همپایگی در زبان فارسی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در پژوهش حاضر، همپایگی در زبان فارسی در دو گونه فارسی نوشتاری رسمی و فارسی محاوره ای غیررسمی بررسی شده تا بسامد وقوع و توزیع هریک از انواع همپایه سازهای زبان فارسی در این دو گونه زبانی تعیین شود. با بررسی آمار به دست آمده و تفاوت کاربرد همپایه ساز در زبان فارسی گفتاری/ محاوره ای و نوشتاری/ رسمی می توان گفت که گونه محاوره ای، تمایل بسیاری هم به ساخت همپایگی ناآشکار و هم به کاربرد ساخت وابستگی در مقابل ساخت پیوستگی یا همپایگی دارد. دستاورد دیگر پژوهش حاضر، قراردادن /bâ/ «با» در دسته همپایه سازهای عطفی زبان فارسی بوده است. نگارندگان آزمون جایگزینی را برای نظریه خود ارائه داده اند؛ یعنی با جایگزینی به جای /bâ/ «با» در ساخت های همپایه و باتوجه به تغییرنکردن چشمگیر معنای ساخت نشان دادند که می توان /bâ/ «با» را همپایه ساز زبان فارسی در نظر گرفت. این نتیجه گیری زبان فارسی را در رده زبان های /bâ/ «با» قرار می دهد که در کنار زبان های دو رده زبانی جهانی از منظر همپایگی هستند.Coordination in Persian
Persian uses coordination as a primary strategy for constructing complex syntactic structures. This research compares coordination in two varieties of Persian: formal written and informal colloquial. There are different types of coordinators which are a subgroup of conjunctions in Persian including monosyndetic, bisyndetic and multisyndetics the latter has not been previously mentioned in research. Surprisingly, the null coordinator is the most frequent one in both formal written and informal colloquial Persian. Statistical analysis showed that /bâ/ “with”, a preposition with meanings ranging from instrumentality to companionship, also functions as a coordinator in both formal and informal Persian. This positions Persian among “With-languages”, contrasting with “And-languages” in typological studies.
Keywords: coordination, conjunctive coordinators, disjunctive coordinators, adversative coordinators, monosyndetic, bisyndetic, multisyndetic coordinators
Introduction
This study aims to provide a clearer description and more accurate examination of Coordinators in Persian from a typological perspective.
Coordination is a syntactic process using conjunctions to combine two or more unique elements in order to create a complex structure. Conjunctions, of which coordinators are a subgroup, are classified by structure, function, and meaning. One main goal of this study was to achieve a complete classification of coordinators. Another goal was to compare coordination in formal written and informal colloquial Persian. This study identifies three types of coordinating conjunctions semantically: conjunctive, disjunctive, and adversative and three types structurally: monosyndetic (e.g., /va/ “with”, /jâ/ “or”), bisyndetic (e.g., /jâ … jâ/ “or … or”, /ham … ham/ “too … too”), and multisyndetic (e.g., /ĉe … ĉe/ “which …which”). Null coordination is also widely used in both varieties.
Research Questions
1- What types of coordinators are used in Persian?
2- Is there a significant difference in the use of coordinators in formal and informal Persian?
3- What are the distribution patterns of coordinators in formal and informal Persian?
Literature Review
Haspelmath (2004) defines coordinating construction as one in which all of the constituents are of the same syntactic category, maintaining semantic relations with other surrounding elements. He attempts to provide a universal definition of this syntactic process, common across languages, showing a vast range of differences alongside similarities. Coordination combines various syntactic structures, from noun phrases to clauses, using elements called coordinators. Coordinated parts are reversible, without backward anaphora, and multiple conjuncts are possible.
Stilo (2004) examines coordination in three western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Gilaki, and two different registers of Modern Persian: colloquial Tehrani Persian and formal written Persian. He classifies coordinate conjunctions as monosyndetic and bisyndetic: conjunctive, adversative, and disjunctive, and discusses their historical origins and derivations. Stilo (2004) also addresses stress, intonation, and punctuation in these languages.
Stassen (2000) differentiates languages typologically by their strategies for encoding noun phrase conjunction: coordinate and comitative. This distinction leads to the classification of “And-languages” and “With-languages”. It is demonstrated that With-languages exhibit a tendency to drift towards And-languages. Stassen (2000) focuses mainly on noun phrase conjunctions to identify similarities and differences among languages.
Methodology
This research analyzes two varieties of Modern Persian: formal written and informal colloquial. The corpus for the formal variety includes the novel Suvashun by Simin Daneshvar, a prominent contemporary Iranian author from the late 1970s, and seven movie scripts (2014) by Asghar Farhadi, an Oscar-winning Iranian director, representing informal colloquial Persian. This research falls within corpus-based studies of Persian linguistics and compares the distribution of coordinators in the two varieties, contributing to comparative studies of languages. By classifying different types of coordinators in Persian, this study also contributes to typological studies.
Results
Persian coordinators are classified semantically as conjunctive, disjunctive, and adversative and from a structurally as monosyndetic, bisyndetic, and multisyndetic. The most frequently used coordinator in both varieties is the conjunctive monosyndetic /va/ “and” and its clitic allomorph “o” in spoken Persian.
Comparison of the usage, frequency, and distribution of different types of coordinators in formal and informal Persian reveals Persian’s overall tendency to use coordination as a popular strategy for complex syntactic structures. Among 91260 words in Suvashun, there are 5472 coordinators, whereas only 83 coordinators are found in the 19500 words of the seven movie Scripts.
The analysis indicated that informal colloquial Persian prefers asyndetic structures - coordination with null/empty coordinator – more than formal written Persian.
Additionally, /bâ/ “with” functions as a coordinator in both varieties, reinforcing Persian’s classification as a “With-language” in typological studies.
تبلیغات
