کاربست خلاقانه واژگان در زبان عارفان براساس نظریه حوزه های لانگاکر (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
هنگام تولید یا فهم عبارت های زبانی، در فرآیندهای کاملاً پیچیده و ظریف ساخت مفهومی درگیر می شویم که از منابع فراوان و گوناگونی برداشت می کنند. ازجمله این منابع «معانی واژگانی» است. از نخستین ادوار تکوین تصوف اسلامی، خلق معانی بدیع و نامتعارف و بازی های زبان شناختی با واژگان در گستره وسیعی از زبان عارفان به چشم می خورد. همجواری بافتیِ معنای متعارف واژه درمقابل معنای خلاقانه و بدیع، به چندصدایی معنایی منجر می شود و هدف عارف از این همجواری، شکستن عرف و عادت های زبانی به عنوان محور جمال شناسی در بلاغت صوفیه و در نتیجه عادت ستیزی در نگریستن به واقعیت زبانی و فرازبانی است. پژوهش حاضر می کوشد با توجه به مبانی نظری و روش شناختی نظریه حوزه های لانگاکر، سازوکارهای معناسازی عارفان را از رهگذر «ابهام معنایی واژگانی» بررسی کند. براساس نتایج پژوهش، برخورد خلّاقانه عارفان با دو پدیده «چندمعنایی» و «هم آوا-هم نویسگی»، ضمن فراهم آوردن بستر مناسبی برای معنی آفرینی و گفتمان سازی با تغییر حوزه های معنایی واژگان در فرآیندی ساخت شکن و آشنایی زدا به شاعرانگی و ارزش زیبایی شناختی زبان عرفان افزوده است.The creative use of words in the language of mystics based on Langacker's domain theory
When articulating or understanding linguistic expressions, we are involved in completely complex and delicate processes of conceptual construction drawn from many and diverse sources. Among these sources is ‘lexical meanings’. From the first periods of the development of Islamic Sufism, the creation of novel and unconventional meanings and linguistic games with words can be seen in a wide range of mystics’ languages. The textual juxtaposition of the conventional meaning of the word in front of the creative and original meaning leads to semantic polyphony, and the mystic’s goal of this juxtaposition is to break the customs and linguistic habits as the axis of aesthetics in Sufi rhetoric and as a result, anti-habits in looking at the linguistic and meta-linguistic reality. The current research tries to investigate the meaning-making mechanisms of mystics through ‘lexical semantic ambiguity’ according to the theoretical and methodological foundations of Langaker's domain theory. Based on the results of the research, the mystic’s creative dealing with the two phenomena of ‘polysemy’ and ‘homonymy’, while providing a suitable platform for meaning creation and discourse creation by changing the semantic fields of words in a deconstructive and defamiliarizing process, has added to the poetics and aesthetic value of the mystic language.IntroductionDespite despising the limitations of language in Sufi texts, they understood the secrets of the word and its importance in creating the experimental world and the image of spiritual worlds. Therefore, if we accept the cognitive point of view that language is a ‘reflection of thought patterns’, investigating the mechanisms of creative use of language and exploiting this creativity in Sufi discourse opens new worlds in front of us through the mystic’s mind and language. Many creative processes of making meaning in the language of mystics rely on their attention to the semantic capacities of ‘vocabulary’. The most important semantic studies have been mainly related to how the linguistic context affects the analysis of individual words, but the key role of words in motivating conceptual dynamic processes and the influence of a single word in the interpretation of the discourse flow has been neglected. The creative treatment of words, as part of the mystic’s language, reflects his desire to create new abstract conceptual structures, often according to available sources. Such an innovative and creative use of a set of lexical units can be seen in the mystic’s exploitation of ‘lexical semantic ambiguity’. With the creative use of words, mystics broke established semantic conventions and tried to present a new and unconventional perspective on linguistic and meta-linguistic reality. Based on this, the questions that this research seeks to answer are as follows: 1) What is the role of ‘lexical meanings’ in the processes of conceptual construction and creative meaning-making in mystical language? 2) What cognitive mechanisms does the mystic rely on with his words and meaning-making through the passage of lexical meanings? 3) What is the role of the analysis of the meaning-creating cognitive mechanisms of mystics by relying on words in the analysis of mystic language in particular and in the analysis of mystic attitude and style in general? The first assumption is that the creation of novel and unconventional meanings and linguistic games with words can be seen in a wide range of mystics’ language from the first periods of Sufism. According to the second hypothesis, the meaning of a word for mystics is a complex interaction of lexical semantic ambiguity, context, encyclopedic knowledge, and conceptual dynamic processes, which are the main concepts of Langaker’s domain theory such as semantic domain, conceptual mapping, domain, base, etc. that provide us with efficient tools to explain them. According to the third hypothesis, if we consider the mystic’s language as a reflection of his thinking patterns according to the cognitive approach, then the cognitive analysis of meaning-making processes in the mystical language opens up new worlds through the mystic’s mind and language.Literature ReviewLangacker's Domain Theory: The term ‘domain’ was used for the first time by Langaker (1987) under the influence of Fillimore’s theory of semantic formats and relying on one of the central assumptions of cognitive semantics, according to which “meaning has an encyclopedic nature” and a lexical concept cannot be independent and is understood from larger knowledge structures (Clausner & Croft, 1999, p. 20). Langaker calls these knowledge structures ‘domains’. The theory of encyclopedic semantics consists of two basic parts: 1) semantic structure (meaning related to linguistic units such as words) provides access to a large treasure of structured knowledge (conceptual system). According to this view, the meaning of the word cannot be understood independently of the vast treasure of encyclopedic knowledge that the word is related to; 2) This encyclopedic knowledge is rooted in human interaction with others (social experience) and the world around (physical experience) (Evans & Green, 2021, p. 275).According to the first part, lexical concepts (meanings related to words) are understood in terms of several semantic fields that are organized in a network. The range of domains that structure a single lexical concept is called the “domain matrix” of that concept. Each word is a “point of access” to the complete list of knowledge related to a specific lexical concept (Langacker, 1987, p. 152). For example, if we consider the word ‘chord’, we know that the lexical concept behind this word is related to ‘the longest side of a right triangle’, but the chord provides an access point to a potentially infinite list of knowledge related to right triangles, triangle as a whole, geometric shapes, geometric calculation, space" and so on. However, only a part of this knowledge network is necessary to understand the meaning of a lexical concept. Langacker explains this issue in terms of the three concepts of domain, view, and base (Langacker, 1987, p. 183).The relationship between the chord and the right triangle is a conceptual ‘profile’ against a ‘base’. That is, the word chord profiles the longest side of the right triangle, while the base is the entire right triangle with all its sides. Shooting is a manifestation of a very common human cognitive ability in language, namely attention, along with the ability to transfer attention from one side of the scene to another. For example, when watching a tennis match, we can focus on different aspects of the match including the referee, the ball in the air, the players, or parts of the audience. In a similar way, language provides ways of drawing attention to aspects of the scene. The view of a linguistic unit is the part of its semantic structure that the word focuses on. That aspect of the meaning structure that is not in the focus of attention, but is necessary for understanding the expression, is called base. The view is not enough to define the concept of the word because it presupposes another knowledge, i.e. its base in its definition. It is meaningless without a foundation. But every single base like the ‘right triangle’ is a complex conceptual structure that includes a wide range of conceptual views such as angle, side, median, height, bisector, base, and the like. Therefore, the basis alone is not enough to define the linguistic concept. As a result, each linguistic unit must specify its equivalent and base (Langacker, 1987, p. 152).According to the second part of the theory of encyclopedic semantics, the range of domains that structure a lexical concept includes linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge. The followers of the usage-based model do not accept an independent mental vocabulary that contains semantic knowledge separate from other types of knowledge (linguistic and non-linguistic); therefore, the division of linguistic meaning into semantics (meaning independent of the context) and pragmatics (meaning dependent on the context) reject a principled distinction between "core" meaning and pragmatic, social, and cultural meaning (Allwood, 2003, p. 43). In this way, the meaning of the word is the result of the use of language, which is guided by the context, and as a result, the textual information is made online. Therefore, the matrix of domains of a concept includes semantic and pragmatic knowledge.Lexical Semantic Ambiguity: Cognitive lexical semantics takes the view that lexical items (words) are conceptual categories: each word represents a category of distinct but related meanings that exhibit some kind of effects (Evans & Green, 2021, p. 433). The ambiguity of meaning or the multiple meanings of words has provided a rich platform for mystics to make meaning. While both polysemy and homology phenomena lead to lexical ambiguity (two or more meanings attached to the same word), the nature of the ambiguity is different in each case. In the multiple-meanings phenomenon, each word is usually associated with two or more meanings that are apparently related in some way and are placed under a single entry in the dictionary. However, ‘homophonous-homonymous’ refers to two different words that coincidentally share a sound (homophonous) and a written form (homonymous) and are placed under separate main entries in the dictionary. For example, the word ‘beard’ is related to two different words with unrelated meanings: merits and harm.MethodologyThe present research is based on the analytical-applied method based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of cognitive semantics and specifically Langacker’s domain theory to the cognitive analysis of Sufism authors’ linguistic behavior with words and how they use the semantic capacities of words, especially the capacities deals with lexical semantic ambiguity in the conceptualization of the main signs of Sufi discourse.ResultsMany creative processes of creating meaning in the language of mystics rely on their attention to the semantic capacities of words. Semantic ambiguity, polysemy, and homophony are among the phenomena that motivate conceptual dynamic processes in the mystic’s mind and change and direct the discourse flow in his language. The meaning of the word in mystical stories and works is a complex interaction between lexical semantic ambiguity, context, and mystical encyclopedic knowledge. The creative use of words in the mystic language includes a mental change from one domain to another semantic domain during a conceptual operation and during the moment-to-moment construction of meaning in the discourse. From a cognitive point of view, such mental change is possible because according to this theory, words are access points to large encyclopedic knowledge networks that are gathered in the form of semantic fields.AcknowledgementsThe current research is derived from the research project of the post-doctoral course entitled Cognitive Analysis of the Creative Processes of Meaning-making in the Language of Mystics which was carried out with the support of the National Elite Foundation (Martyr Chamran Scientific Award) and under the guidance of Dr. Arslan Golfam at Tarbiat Modares University.
تبلیغات
