistics, Stanford University Press.
48
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., & Aharon-Peretz, J. 2005. The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19, 288–300.
49
Shklovsky, V. 1917-1965. Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. and Trans.),Russian formalist criticism: Four essays, 3-57. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
50
Shuval, N., & Giora, R. 2005. Beyond figurativeness: Optimal innovation and pleasure. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 239–254). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
51
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2009. Figurativeness, optimal innovation and pleasure. Oryanut ve'Safa, 2, 111-127. van Mulken, M., Burgers, C., & van der Plas, B. 2010. Wolves, confederates, and the happy few: The influence of comprehension, agreement, and group membership on the attitude toward irony. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 50-68.
52
van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zyngier, S. 2007. Lines on feeling: foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197-213.
53
Winner, E.& Gardner, H. 1977. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain, 100, 719-727.
54
Wundt, W. M. 1874. Grundzung der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.
55
Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.
56
Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preference need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
57
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2000. Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31-58). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
58
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Layered Structure of Mukriyani’s Noun Phrases in Role and Reference Grammar
In this paper, the Mukriyani’s layered structure of NPs (one of the Surani’s Kurdish dialects) has been examined according to Van Valin’s (2005) framework. In this framework, NPs consist of two projections: a constituent projection consisting of a Nucleus and a Core plus one or more Peripheries for each of them, and a grammatical projection consisting of operators. This research is a descriptive-analytic one in which the data have been extracted from the written sources of Mukriyani dialect, and also from the intuition of one of the researchers who is a native Mukriyani speaker. These data have been analyzed according to the mono-layered pattern of RRG and finally the proposed Mukriyani’s NPs pattern has been offered. Among the results of this research, we can refer to the independence of NPs’ structure from the linier order of their elements; however, the enclitics attached to the NUCN reflecting the number or definiteness are among the Core or NP operators. Another result of the research shows that in Mukriyani, the post-Nucleus adjectives make the Nucleus peripheries and the pre-Nucleus adjectives are among the Core operators.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65517_0baa33e802e7c4307a2db9d6751dd571.pdf
2017-12-22
97
116
10.22059/jolr.2018.65517
"NP"
"Role and Reference Grammar"
"nucleus"
"core"
"Mukriyani Kurdish language"
Farzad
Azizi
azizifarzad@yahoo.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate in General Linguistics, Sistan & Balouchestan University
AUTHOR
Sayed Farid
Khalifehloo
khalifehloo@yahoo.com
2
استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلسی دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان
AUTHOR
Gholamhosain
Karimi doustan
gh5karimi@ut.ac.ir
3
Professor of General Linguistics, Tehran University
AUTHOR
پیمان، شهرام، والی رضایی و محمد عموزاده (1395). ساختار گروه اسمی زبان فارسی بر پایه دستور نقش و ارجاع، رساله دکتری زبانشناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان.
1
تفکری رضایی، شجاع و کبری نظری (1392). نقش ممیز عدد در گروه حرف تعریف کردی کلهری. مجله پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، سال پنجم، شماره دوم، صص 89-108.
2
دانشپژوه، فاطمه (1393). ساخت به اصطلاح مجهول در زبان کردی (کرمانجی، سورانی)، رساله دکتری زبانشناسی همگانی، بخش ادبیات و زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.
3
ــــــــــــــــــــــــ. ارگتیو در زبان کردی (سورانی- هورامی- بادینی) در چارچوب نظریه حاکمیت و مرجعگزینی، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد، گروه زبانشناسی و زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.
4
رخزادی، علی (1379). آواشناسی و دستور زبان کردی، انتشارات ترفند، تهران.
5
علینژاد، بتول و صادق محمدی بلبلانآباد (1393). واژهبستهای ضمیری در گویش کردی سورانی: تعامل با حروف اضافه. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی زبان و ادب فارسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد سنندج، سال ششم، شماره 18، صص 94-75.
6
کاوسینژاد، سهیلا (1376). حذف در گروه اسمی زبان فارسی. نامه فرهنگستان، شماره 12، صص: 166-146.
7
محمدی بلبلان آباد، صادق (1387). رویکردی کمینهگرا به ساخت اضافه در زبان کردی (گویش سورانی)، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه کردستان.
8
Alexiadou, Artemis et al 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
9
De Monnink 2000. On the move: the mobility of constituents in the English noun phrase: a multi-method approach, Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen:Amsterdom.
10
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar: the structure of the clause, Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
11
Everett, Daniel L. 2002. Asymmetrical clause linkage in Wari, unpublished MS., University of Manchester. (Available on RRG web site.)
12
Jesperson, O, 1935. The Philosophy of Grammar, University of Chicago Press.
13
MacKenzie, D. N. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies, Oxford University Press, London.
14
Pavey, Emma L. 2010.The Structure of Language, Cambridge University Press.
15
Pustejovsky, James 1998. The Generative Lexicon, The MIT Press.
16
Rijkhof. 2002. The Noun Phrase, Oxford University Press.
17
Tahir,Rebwar 2017. Two DP Layers within the Central Kurdish Noun Phrase, Linguistics and English language postgraduate conference, Newcastle University, UK.
18
Thackston,W.M. 2013. SoraniKurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings, www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Sorani/Harvard.
19
Taylor, JR. 2002. Cognitive Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20
Van Valin Jr., R. D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax- Semantics Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
21
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2001b. An introduction to syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
VanValin, Robert D. and Randy J. LaPolla 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning and function, Cambridge University Press.
23
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Pragmatic Competence Analysis of Gratitude Strategies in English Used by EFL Teachers Regarding Their Academic Discipline
Providing knowledge for effective communication cannot just be limited to teaching linguistic information, and pragmatic competence should also be considered. Since the main goal of teaching foreign languages is related to teachers, their proficiency and pragmatic awareness are very important; Nevertheless, the conditions for the acquisition of speech acts is not provided adequately. In this regard, the present study aims to analyze the pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL teachers considering the strategies of expressing speech act gratitude in English. In order to evaluate the use of strategies of expressing gratitude, a Discourse Completion Task questionnaire (DCT) and a coding scheme proposed by Cheng were used. Also, the Gratitude Questionnaire-Six Item Form (GQ-6) was employed to study the influence of personality on expressing gratitude. The questionnaires were distributed randomly, and the male and female participants were asked to fill the discourse completion task. They were expected to write down as many words or utterances as they wanted to express their gratitude towards the situation in a limited time. Finally, 133 completed questionnaires were collected. Then, responses were coded based on the Cheng coding scheme. The findings showed that all 8 gratitude strategies of the Cheng model were applied by teachers. The "Thanking" strategy was the most frequent (39.9%). Also, the results of the Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that the three groups of instructor's field of study (academic discipline) do not show any significant difference in expressing their gratitude strategies.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_65518_ceff6b5d62035341c41d6af7e8ab5601.pdf
2017-12-22
117
131
10.22059/jolr.2018.65518
Pragmatic Competence
gratitude strategies
Speech Acts
EFL teachers
Gender
academic discipline
Rouhollah
Yaghoubi
yaqubi.ruhollah@gmail.com
1
Linguistics Department, Humanities Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University
AUTHOR
Ferdows
Aghagolzadeh
aghagolz@modares.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University
AUTHOR
Arsalan
Golfam
golfamarsalan@gmail.com
3
Associate Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University
AUTHOR
آقاگلزاده، فردوس (1392). فرهنگ توصیفی تحلیل گفتمان و کاربردشناسی. تهران: انتشارات علمی.
1
Brown, G. and Yule G. 1989. Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press.
2
Cheng, S. W. 2005. An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development of expressions of gratitude by Chinese learners of English. University of Iowa.
3
Cheng, K. W., Wang, Y. and Yan, H. M. 2017. Study of Relation between EFL Students' Cognitive Style and Pragmatic Competence. Journal of Electronic Science and Technology, 15(1), 41-47.
4
Cho, H. C. and Abe, S. 2013. Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1261-1266.
5
Cui, X. 2012. A Cross-linguistic Study on Expressions of Gratitude by Native and Non-native English Speakers. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(4).
6
Diaz Perez, F. J. 2005. The speech act of thanking in English: differences between native and non-native speakers' behaviour.
7
Ehtesham Daftari, G. and Tavil, Z. M. 2015. The intersection of pragmatics and applied linguistics in teaching speech acts: Apologies perspective. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 7(2), 1–17.
8
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. 2005. Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners. ELT Journal, 59(3), 199–208.
9
Hymes, D. 1966. On Communicative Competence. Paper presented at the Research Planning Conference on Language Development among Disadvantage Children.
10
ـــــــــ. 1972. On Communicative Competence. Sociolinguistics,269-293.
11
McCullough, M. E., Kilpartrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., and Larson, D. B. 2001. Is Gratitude a Moral Affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249–266.
12
Pishghadam, R. and Zarei, S. 2011. Expressions of gratitude: A case of EFL learners. Review of European Studies, 3(2), 140–149.
13
Rathert, S. 2013. The Language Outside and Inside the Foreign Language Classroom : Speech Act Theory and Discourse Analysis. The Internet Journal Language, Culture and Society, (36), 81–87.
14
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
15
Yoosefvand, A. and Eslami Rasekh, A. 2015. A comparative study of gratitude speech act between Persian and English speakers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 1(2), 44-61.
16
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
ـــــــ. 2000. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18