اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 19 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 380 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,131 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,251,586 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,845,973 |
«را» حرف اضافه یا نقش‌نما؟ نگاهی نقشی- شناختی به مقوله دستوری «را» (مقاله علمی پژوهشی) | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| مقاله 11، دوره 9، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 20، مهر 1399، صفحه 261-285 اصل مقاله (1.18 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2021.14236.1495 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سارا کیانی1؛ فریده حق بین* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات، دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2نویسنده‌ی مسئول، استاد گروه زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات، دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، تهران، ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 07 مهر 1399، تاریخ بازنگری: 09 دی 1399، تاریخ پذیرش: 04 بهمن 1399 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| «را» یکی از عناصر بحث‌برانگیز زبان فارسی است که دربارهی نقش آن پژوهش‌های بسیاری انجام شده است. در این مطالعه، مقوله‌ی دستوری «را» در چارچوبِ نظریهی مقوله‌بندی و بر اساس نقش‌هایی که می‌پذیرد، تعیین می‌گردد. زیرا تعیین مقوله‌ی عناصر زبان در آموزش زبان، هم برای مدرسان و هم برای زبان‌آموزان، از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار است و از آنجایی که آموزش و یادگیریِ نقش‌های این عنصر در زبان فارسی کمی دشوار است، تعیین مقوله‌ی آن می‌تواند در درک جایگاه و نقش آن مفید واقع شود. «را» به‌عنوان نشانگر مفعول یا نشانگر حالت، نقش‌نمای گفتمان و حرف اضافه (به‌طور خاص پس اضافه) نامیده شده است. در این پژوهش ابتدا ویژگی‌های مشترک حروف اضافه و «را» از لحاظ تاریخی، رده‌شناختی و نحوی مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیرد و سپس با نگاهی نقشی- شناختی به ویژگی‌های معنایی آن پرداخته می‌شود. نتیجه‌ی تحلیل‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که در چارچوب شناختی و بر اساس دیدگاه مقوله‌بندی، «را» همچنان یک حرف اضافه است، اما در حاشیه‌ی مقوله‌ی حروف اضافه قرار دارد و از عناصر سرنمون این مقوله مانند «در» و «با» در حال فاصله گرفتن است. همچنین، مشخص می‌گردد که «را» روی پیوستار «حرف اضافه- نقش‌نما» قرار دارد و در حال تغییر نقش از یک «حرف اضافه» به یک «نقش‌نما» است و تحت فرایند دستوری‌شدگی قرار دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| «؛ را»؛ حرف اضافه؛ نقش‌نما؛ مقوله‌بندی؛ سرنمون | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| ‘Rā’ an Adposition or Function-marker? A Functional-Cognitive Approach to the Grammatical Category of ‘rā’ | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Sara Kiani1؛ Farideh Haghbin2 | ||
| 1PhD. Candidate in Linguistics, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Professor of Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Abstract: One of the most disputable elements of Persian is ‘rā’. But what is most debated on is its function. In this investigation based on Prototype Theory, it is focused on another aspect of ‘rā’ which is its grammatical category. Because recognizing grammatical category of different elements of a language and this puzzling element of Persian, is really influential in teaching and learning. So far ‘rā’has been called as object marker or case marker, discourse marker and postposition. In this study, first, it is focused on historical, typological, and syntactic properties that adpositions and ‘rā’ have in common. Then semantic features of ‘rā’ are discussed based on a functional-cognitive framework. The analysis shows that according to categorization and Prototype Theory, which is one of the central components of cognitive approach, ‘rā’ is still an adposition, but it is located on the periphery of this category. And ‘rā’ is getting far away from the prototypes of this category such as ‘dar’ (in) and ‘bā’ (with). Furthermore, ‘rā’ is on a continuum of ‘adposition-function marker’ which denotes it is converting from a postposition to a function-marker in the process of grammaticalization. In teaching Persian, we can refer to both categories of ‘rā’. It is suggested that ‘rā’ as an adposition is taught in basic levels and as a function-marker in advanced levels. Extended Abstract: ‘Rā’ is one of the segments of the Persian language that is troublesome in teaching and learning Persian as a second language. This study investigates the grammatical category of ‘rā’ based on Prototype Theory and Cognitive approach. Grammatical categories like noun, verb, adjective, and adposition are of great importance to teachers and learners because these categories can provide regularity in instructional material and a better apprehension of the structure of the second language. Since there are ambiguities about functions and grammatical category of ‘rā’, it [1]is one of the most challenging elements of the Persian language. Apart from teaching, determining the category of ‘rā’ is applicable to typology. The head-directionality parameter which presents word order of a language, is one the influential criteria in typology. If it is proved that ‘rā’is still an adposition, it will be the only postposition of Persian and the head of a phrase. Linguists consider different categories for ‘rā’. A marker (Ghomeshi, 1997), a postposition (Lazard, 2003), and a morpheme (Sadrai, 2014) are the categories which are assigned to ‘rā’. Some others assume it as a postposition and a discourse marker together (Dabir-Moghaddam, 1992 & 2001, Iemmolo, 2010). However, the grammatical category of ‘rā’ is not probed deeply, and the factors are not stated clearly to support the idea of being a postposition or a function marker. In this investigation, it is presumed that the category of ‘rā’ is fuzzy due to different functions assigned to it. In fact, this element is not considered the best exemplar (or prototype) of the adposition category, but it is still a member of this category. To achieve this goal, it is focused on historical, typological, and syntactic properties that adpositions and rā have in common The first hypothesis is that ‘rā’ is still an adposition, but it is located on the periphery of this category. According to Prototype Theory, membership in a category is determined by a bunch of features. The entities which possess the most features are the prototypical members and the elements which display fewer features, are still considered a member of the category but they are located on the periphery (Givón 1979 & 2001, Hopper & Thompson 1984, Anderson 1997, and Taylor 2003). In the second step, it is hypothesized that ‘rā’ is on a continuum of ‘adposition-function marker’. In other words, it is converting from a postposition to a function-marker through the process of grammaticalization . The results of the present investigation provide evidence for considering ‘rā’ as an adposition but on the outlier of this grammatical category. From historical, typological, and syntactic point of view, ‘rā’ have similarities with other prepositions of Persian. For instance, it cannot be used with other prototypical prepositionssuch as ‘dar’ (in) and ‘bā’ (with) in a single sentence which implies its syntactic distribution corresponds to other prepositions.But due to lack of lexical meaning, it is getting away from the core of the category where we can find prepositions with lexical meaning. So the first hypothesis is confirmed.Furthermore, the analysis shows that ‘rā’ connotes grammatical meaning such as definiteness, totality, specificity, and referentiality. As a result, it is approaching the grammatical polar of the ‘adposition-function marker’ continuum. In fact, if the verb of a sentence compels the presence of ‘rā’, it will be an adposition. And if it is determined by discourse, ‘rā’ will be a function marker. As the former treatment of ‘rā’ resembles that of other prepositions and the latter differs from them, we can consider ‘rā’ rā’ on a scale of ‘adposition-function marker’. Actually, it is suggested that we assigntwo positionson this scale to ‘rā’based on being an adposition or a function-marker. Therefore, the second hypothesis is approved In teaching Persian, we can refer to both categories of ‘rā’. This element as an adposition can be taught in basic levels and as a function-marker in advanced levels. While students are getting more knowledgeable about the meaning of prepositions in first levels of learning Persian, teaching ‘rā’ as an adposition would be helpful for understanding this puzzling element. When students make progress in learning prepositions and master the basics, ‘rā’ can be referred to as a function-marker. Because, in such a case, it is discourse that affect the presence of ‘rā’. So advanced students who have better perception of co-text and context, can readily understand the reason of the presence of ‘rā’. The functions and the category of ‘rā’ are not mentioned comprehensively in Persian teaching textbooks.Now we can find a solution to develop the instructional material and teach this puzzling element more effectively based on Prototype Theory. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| &lsquo, rā&rsquo, adposition, function-marker, categorization, prototype | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
ابوالقاسمی، محسن. (1380). تاریخ زبان فارسی، چاپ سوم، تهران: انتشارات سمت. ابوالقاسمی، محسن. (1381). دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، چاپ سوم، تهران: انتشارات سمت. باباسالار، اصغر. (1392). کاربردهای خاص "را" در برخی متون فارسی، ادب فارسی. دورهی 3 (1)، صص:181-196. حق‌بین، فریده و هما اسدی. (1392). باز هم "را:: این بار در محاوره. زبان‌پژوهی، دورهی 5 (901)، صص: 61- 86. دبیرمقدم، محمد. (1369). پیرامون را در زبان فارسی. مجله زبانشناسی، دورهی 7 (1)، صص: 1-60. راسخ مهند، محمد و نفیسه رنجبر ضرابی. (1392). بررسی شبکهی معنایی حروف اضافهی در و سر. پژوهش‌های زبان شناسی تطبیقی، دورهی 3 (5)، صص: 95-111. رضایی، حدائق. (1390). جایگاه هسته در زبان فارسی: تاملی از دیدگاه رده‌شناسی درزمانی. پژوهش‌های زبانشناسی، دورهی 3(5)، صص: 35-46. سعادت، اسماعیل. (1378). "را"ی بعد از "یاگی نکره. نشر دانش، سال 17 (1)، صص: 17-26. گلفام، ارسلان، عاصی، مصطفی، آقا گل‌زاده، فردوس و یوسفی راد، فاطمه. (1388). بررسی حرف اضافهی "از" در چارچوب معناشناسی شناختی و مقایسه یآن با رویکرد سنتی. زبان و زبانشناسی. سال 5(10)، صص: 69 -80. معزی‌پور، فرهاد. (1393). نگاهی نقشگرا – ساختگرا به مفعول رایی و مفعول نمایه‌ای در زبان فارسی. به کوشش محمد دبیرمقدم، مجموعه مقالات نهمین دوره کنفرانس دوسالانه زبانشناسی ایران (1193- 1212). تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، معین، محمد. (1341). اسم جنس و معرفه، نکره. تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر. References: Abolghassemi, M. (2002). M. A Historical Grammar of the Persian Language. Tehran: SAMT Publication. [In Persian] Abolghassemi, M. (2001). A History of the Persian Language. Tehran: Samt Publications. [In Persian] Anderson, J. M. (1997). A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Babasalar, A. (2013). Special Uses of ‘rā’ in Some Persian Texts. Persian Literature. 3 (1), 181-196. [In Persian] Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1990). About ‘rā’ in Persian Language. Majalle -ye Zabānšenāsi (Linguistics Magazine). 7 (1), 1-60. [In Persian] Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1992). On the (In)dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the Postposition-rā in Persian. Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts. 549-573. Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1997). Descriptive and Theoretical Aspects of Word Order Status in Persian and Selected Iranian Languages. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. London: Elsevier Science Ltd. Dabir-Moghaddam,M. (2001). Word Order Typology of Iranian Languages. The International Journal of Humanities, 8 (2), 17-21. Dryer, M. S. (2005). Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase. The World Atlas of Language Structures [online], 346-347. Dryer, M. S. (2001). Mon-Khmer Word Order from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. In K.L.Adams andT.J.Hudak (Eds.).Papers from the Sixth Annual Meeting of the SoutheastAsian Linguistics Society, 83-99. Arizona State: Tempe. Geeraerts D. & Cuyckens H. (Eds.).(2007).The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ghomeshi, J. (1997). Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua,102 (2), 133-167. Givón, T. (1978). Definiteness and Referentiality.In , Joseph H. Greenberg (Ed.).Syntax, Universals of Human Language. 4, 291-330. Givón, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Givón, T. (2005). Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Golfam, A., Assi, M., Agha Golzadeh, F.&Yousefi Rad, F. (2009). The Analysis of Persian Preposition /az/ within the framework of Cognitive Semantics and Comparing it with the Traditional Approach. Language and Linguistics. 5(10), 69-80.[In Persian] Golfam, A., & Yousefi Rad, F. (2010). A Cognitive Semantic Approach to Persian Spatial Prepositions, a Pedagogical Perspective, Case Study: Persian Preposition/dær. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 56, 167-179. Haghbin, F. & Asadi, H. (2014). Again ‘rā’: This Time Colloquial. Zabanpazhuhi (Journal of Language Research). 5 (901), 61-86. [In Persian] Haspelmath, M. (2008). Syntactic Universals and Usage Frequency. Lecture at the Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity. Hooshmand, M., Rezai, V. & Motavallian, R. (2015). Transitivity and Object Marking in Persian. International Journal of Language Studies, 9(1), 41-47. Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language, 251-299. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language, 60(4): 703-752. Iemmolo, G. (2010). Topicality and Differential Object Marking Evidence from Romance and Beyond. Studies in Language, 34(2), 239-272. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Mass: MIT Press. Karimi, S. (1989). Aspects of Persian Syntax, Specificity and the Theory of Grammar. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Arizona. Karimi, S. (2003). On Object Positions, Specificity, and Scrambling in Persian. In Word order and Scrambling. S. Karimi (Ed.), 91-124. Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers. Labov, W. (1973). The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings. In C-J. Bailey and R.W. Shuy (Eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 340-73. Langacker, R. (2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lazard, G. (1982). Le morpheme –ra en Persan et les relations actancielles. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris,77(1), 177-208. Lazard, G. (2003). What Is an Object in a Crosslinguistic Perpective? In Romance Objects: Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, Giuliana Fiorentino (Ed.), 1-16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marsden, H. & Slabakova, R. (2019). Grammatical Meaning and the Second Language Classroom: Introduction. Language Teaching Research, 23 (2). 147-157. Moezzipour, F. (2015). A Functional-Constructional View on DOM and DOI in Persian, In Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (Ed.) Proceedings of 9th Biannual Conference on Iranian Linguistics (1193-1212).Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press.[In Persian] Moin, M. (1962). The Noun, Definite and the Indefinite. Tehran: Amirkabir Publications. [In Persian] Newby, D. (2013). Pedagogical Grammar. Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, 524-526. Rasekh Mahand, M. & Ranjbar Zarrabi, N. (2013). The Semantic Networks of Two Prepositions; Dar and Sar. Journal of Comparative Linguistic Researches. 3 (5), 95-111.[In Persian] Rezaei, H. (2011). Head- position in Persian from a Diachronic Typology Viewpoint. Researches in Linguistics, 3(5), 35-46. [In Persian] Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and Experientialism. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), 25-47. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328-350. Rosch, E. H. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Roch and B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 27-48 . Saadat, I. (1999). ‘Rā’ after Indefinite Marker ‘Ya’. Našr e dāneš (Dāneš Magazine). 17 (1), 17-26.[In Persian] Sadrai, M. (2014). Cognitive Status and Ra-marked Referents of Nominal Expressions in Persian Discourse. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Shokouhi, H. & Kipka, P. (2003). A Discourse Study of Persian râ. Lingua, 113(10), 953-966. Taylor, J. R. (2003 [1989]). Linguistic Categorization. 3rd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tuggy, D. (2007). Schematicity. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), 82-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whaley, L. J. (1997). Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language, California: Sage Publications. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 490 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 433 |
||