مقاله حاضر به بررسی ساخت مجهول در گویش تالشی می پردازد .این گویش در مناطقی از گیلان رایج می باشد و به سه گونه مرکزی ، شمالی و جنوبی تقسیم بندی می شود. روش انجام این پژوهش میدانی و کتابخانه ای است. چون در آن داده های زبانی به صورت میدانی و از طریق مصاحبه با 30 گویشور بومی روستای سه سار جمع آوری شده است . در بخش چارچوب نظری این مقاله از آثار نوشتاری دیگر نویسندگان نیز استفاده می شود. گونه مورد بررسی در این مقاله از نوع جنوبی است که در روستای سه سار رایج می باشد . این گویش دارای دو نظام حالت فاعلی - مفعولی و کنایی - مطلق است . بنابراین این مقاله به چگونگی ساخت مجهول در این دو نظام حالت می پردازد تا به این سوالات پاسخ دهد که آیا در این گویش ساخت مجهول وجود دارد ؟ و با وجود این دو نظام حالت ، مجهول سازی در آن چگونه انجام می گیرد؟ نتایج به دست آمده از این پژوهش نشان می دهد که در گویش تالشی سه سار ساخت مجهول وجود دارد و در آن هر چند ساخت مجهول با حذف عامل صورت می گیرد اما در مواردی نیز عامل از جمله حذف نمی شود بلکه ، با تغییر جایگاه ، بعد از مفعول به صورت شناسه مبهم متصل می آید. و ساخت مجهول تنها در صورتی بطور همزمان در ساخت های کنایی رخ می دهد که عامل از جمله حذف نشود.
عنوان مقاله [English]
Passivization in Taleshi dialect (of Sehsar)
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 dielects of Taleshi dialect . The methodology which is used in this research is of a field and library one . 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 of forty years old or more than forty years old ; 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 fulfilling this research. It should be mentioned here that, the framework and the literature of this article take great advantages of other written works which 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 similarlyand these two subjects are not differenciated 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 this two case systems , this article focuses mainly on how passivization is done in these two different case systems which are called nominative- accusative and ergative-absolutive case systems and exist in this dialect and , based on the evidence gathered in a field study , tries to answer these questions as well : Does passivization exists 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 of passivization ? 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 < with > follows the object which occurs in the subject position . The author believes that in this kind of passivization , the emphasis is on the object which the verb is accomplished with and as different morphemes are in action in this process of passivization, he calls this process of passivization as a complex passivization ; but in some cases the agent is kept but its position is changed and attaches the object . Although the subject is kept and 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 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 Atlamaz ( 2012 ) that 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.