بررسی و تحلیل تنازع یا نقش دوسویه در دستور زبان فارسی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
بحث دستوری تنازع به این معناست که یک واژه یا گروه، در جمله های زبان فارسی، دو نقش داشته باشد. در مقالات و کتاب های دستور زبان فارسی، درباره تنازع یا نقش دوسویه، ابهام و اختلاف نظر وجود دارد. در این گفتار، تنازع در دستور زبان فارسی بررسی و تحلیل می شود؛ نیز کوشش شده است به این پرسش ها پاسخ داده شود: 1) تنازع در منابع دستور زبان فارسی در انواع جمله ها چگونه تبیین شده است؟ 2) چه ارتباطی میان بحث تنازع و مقوله های ابهام، واحدهای زبَرزنجیری، حذف (کاهش) و ژرف ساخت جمله های زبان وجود دارد؟ 3) قائل شدن به تنازع در جمله های زبان فارسی به تناقض و تضاد با کدام مباحث و قواعد دستوری انجامیده است؟ نگارندگان برای پاسخ به پرسش ها ابتدا دیدگاه پژوهشگران دستور زبان فارسی را به روش توصیفی تبیین کرده اند؛ سپس به شیوه تحلیلی به بررسی و نقد آرای منابع دستوری پرداخته اند. نتیجه پژوهش نشان می دهد در نحو زبان فارسی، هر واژه یا گروه در محور هم نشینی در جمله تنها یک نقش می پذیرد و علت وقوع تنازع، آمیختن صورت با معنا و دو جمله مستقل انگاشتن جمله مرکب است؛ به همین سبب تنازع با مقوله های حذف، تأویل جمله مرکب، ابهام و وابسته پذیری تداخل یافته است.Investigation of Contention or Appositional Function in Persian Grammar
The grammatical argument of contention means playing two functions by one word or phrase in Persian language sentences. There is ambiguity and disagreement in Persian grammar articles and books about contention or the appositional function. In the present study, the contention in Persian grammar has been studied and an attempt has been made to answer the following questions: 1) How is the contention in Persian grammar sources explained in different sentences? 2) What is the connection between the discussion of contention and the categories of ambiguity, suprasegmental units, deletion (reduction), and deep structure of language sentences? 3) With which grammatical issues and rules does the belief in contention in Persian language sentences lead to contradiction and conflict? The result of the research shows that in Persian syntax, each word or phrase plays only one function in the syntagmatic axis in the sentence, and the cause of the contention is the combination of the form with the meaning, and considering a compound sentence as two independent sentences, therefore the contention has interfered with the categories of deletion, compound sentence interpretation, ambiguity, and dependency. Introduction In Persian grammar articles and books, the discussion of contention or the appositional relation (dual function of a word or phrase in the sentence structure) has been raised according to the Arabic syntax and is generally defined as follows: contention is when one of the components of the word in a compound sentence plays a different function for each of the verbs. There is disagreement about the issue of contention in Persian grammar. Some of the factors that have caused this disagreement are: the newly established writing technique of Persian grammar, the imposition of grammatical rules and categories of other languages in Persian, the combination of historical grammar with contemporary grammar, and so on. Due to this disagreement, the present study investigates the issue of contention in Persian grammar. The authors will continue the issue according to the hypothesis that there is no contention in Persian sentences and the belief in contention (i.e. two functions for a word or phrase in the sentence structure) will disrupt and ineffective other rules of Persian grammar, especially in teaching Persian grammar will create an unnecessary challenge. Materials and Methods In this research, first, the outlooks of Persian grammar scholars about contention are presented using a descriptive method. Then, using an analytical method, based on the evidence of the same sources, the contention in various sentences of the Persian language is examined and criticized. Finally, the analysis and suggestions of the authors in this field are presented. Results An examination of the views of Persian grammar scholars shows that the category of contention has occurred due to ignoring the structure of the compound sentence, the category of omission, subordination, and emphasis on deep structure and sometimes the form of sentences. Accordingly, the authors suggest that based on the basic rules of grammar, including the definition of the sentence, one function of a noun and a noun phrase in the sentence, the principle of the economy (omission or reduction), and subordination, there is no need to raise the issue of contention in Persian grammar. Therefore, the evidence related to appositional relation or contention in Persian grammar sources can be described and explained based on other grammatical rules. Conclusion Contention in Persian sentences has been discussed according to the syntax of the Arabic language and in a variety of simple, basic, and compound sentences. In the sources that have considered the occurrence of contention in Persian sentences, several factors underlie this view. For example, referring to the deep structure of the sentence, ignoring the post determiner of the type of explanatory relational sentence, considering a compound sentence as two independent sentences, and relying on the form and formal structure of the sentence have caused a word or group in the sentence structure to have two functions that sometimes are repetitive but the same and sometimes different from each other. Belief in the occurrence of contention in Persian sentences interferes with the categories of omission and its types. Contention also conflicts with the interpretation of the compound sentence and the resolution of the dependent clause (dependent) in the form of a noun or adjective phrase in a compulsory or optional function in the sentence. Also, the occurrence of contention in Persian sentences is not possible because each word or phrase in the structure of a larger unit (i.e. the sentence), has only one function. Since the compound sentence is also considered an independent sentence in Persian grammar, a separate analysis of the compound sentence as two independent head and dependent sentences is not necessary and justified. It seems that believing in contention in Persian is in some way imposed by the Arabic syntactic rules and insisting on matching another language category with Persian.
تبلیغات
