بررسی مفهوم ذهنیت در افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دوره دکتری زبان‌شناسی دانشگاه اصفهان

2 دانشیار گروه زبان‌شناسی دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

  هدف از انجام این تحقیق مطالعه مفهوم ذهنیت در دو فعل وجهی «باید» و «توانستن» در زبان فارسی و همچنین بررسی مفهوم گوینده محوری در مقابل محتوا محوری در این حوزه می‌باشد. در مقاله حاضر ضمن ارائه شواهدی از گویشوران بومی زبان فارسی مفهوم ذهنی بودن دو فعل وجهی «باید» و «توانستن»، پدیده تعدد معنا با توجه به جنبه‌های معناشناختی و کاربردشناختی این افعال و همچنین دلیل همگرایی صوری معانی الزامی، پویایی و معرفتی در این دو فعل وجهی را مورد مطالعه قرار داده‌ایم. نتیجه این مطالعه حاکی از این است که مرز بین عینیت و ذهنیت در افعال وجهی کاملاً مشخص نیست و این دو از یکدیگر تفکیک ناپذیرند. به علاوه، درک جامع و کامل مفهوم عبارات وجهی محصول یکپارچگی عناصر بافتی و دانش دایره المعارفی ما از جهان پیرامون می‌باشد و نهایتاً اینکه اشتقاق معنای معرفتی از معنای الزامی تنها با معیارهای معناشناختی مبتنی بر شرایط صدق امکان‌پذیر نیست بلکه جنبه‌های کاربرد‌شناختی نظیر تضمن گفتگویی نیز در این فرایند نقش دارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

An Inquiry into the Concept of Subjectivity Involving Modal Verbs in Persian

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Naghizadeh 1
  • M. Tavangar 2
  • M. Amoozadeh 2
1 University of Isfahan
2 University of Isfahan
چکیده [English]

The aim of this paper is to study the concept of subjectivity associated with two Persian modal verbs- bayad and tavanestan- as well as investigating speaker-orientation vs. content-orientation within this domain. While offering examples taken from native Persian speakers, the present paper deals with the above-mentioned verbs in terms of subjectivity, their polysemy from semantic and pragmatic perspectives, and their formal convergence along deontic, dynamic and epistemic dimensions. The results of this study indicate that the boundary between objectivity and subjectivity is by no means clear-cut in modal verbs, and that the two concepts are inseparable. In addition, a thorough understanding of modal expressions is a function of the integration of contextual elements and encyclopedic knowledge of the outside world. Finally, the derivation of epistemic meaning from deontic meaning is not possible merely through truth-based semantic criterion. Also relevant in this respect are pragmatic aspects such as conversational implicatures.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • modal verbs
  • Subjectivity
  • objectivity
  • epistemic modality
  • deontic modality
  • dynamic modality
  • Convergence

رحیمیان، جلال. (1378). وجه فعل در فارسی امروز، مجله علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، دوره چهاردهم، شماره 2، صص 52-41

رضایی، حدائق. ( 1388). وجهیت و زمان دستوری در زبان فارسی با تأکید بر فیلمنامه‌های فارسی. پایان نامه دکتری، دانشگاه اصفهان

عموزاده، محمد و حدائق رضایی. (1389). ابعاد معناشناختی باید در زبان فارسی.مجله پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، دوره اول، شماره 1، صص78-57

 

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon

Butler, J. (2003). A Minimalist Treatment of Modality. Lingua 113, 967–996.

Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: a Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bybee, J. L. and Pagliuca, W. (1985). Cross-linguistic comparison and the develoment of grammatical meaning. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical Semantics and Historical Word Formation, pp. 60–3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bybee, J. L. (1998). Irrealis as a Grammatical Category. Anthropological Linguistics 40, 257–271.

Chung, S. and Alan T, (1985). Tense, Aspect and Mood. Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical categories and the Lexicon, ed. By T. Shopen, 202-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Haan, Ferdinand, (2000). The Relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische berichte. Hamburg, Helmut Buske Verlag.

Ehrman, M. (1966). The Meanings of the Modals in Present-day American English. The Hague: Mouton.

Evans, V. (2000). The structure of time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In: Bach, E., Harms, R.T. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1–88.

Foley, W., and R. Van Valin, (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.

Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Givon, T. (1982). Evidentiality and epistemic space.Studies in Language. 6, 23-49

Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must and should. Relevance theretic account. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 53-79.

Haegeman, L. (1983). The Semantics of “Will” in Present-day British English: a Unified Acccount. Brussels:Paleis der Academien.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Functional diversity in language, as seen from a
consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6.3.
322-361.

Halliday, M.A.K., (1994) (2nd ed). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K., (2002). On grammar. In: Webster, J. (Ed.). In: Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. I. London and New York: Continuum.

Hare, R. (1970). Meaning and speech acts. Philosophical Review 79, 3–24.

Hengeveld, K. (1988). Illocution, mood and modality in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6: 227-269.

Hopper, P, and E. Closs Traugott. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. (1997). Semantics, Vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Narrog, H. (2005). On Defining Modality Again. Language Sciences 27, 165–192.

Nuyts, J. (2000). Epistemic Modality, Language and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions. Journal of Pragmatics. 33, 383-400.

Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. London, Longman.

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, F. R. (1998). Mood and Modality: basic principles. In: Brown, K., Miller, J. (Eds.). Oxford: Elsevier, 229–235. Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality, second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the SemanticsPragmatics Interface. Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Perkins, Michael R. (1983). Modal Expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter

Sanders, J. and W. Spooren. (1997). Perspective, Subjectivity and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View. In Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. W. A. Limbert, G. Redecker, and L. Waugh (eds.), 88-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Searle, J. (1967). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sweetser, E. (1982). Root and epistemic modals: casuality in two worlds. Berleley Linguistics Society 8. 484-507

Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taleghani, H. A. (2008). Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49–100.

Tavangar, M. and M. Amouzadeh. (2009). Subjective modality and tense in Persian. Language Sciences 31, 853-873.

Traugott, E.C. (2003). Approaching modality from the perspective of Relevance Theory. Language Sciences 25, 657–669.

Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31-55.

Von Wright, George H. (1952). An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam, North Holland.

Willet. T. L. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language. 12, 51-97.