نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری زبانشناسی همگانی دانشگاه آزاداسلامی واحد علوم تحقیقات تهران

2 دانشیار زبان و فرهنگ های باستانی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی تهران

3 استادیار زبانشناسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران

چکیده

مقاله حاضر، به بررسی ساختِ مجهول، در گویش تالشی می‌پردازد. این گویش، در برخی نواحی استان گیلان رواج دارد و به سه گونه مرکزی، شمالی و جنوبی دسته‌بندی می‌شود. روش پژوهش، تلفیقی از میدانی و کتابخانه‌ای است. داده‌های پژوهش، به روش میدانی و از طریق مصاحبه با 30  گویشور بومی روستای سه سار گردآوری شده‌اند. در چارچوب نظری، از یافته‌های مرتبطِ سایر پژوهشگران نیز استفاده شد. گونة مورد  بررسی در این مقاله، از نوع جنوبی بود که در روستای سه سار رایج است. این گویش دارای دو نظام حالت فاعلی - مفعولی و کنایی - مطلق است. بر این مبنا، مقالة حاضر، به بررسی چگونگی ساخت مجهول در این دو نظام حالت می‌پردازد تا به پرسش‌هایی پاسخ دهد. آیا در این گویش ساخت مجهول وجود دارد؟ همچنین، با وجود این دو نظام حالت، مجهول‌سازی در آن چگونه انجام می‌گیرد؟ یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که در گویش تالشی سه سار، ساخت مجهول وجود دارد. هر چند در این گویش ساخت مجهول با حذف عامل صورت می‌گیرد، اما در مواردی نیز عامل از جمله حذف نمی‌شود. بلکه، با تغییر جایگاه  بعد از مفعول به صورت شناسه مبهم متصل می‌آید. همچنین ساخت مجهول فقط در صورتی به صورت همزمان در ساخت‌های کنایی رخ می‌دهد که عامل از جمله حذف نشود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Passivization in Taleshi dialect (of Sehsar)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abdullah Ezzat doust 1
  • Mojtaba Monshizadeh 2
  • Hayat Ameri 3

1 PHD student of linguistics , faculty of Ulum-eTaghighat , Islamic Azad University , Tehran , Iran

2 Associate professor of Allameh Tabatabei university ,Tehran . Iran

3 Assistant professor of Tarbiat Modares university ,Tehran . Iran

چکیده [English]

This article surveys passivization in Taleshi dialect. This dialect is common in some areas of the Guilan  province. This dialect, i.e Taleshi dialect, is  divided into three different branches which are  called central, northern and southern Taleshi dialects. The methodology which  is used  in this research is field and library research. Because the language data  are driven through a field  study and the author goes into the people and selects thirty native speakers of Sehsar village. These native speakers mostly are forty years old or more; construing that they are not affected by the neighboring dialects which are spoken around them. The author interviews these thirty native speakers of Sehsar, who  mostly reside in the village of Sehsar. He records their speech and selects the items which are applicable for the purpose of this research. It should be mentioned here that, the framework and the literature of this article take  great advantages of other written works which have appeared before. The dialect which is surveyed here, is of southern type which is spoken in Sehsar village. This dialect is the only means of communication among the people of this village. From linguistic perspective, this dialect has two different case systems which are called nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive case systems. Nominative-accusative case system is the one in which the subjects of the intransitive and transitive verbs behave similarly and these two subjects are not differentiated by any case marker; hence, the object of the transitive verb is different. In an ergative-absolutive case system, it is the reverse, that is, the subject of a transitive verb behaves differently from both the subject of intransitive verb and the object of the transitive verb. In other words, in this case system, the object of a transitive verb and the subject of an intransitive verb behave similarly. This case is shown by case marker in ergative languages. In Taleshi dialect, ergative case is shown by the case marker  <– i >. Regarding  these two case systems, this article focuses mainly on how passivization is done in these different systems which are called nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive and both exist in this dialect. Afterwards, based on the evidence gathered in a field study, it is tried to answer these questions as well: Does passivization exist in this dialect which is of southern type? And how it is done in these two different case systems? Do these different case systems apply different methods of passivization, or they apply the same method? Do passivization and ergativity coincide in the same structure? The results of this research, which are obtained after analyzing the language data gathered through a field study, show that passivization exists in this dialect and it is commonly done by omitting the agent from the sentence while the object of the verb moves to the position of the omitted subject and the verb agrees with this dummy subject. In instances of passivization, by omitting the subject, the morpheme which means follows the object which occurs in the subject position. The author believes that in this kind of passivization , the emphasis is on the object with which the verb is accomplished and as different morphemes are in action in this process of passivization, he calls this process a complex passivization; but in some cases, the agent is kept, but its position is changed and it attaches the object. Although the subject is kept and it comes after the object, it goes through some changes and represents a third singular or plural pronoun. That is the subject appears as or <– šun>. The choice depends on the context in which they occur. These two morphemes need a past tense and perfect aspect to occur and this context is a prerequisite for occurring the ergative case. Based on what is said, it can be concluded that this type of passivization along with ergativity requires a similar context to occur. The other point is , only in such cases passivization can coincide with ergative-absolutive construction, where the agent is present in the sentence. This finding contradicts thast of Atlamaz (2012) which claims ergativity does not occur in a passive structure, in other words, these two structures do not coincide in a structure. Hence, in cases where the agent is absent, ergative construction is absent too.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Passivization؛ Active
  • Taleshi Dialect
  • Ergative-absolutive construction
  • Nomanitive-accusative construction

احمدی گیوی، حسن (1380). دستور تاریخی فعل. ج1. تهران: قطره.

باطنی، محمد رضا (1364). توصیف ساختمان دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: امیر کبیر.

دبیر مقدم، محمد (1379). زبان‌شناسی نظری: پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی. چ 2. تهران: سمت.

دبیرمقدم، محمد (1364). «مجهول در زبان فارسی» . زبان‌شناسی. شماره3. صص31 -46

راسخ‌مهند، محمد (1386). «ساخت ناگذرا در فارسی». زبان و زبان‌شناسی. سال 3. شمارة 5. صص 1-20.

صادقی، علی اشرف و غلام رضا ارژنگ  (1354) دستور زبان فارسی سال دوم آموزش متوسطه عمومی (فرهنگ و ادب). تهران: وزارت آموزش و پرورش.

طبیب‌زاده، امید (1395). ظرفیت فعل و ساخت‌های بنیادین فعل در فارسی امروز: پژوهشی براساس نظریة دستور وابستگی. تهران: سخن.

فرشیدور، خسرو (1384). دستور مفصل امروز. تهران: سخن

منصوری، مهرزاد (1388). «بررسی مجهول در فارسی بر پایة رده شناسی زبان». دستور. شمارة 5. صص 70-156.

محمد ابراهیمی، زینب و عزت دوست، عبدالله (1389). «ساختمان و صرف فعل در گویش تالشی». زبان‌شناسی. شمارة 2. صص 91-104.

یوسفی، غلام‌حسین (1375). «فعل معلوم بجای فعل مجهول». برگزیدة مقاله‌های نشر دانش: دربارة زبان فارسی. به کوشش نصرالله پور جوادی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. صص 146-158.

References

Ahmadi Givi, H. (2001). Historical grammar of the verb (vol. 1). Tehran. Qatreh. [In Persian]

Atlamaz, U. (2012). Ergative as accusative case: evidence from adtyaman kurmanji (Master thesis) Bogazici University, İstanbul, Turkey.

Bateni, M. R. (1985). Structural description of Persian language. Tehran: Amirkabir. [In Persian]

Commrie, B. (2013). Ergativity in Iranian languages: a typological perspective. International conference on Iranian linguistics. 24-26 August. University of Bambery, Bambery, India.

Dabir Moghadam, M. (1985). Passive in Persian. Journal of Linguistics. 3, 31- 46. [In Persian]

Dabir Moghadam, M. (2004). Theoretical linguistics: emergence and development of generative grammar (2nd edition). Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].

 Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Farshidvar, Kh. (2005). Modern Broad Grammar (2nd edition). Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian]

Haegeman, L. (1994). Government & Binding theory. USA: Blackwell Publisher Inc.

Hiag, G. (1998). On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity. lessons from Kurdish. Lingua. 150, 149-173.

Hiag, G. (2008). The emergence of ergativity in Iranian: reanalysis or xtension. Aspects of Iranian linguistics. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian.  & D. Stilo (Eds.), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics. (pp.111-125). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars publishing.

Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling. evidence from Persian learners of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4 (1), 26- 40. 

Mansoori, M. (2009). The study of passive in Persian based on language typology. Dastoor, 5, 70- 156. [In Persian]

Mohammad Ebrahimi, Z., & Ezzat Doust, A. (2010). The structure and conjugation of verbs in Taleshi dialect. Linguistics, 2, 91-104.  [In Persian]

Moine, J. (1974). The so-called passive in Persian. Foundation of Language. 12, 249-267.

Payne, J. R. (2012). Ergative construction. VII (5), 555-558.

Rasekh Mahand, M. (2007). Intransitivity in Persian.  Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3 (5), 1- 20. [In Persian]

Sadeghi, A. A. & Arzhang, Gh. (1975). Grammar for grade 2 of high School (culture and literature). Tehran: Ministry of Education [In Persian].

Tabibzadeh, A. (2006). Valency of verbs and fundamentals of sentences of sentences in Modern Persian: a research based on the relational grammar. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].

Van de Visser, M. (2006). The marked status of ergativity. The Netherlands: LOT.

Yusefi, Gh. (1996). Passive verbs instead of active verbs. selected Articles of Nashre Danesh about on Persian, 146- 158. [In Persian]