ساخت‌های همسانی در زبان فارسی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زبان شناسی/ دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی/ دانشگاه شیرازا/شیراز/ایران

2 عضو هیأت علمی بخش زبانهای خارجی و زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

ساخت‌های همسانی به دلیل شباهت صوری و معنایی با ساخت‌های تشابهی به شکلی مطلوبی مورد مطالعه قرار نگرفته‌اند. هسپلمت (2017) بر اساس مطالعات رده‌شناختی، شش نوع پایه از ساخت‌های همسانی را به صورت الگوهای مجزا ارائه می‌کند و بر اساس این شش الگو سه تعمیم بینازبانی را نیز عرضه می‌دارد. در پژوهش حاضر با بررسی ساخت‌های همسانی در زبان فارسی به این نتیجه رسیدیم که می‌توان در این زبان به وجود چهار نوع از شش نوع ساخت‌های پایه مذکور در زبان فارسی قائل بود و دو نوع دیگر نیز به صورت مشروط مورد پذیرش می‌باشند. نگارندگان با بررسی دیگر شیوه‌های بیان ساخت‌های همسانی در زبان فارسی نوع هفتمی از ساخت‌های مذکور را نیز ارائه می‌دهند. در خصوص تعمیم‌های مطرح شده نیز؛ تعمیم‌های یک و دو در زبان فارسی معتبر بوده لکن بخش اول تعمیم سه با داده‌های زبان فارسی در تناقض است که شاید دلیل آن را بتوان به ماهیت ترتیب سازه‌ای آزاد زبان فارسی نسبت داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

equative constructions in Persian language

نویسندگان [English]

  • parisa najafi 1
  • jalal Rahimian 2
1 linguistics department/ literature and lHumanities faculty/ shiraz university/ shiraz/ Iran
2 Department of foreign languages and linguistics, college of Humanities, Shiraz University
چکیده [English]

Equative constructions have not been desirably studied due to their formal and semantic similarity to similitive constructions. Equative constructions are in many ways similar to comparative constructions (like ‘This tree is higher than that one’), which also compare two referents with respect to a gradable property, but where one of the referents has the property to a higher degree. But while comparative constructions have been studied quite extensively from a cross linguistic perspective equative constructions are quite varied across languages. Haspelmath (2017) proposed the six basic types of equative constructions in distinct patterns based on typological studies. The five key components in an equative construction, as illustrated in (1), using an English and a French example. The six types can be characterized with reference to these five components:

(1) 1 2 3 4 5
comparee degree-marker parameter standard-marker standard
Kim is [as tall] [as Pat].
Kim est [aussi grand] [que Pat].

An equative construction must allow a way to express the PARAMETER (component3, some gradable property concept word, usually called adjective), the COMPAREE (component 1, the first referent to be compared), and the STANDARD (component 5, the other referent to which the first referent is compared).
In addition, equative constructions typically also have an EQUATIVE STANDARDMARKER (component 4), i.e. a marker that is closely associated with the standard, and often they also include an EQUATIVE DEGREE-MARKER (component 2), a marker that is closely associated with the parameter and occurs only or primarily in equative constructions or other constructions expressing equality or similar notions. In the next section, the six primary types are briefly introduced schematically, illustrating them with pseudo-English sentences.

Type 1: Only equative standard-marker
In this type, the equative construction contains an ordinary predicative property-word as parameter (‘is tall’) plus differentiated comparee (‘Kim’) and standard (‘Pat’), with an equative standard-marker (‘like’), but no equative degree-marker.

“Kim is tall [like Pat].”

Type 2: Equative degree-marker and standard-marker
Type 2 is an equative construction that contains an ordinary predicative property-word as parameter and plus differentiated comparee and standard, with both an equative degree-marker (‘equally’) and an equative standard-marker. This is the type found in English (as tall as) and most other European languages.
“Kim is [equally tall] [as Pat].”

Type 3: Equative degree-marker unified
This is an equative construction that contains an ordinary predicative parameter with an equative degree-marker (‘equally’), but the comparee and standard referents are UNIFIED, i.e. they are expressed as a single conjoined or plural noun phrase (‘Kim and Pat’). There can thus be no standard-marker. (This construction can also be regarded as a kind of reciprocal construction.)

“[Kim and Pat] are [equally tall].”

Type 4: Primary reach equative
Type 4 is an equative construction with a verb as its primary predicate that elsewhere
expresses a notion of ‘reaching’ or ‘equaling’, with the comparee as subject and the
standard as second argument (generally object), and with the parameter expressed as a kind of oblique constituent (‘in height’).
“Kim [reaches/equals Pat] in height.”


Type 5: Primary reach equative unified
This is an equative construction with a verb as its primary predicate that elsewhere
expresses a notion of (reciprocal) ‘reaching’ or ‘equaling’, with a unified comparee and standard expression as its subject (‘Kim and Pat’), and with the parameter expressed as a kind of oblique constituent (‘in height’).

“[Kim and Pat] are equal (to each other) in height.”

Type 6: Secondary reach equative
Type 6 is an equative construction that contains an ordinary predicative parameter (‘is tall’) and differentiated comparee and standard, with a secondary verb that has the standard as its second argument and that elsewhere expresses a notion of ‘reaching’ or ‘equaling’.

“Kim is tall [reaching/equaling Pat].”


And based on these six patterns, also provides three crosslinguictic generalizations.

Generalization 1:
No language has only a degree-marker, leaving the standard unmarked (“Kim is [equally tall] Pat”).

Generalization 2:
If the parameter follows the standard, then the language generally has dominant object-verb order.

Generalization 3:
If the standard precedes the parameter, then the standard-marker generally follows the standard, and if the standard follows the parameter, then the standard-marker generally precedes the standard.

In the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the Persian language, we conclude that four types of six types of these basic constructions can be found in the Persian language, and two other types are accepted conditionally. The authors also provide the seventh pattern of the aforementioned constructions by examining other ways of expressing equative constructions in Persian. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, generalizations one and two are valid in Persian, but the first part of generalization of the third with the data of the Persian language is in contradiction this may be due to the nature of the free word order of the Persian language.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • similitive constructions
  • equative constructions
  • crosslinguistic generalization