بررسی ساخت آغازگری در متون فارسی میانه از منظر فرانقش متنی رویکرد نقشگرای هلیدی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
این پژوهش می کوشد تا به بررسی برخی ویژگی های متنی در متون دوره میانه زبان فارسی بپردازد. پژوهش حاضر می تواند زمینه ای را برای مقایسه متون دوره های پیشین زبان فارسی با فارسی امروز فراهم آورد. بر اساس چنین دستاوردهایی، می توان بررسی کرد که در سطح بازنمایی ساخت آغازگری و نحوه چینش پیام چه تغییراتی در روند تکوین زبان فارسی صورت گرفته است. بنا بر نظر هلیدی متیسون، آغازگر نقطه عزیمت پیام است و جایگاه بند را در درون متن تعیین می کند. به منظور انجام پژوهش حاضر، متن روایی کارنامه اردشیر بابکان و متن اندرزی دینکرد ششم انتخاب شدند. نتایج نشان می دهند که بیشترین بسامد وقوع آغازگر در هر دو متن، متعلق به آغازگرهای مرکب و بی نشان است و بسامد آن در هر متن تقریبا 65% است. در این میان، الگوی «آغازگر متنی (ساختاری) + آغازگر مبتدایی» بالاترین درصد وقوع را دارد. باتوجه به این امر می توان ادعا کرد که در این دوره برای آغاز پیام غالباً از این الگو استفاده می شده است. درصد وقوع آغازگرهای بینافردی (وجه) در کارنامه اردشیر بابکان بسیار پایین است، باوجوداین، درصد وقوع این آغازگر در دینکرد ششم قابل توجه است. نکته قابل تأمل دیگر در متن دینکرد ششم وجود آغازگرهای گسسته است، یعنی بخشی از آغازگر در ابتدای جمله می آید و پس از آن اجزای دیگر جمله قرار می گیرند؛ ادامه آغازگر بعد از اجزای دیگر جمله می آید. همچنین، بررسی ویژگی نشانداری و بی نشانی در فارسی میانه و مقایسه آن با فارسی امروز نشان دهنده تغییر در گروه های نشانداری و بی نشانی در زبان فارسی است. این امر می تواند زمینه را برای مطالعات شناختی بازکند.Examining the Construction of Thematic Structures in Middle Persian Texts from the Perspective of Textual Themes of Halliday’s Approach
This study investigates the thematic structure in Middle Persian Texts based on Halliday’s approach. Accordingly, it could be investigated that what changes have happened in the thematic structure during the process of Language development. Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) claim that the theme is the point of departure. In order to do this study, two texts of kārnāmag i ardešir bābakān (Text 1) and dinkar šašom (Text 2) were chosen. The results suggest that the highest occurrence of themes belongs to the unmarked multiple theme (almost 65% in both texts) with the pattern of “Textual theme + Topical theme” (70.27% in Text1 and 60.83% in Text2). Based on this fact it could be claimed that in that era this pattern was used to transfer the message. Introduction The present research is an attempt to describe themes from the perspective of textual meta-function in Middle Persian texts in Halliday and Matthiessen’s Functional Grammar (2014). Halliday’s systematic order is a meaning-based approach that considers the most significant role of language which is “communicating and meaning”. In this theory, four semantic layers or meta functions are proposed to convey meaning: experiential meta function, interpersonal meta function, textual meta function, and logical meta function. In this research, textual meta function plays the main role. In textual meta-function, themes and rhemes are the structural tools for creating discourse and text. This research is very important in some points, for the first reason, it provides the bed for comparison of the textual characteristics of the texts in present and previous Persian language development. Also, in such researches, different writing styles are examined to convey meaning and pave the way for analyzing the discourse of historical texts. In this regard, two texts of kārnāmag i ardešir bābakān and Dinkard ī šašom were selected to examine the textual characteristics based on the textual meta function of Halliday’s approach (2014), and the first content is about Sassanian dynasty. Dinkard ī šašom is the most complete book of the Middle Persian, and it is included among religious encyclopedias. Research Questions This research attempts to answer the following questions: What are the differences between thematical patterns in two narrative and instructional texts in the middle period? In which of the two narrative and instructional texts, the proportion of marked theme is higher? Literature Review Various studies have been conducted in connection with Halliday's systematic theory (2014), and each of these studies has examined a part of this theory. Methodology Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) consider the basic unit for understanding meaning in systematic grammar as “clause” and present three layers or meta functions to understand meaning. These three meta-functions are experiential, interpersonal, and textual. Textual meta function deals with the textual structure of the language and organizes the coherence and continuity of the flow of speech. In this theory, the way the structures are arranged inside the clause is important. Based on this, in a clause, there are two roles of theme-rheme, which together represent the theme-rheme system. According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2014), the theme is the point of departure of the message and determines the position of the clause within the text. Also, the theme shows how the message is conveyed with the help of language and context, and how what we say is related to what has already been said. The theme itself is divided into two categories: Simple theme: Simple complex as theme: Ali is Ahmed's best friend. Multiple group complex as theme: Ali's best friend in class is Ahmed. Multiple themes: Textual primer (2014:107): continuative, conjunction, conjunction adjust Interpersonal initiator (2014: 107): vocative, modal adjunct, finite verbal Sometimes, multiple themes have all three types of components. Conclusion In order to investigate the structure of themes in the Middle Persian, 46 sentences were extracted from kārnāmag i ardešir bābakān and Dinkard ī šašom, and these sentences were divided into “clauses” defined in this approach, according to Halliday’s functional grammar. In kārnāmag i ardešir bābakān, 65.04% of themes are multiple and unmarked. The marked themes are rarely seen in this text and the clauses often follow the pattern of unmarked sentences in Middle Persian. Only 4.85% of themes are simple and marked and 6.79% of them are marked multiple. Accordingly, textual themes play an important role in the formation of multiple themes in this text. “ud” (which means “and” in Persian today) as a textual (structural) theme, has the highest percentage of occurrence. The percentage of occurrence of multiple themes with interpersonal themes is only 16.21%. This seems quite logical to consider the nature of this text, which is a narrative one. Another third pattern is “textual theme (structural) + interpersonal theme(facet) + topical theme” and the percentage of occurrence of this pattern is 13.51%. In Dinkard ī šašom, the occurrence of unmarked multiple themes is 64.74%, and in contrast, marked multiple themes occur in only 12.82% of cases, which are often present in the first clauses. The percentage of occurrence of unmarked and marked simple themes is 17.30% and 5.76%, respectively. In this text, interpersonal themes also occupy a significant percentage, which according to the content of this text, the high occurrence of this type of initiators seems logical. Another distinctive feature of themes in Dinkard ī šašom is their discrete themes. In general, it can be pointed out that in the texts of Middle Persian, unmarked and multiple themes were often used to start the message. In the text of kārnāmag i ardešir bābakān, the sentences start with simple and unmarked themes. Then, they move on to multiple themes. Interpersonal themes are rarely seen in these texts. In Dinkard ī šašom, themes are often marked and multiple, and they are the important and significant topics that this text deals with. Then, these primers move to unmarked multiple themes.