نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

مطالعات نظری زبان­شناسی و تجربۀ عملی در فرهنگ­نویسی، دو شاخۀ مستقل از بررسی­های زبان ی­اندکه هرکدام با پرسش­ها و مسائل ویژة خود روبه‌رو هستند. هر چند در حوزۀ «معنا­شناسی واژگانی» کار زبان­شناس و فرهنگ ­نویس بیشترین مرز مشترک را با هم دارند، اما بیشترین همگرائی در مبحث «چندمعنایی» به چشم می­خورد. در پژوهش حاضر، بررسی چندمعنایی در پیوند با مقولۀ واژگانی «فعل» انجام ‌شد. همچنین داده­هایی مشتمل بر حدود 500 جمله و پاره‌گفته در ارتباط با فعل حرکتی «افشاندن» به دست آمد. «زبان­شناسی شناختی» بحث­های معناشناسی واژگانی را در مرکز مطالعات خود قرار داده‌است. بر این مبنا، پژوهش حاضر به توصیف چند معنایی فعل «افشاندن» در چارچوب نظریۀ «معنا شناسی چارچوب»، «شبکۀ واژگانی» و «دستور ساختی» که از نظریات موردتوجه در زبان­شناسی شناختی هستند، می­پردازد. در بررسی چندمعنائی فعل افشاندن به منظور ایجاد تفکیک‌های معنائی، به طرح دو پرسش پرداخته شد: 1) مرز دو برش معنائی کجاست؟ 2) آیا بین معانی مختلف یک واژۀ چندمعنا ارتباط وجود دارد و این موضوع چطور می­تواند در فرهنگ­ نویسی مؤثر باشد؟ بر پایة یافته‌های پژوهش، مسئلۀ «هم‌معنایی» و «شمول معنایی» و وجود «شبکۀ معنایی» بین معناهای گوناگون یک فعل چندمعنا از جمله مبحث‌های زبان­شناسی شناختی است. این مبحث‌ها در مرحلۀ «تفکیک معانی» از کار تعریف­ نگاری فعل و در پاسخ­گوئی به پرسش‌های پژوهش حاضر بسیار اهمیت دارند. در این میان، اگر تعریف­ نگار بتواند بیشتر از ابزار توصیفی که زبان­شناسی و به‌خصوص شاخۀ شناختی در اختیار او قرار می­دهد استفاده کند، کار او نظام­ مند­تر و از خطاهای شخصی بیشتر دور می­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Lexicography of the Verb and Cognitive Linguistics: A case study of Afshandan

نویسنده [English]

  • Tina Ghanbarian

Tarbiat Modares University

چکیده [English]

The work of a linguist and a lexicographer in the field of lexical semantics has the largest common border. In the process of lexicography, a lexicographer faces one of the main issues in lexical semantics: polysemy. When a lexicographer is trying to define a polysemous word for a monolingual dictionary, he/she has to undertake a special task, so-called: sense discrimination, that means he/she has to make a distinction between various meanings of that word. Lexicographical practice in short appears to be in accordance with the lexicological observation that the distinction between meanings need not to be clear-cut. This has been a controversial problem in both disciplines. In order to provide some argumentations to the problem, this research is conducted with the help of the descriptive tools that cognitive linguistics offers, namely: the theory of Semantic Networks (Norvig & Lakoff, 1987), Frame Semantic (Fillmore, 1982) and Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995; Nemoto, 2005).  This study is conducted on the lexical category of “verb”, which has semantic complexity, and to this end, the Persian motion verb of Afshandan has been chosen as a case study. The data for this research have been extracted from the corpus of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature, which includes about 500 sentences and phrases containing this verb.
The synonymy problem: By examining the syntactic and semantic distribution of arguments of some so-called synonymous verbs, which are used in the definition of the verb afʃãndan in Persian dictionaries, it is intended to demonstrate the usefulness of Fillmore’s (1982) Frame Semantics for describing verbal argument realization patterns across these near-synonymous verbs. This section addresses the issue of describing the similarities and differences exhibited by synonymous verbs which are routinely used for defining the verb afʃãndan, namely: rixtan (to pour), pãʃidan (to spray), parãkandan (to scatter) and andãxtan (to drop). The most significant motivation inside the language for making a sense discrimination is the existence of these synonymous verbs which are almost equal to each sense of afʃãndan and another motivation for the description of the frame verb is profiling the “destination” in the lexical semantics of these verbs. We see in lexical semantics of the verbs like rixtan, pãʃidan and andaxtan as apposed to parãkandan, the “destination” is profiled and it is hidden in the meaning of the verb. The motivation outside the language is the categorization of patients, which indicates the meaningful difference between the properties of the patient role of the verb andãxtan in comparison with rixtan, pãʃidan and parãkandan. The patient of the third one would be a massive thing that does not have a potentiality for turning into tiny fragments by a light force. The result of this section is also checked with the definition of the equal English verb afʃãndan: “to scatter” and it reveals many similarities between both Persian and English verbs’ frame elements in the process of sense discrimination.
So, profiling the “destination” in lexical semantics and categorization of the objects (patients) are two reasons, which justify discrimination in the process of defining a transitive motion verb like afʃãndan.
The hyponymy problem: The most significant contribution that Construction Grammar can make to lexicography is the information about the syntactic behavior of words that is or could be included in a dictionary. In the current study, by interacting the verb afʃãndan with the preposition construction “az” which makes the “source” in the verb’s frame semantic elements, profiled, we face a new sense which arises from the following construction: “object+ az+ source (place/ surface)+ verb (afʃãndan)”. This new sense would mean like “wiping”. Now there is a motivation inside the language, e.g. in our corpse, that is, most of the words used as objects of the construction “az …afʃãndan” could be categorized in the category named “dust” and this sense is like “dusting” in English.  If we can consider dusting as a kind of wiping, it seems we face a problem; we have named it “hyponymy problem” in sense discrimination process. It is argued that in favor of evaluating the frequency rule in the corpse-oriented studies and cognitive linguistics, we can consider the incorporated verb “gard (dust) afʃãndan (wiping)” as a new sense that means “dusting”. What if we consider “gard giri” (dusting) under hyponymy of “roobidan” (wiping)? In another sense discrimination by profiling the “intention of agent” and “result of the act” in addition to a new frame (shaking the source, e.g. place/surface), it seems that we would have a new sense. At the same time, there is a motivation inside the language, which is the existence of the synonymous verb “takãndan” (shaking the surface of something in order to remove the tiny things from it) equal to this sense of afʃãndan. Again there is another hyponymy problem because we have some incorporated form of the verb as “dast (hand) afʃãndan”, “dãman (skirt) afʃãndan” etc., in which we have just a sense of “shaking” for afʃãndan. So, can we consider “takãndan” under the hyponymy of “takãn dadan”?
It seems that a solution for this problem is considering information about “constructions” like incorporated and prepositional constructions, as important information that must be included in dictionaries.
The existence of lexical network: Not all different meanings exist in isolation; they are related in various ways to the central sense and to each other’s. The existence of different types of connectivity between different meanings in the lexical network of the polysemous verb could be important for lexicography because a lexicographer can avoid wrong analogy between the possible sense of verbs and the existence of a near-synonymous verb for it in the language. For example, creating a sense of “afrooxtan (to fire)” for afʃãndan when it used with the noun like atash (fire) or doozax (hell) is an over-generalization because we cannot connect this meaning to the central or the other meanings.
 
Figure 1. Semantic network of the verb “afʃãndan”
Lexicography, as a highly specialized domain with general and specific readers, is greatly influenced by linguistics. This research represents some aspects of the Cognitive Linguistics theory throughwhich the corpus data can be identified and analyzed in a more systematic and less subjective way.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • lexicography
  • cognitive linguistics
  • polysemy
  • verb
  • Constraction grammar

افراشی، آزیتا و سید سجاد صامت جوکندان. (1393). «چندمعنایی نظام­مند با رویکردی شناختی: تحلیل چندمعنایی فعل حسی «شنیدن» در زبان فارسی». ادب پژوهی. شمارۀ 30. صص 29- 59.

انوری، حسن (1382). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران: سخن.

راسخ­­مهند، محمد (1389). «بررسی معانی حروف اضافۀ مکانیِ فرهنگ سخن بر اساس معنی­ شناسی شناختی». ادب پژوهی. شماره 14. صص 49-66.

راسخ­­مهند، محمد. (1389). درآمدی بر زبان‌شناسی شناختی، نظریه ­ها و مفاهیم. تهران: سمت.

 شریف، بابک، محمد عموزاده و غلامحسین کریمی دوستان (1395). «شبکۀ معنایی فعل گرفتن بر اساس انگارۀ چندمعنایی اصول­ مند». پژوهش­های زبانی. شمارۀ 1. صص 117-135.

صدری افشار، غلامحسین، نسرین حکمی  و نسترن حکمی (1381)، فرهنگمعاصر فارسیامروز. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.

صفوی، کوروش (1379). درآمدی بر معنا­شناسی. تهران: انتشارات سورۀ مهر.

طبیب‌زاده، امید (1391). دستور زبان فارسی، بر اساس نظریۀ گروه­های خودگردان در دستور وابستگی. تهران: نشر مرکز.

فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی(1395). پیکرۀ فرهنگ جامع زبان فارسی.[Online]:

 < http://farhang.apll.ir/>

قطره، فریبا. (1386). «نقش زبان­شناسی در فرهنگ­ نویسی امروز». فرهنگ ­نویسی (ویژه ­نامۀ نامۀ فرهنگستان). دورۀ اول. شمارۀ اول. صص 68-98.

نصیب ضرابی، فهمیه، علی ایزانلو (1393). «بررسی معناشناختی فعل «خوردن» بر اساس معنای پایۀ «پذیرا». زبان‌پژوهی. دورة 8. شمارة 20.  صص 142-152.

References

Academy of Persian Language and Literature (2016). Corpus of comprehensive dictionary of Persian language. [Online]: <www.persianacademy.ir>

Afrashi, A., & Samet. S. (2014). Principled polysemy with the cognitive approach: an analysis of polysemy in sense verb of Shenidan in Persian language. Adabpzhoohi, 30, 29-59 [In Persian].

Anvari, H. (2002). Sokhan comprehensive dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].

Aslani, M. R., Tavangar, M., & Rafeie, A. (2013). Frame semantics, metalexicography and the microstructure of Persian monolingual dictionaries. Inernational Journal of Linguistics, 5(3), 99-114.

Atkins, B. T, Kegl, J., & Levin. B. (1988). Anatomy of a verb entry: from linguistic theory to lexicographic practice. In A. Zampolli, N. Calzolari., & M. Palmer (Eds.), International Journal of Lexicography (pp. 237-266). Oxford: Oxford university press.

Boas, Hans C. (2001). Frame semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In Rayson, P. A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, and S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 64-73) Lancaster, U.K: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.

Brugman, C. (1981). The story of over (Master thesis). University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Croft, W., & Logan, S. (2017). Construction grammar and lexicography, international handbook of modern lexis and lexicography. New York: Springer.

Evanse, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111-138). Seoul: Hanshin.

Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Ghanbarian, T. (2016). Separability in Persian complex predicates and the verbal new sense, a lexicographical challenge. Workshop on Complex Predicates in Iranian Languages. Tarbiat Modares University (The Academy of Persian Language and Literature), Summer 2016, Tehran, Iran. [Online]: <https://sites.google.com/site/cprut2016/>

Ghatreh, F. (2007). The role of linguistics in today’s lexicography. Lexicography, 1, 68-98 [In Persian].

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Nemoto, N. (2005). Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In M. Fried & F. Germany (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions (pp. 119-135). Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Norvig, P. & Lakoff G. 1987. Taking: a study in lexical network theory. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 195-206). Berkeley: BLS

Rasekhmahand, M. (2000). An introduction to cognitive linguistics: concepts and theories. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].

Rasekhmahand, M. (2000). The cognitive study of the preposition in Sokhan Dictionary. Adabpazhoohi, 14, 49-66 [In Persian].

Safavi, K. (2000). An introduction to semantics. Tehran: Sooreye Mehr Press [In Persian].

Sharif, B, Amuzadeh, M., & Karimi-doostan, Gh. (2016). Semantic network of the verb Gereftan based on principled polysemy model. Journal of Language Research, 1, 117-135 [In Persian].

Tabibzadeh, O. (2012). Persian grammar based on dependency grammar. Tehran: Markaz Press [In Persian].

Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization, prototypes in linguistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-65.

Zarabi, F., & Ezanloo, A. (2014). Semantic study of the verb Khordan. Zabanpazhuhi, 8(20), 142-152 [In Persian].

وب‌گاه‌ها

https://www.vajehyab.com