The Transition Process of Semantic Prosody to Connotation in Persian; A Synchronic Analysis

Authors
S. M. Hosseini-Maasoum 1
M. Ghiasian 2
B. Roshan 3
B. Roshan 3
A. S. Shahidi 4
1 Associate Professor, Department of linguistics & foreign languages, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor in Linguistics, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor in Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
4 Ph.D. student of linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The process of language change is an inseparable feature of the inherent nature of every language. This change is so slow and delicate that it will be tangible for the native speakers only after a long time and in comparison with the past. A diachronic outlook of the language is especially beneficial here. The present research seeks to examine the transition process of (negative or positive) semantic prosody of some presently neutral Persian verb compounds into connotation. To this end, different researches on semantic prosody, connotation and their transformation in different languages and especially in English are reviewed and the same trend is traced in some verb compounds in Persian. Two corpora from two different historical periods (12th century and modern Persian) of language data were compiled and the semantic prosody of seven verb compound was established in the two. The results show that the semantic prosody of some of these compounds have changed from positive to negative over time and this negative semantic prosody in some of the compounds especially mojeb shodan (cause) is changing to negative connotation.

Keywords

  • آزادی، ﭘﺮوﻳﺰ و ﻓﺮﻫﺎد ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻲ (1391). «ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎی ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﺣﻖ در ﻗﺮآن ﻛﺮﻳﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮهﮔﻴﺮی از ﺷﻴﻮه هم‌نشینی و ﺟﺎﻧﺸﻴﻨﻲ». پژوهش­های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی (جستارهای زبانی).د 3. ش 1 (پیاپی 9). صص 67- 84.

  • حسینی معصوم، سید محمد (1391). «بررسی و توصیف معنایی و معنای ضمنی واژه در نظام معنایی واژگان و هم‌نشینی‌ها در زبان فارسی». مجله گویش‌های خراسان.ش 5 (پیاپی). صص 1- 22.

  • حسینی معصوم، سید محمد؛ غیاثیان، مریم سادات؛ روشن، بلقیس و اشرف‌السادات شهیدی (1393). «بررسی تطبیقی طنین‌معنایی برخی ترکیبات فعلی در زبان فارسی و انگلیسی».مجلة پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. ش (پیاپی) 7.

  • ·      مدرس خیابانی، شهرام (1390). «نوای معنایی در صورت‌های هم‌معنی: رویکردی پیکره‌بنیاد». دومین کارگاه معنی‌شناسی،  پنجشنبه، 5/3/1390. پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی. منتشر‌نشده.



  • Ahmadian, M.; H. Yazdani & A. Darabi (2011). Assessing English Learners’ Knowledge of Semantic Prosody through a Corpus-Driven Design of Semantic Prosody Test. English Language Teaching. Vol 4. No 4. pp 288-298.

  • Bublitz, W. (1996). Semantic Prosody and Cohesive Company: Somewhat Predictable. General and theoretical papers 347. Duisburg: L.A.U.D. (Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg). pp 1- 23.

  • Coffin, C. & K. O' Halloran (2006). “The role of APPRAISAL and corpora in detecting covert evaluation”. Functions of Language. 13(1). pp 77- 110.

  • Firth, J. R. (1957a). “A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955”. In Liu Runqing et al (eds.). Readings in Linguistics: Seventy-Five Years Since Saussure. 7. pp328-359. Vol 1. Beijing: Cehui Press. pp 328-359.

  • Firth, J. R. (1957b). Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

  • Hashemnia, M.; S. M. Hosseini-Maasoum & M. Yousefi (2013). Semantic Prosody of Near Synonyms from Across-Linguistic Perspective. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World. (IJLLALW). pp 323-342.

  • Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (1999). Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic Prosody Revisited. University of Birmingham International journal of linguistic Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 12:2. pp 249-268.

  • Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.

  • Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Peguin.

  • Leech, G. (1992). Corpora and Theories of Linguistic Performance. Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 82. [“The State of the Art in Corpus Linguistics”]. Stockholm, Sweden, August 4-8, 1991. NY: Mouton de Gruyter, s. pp 105-122.

  • Louw, B. (1993). “Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer?”. In Baker, M., Frances, G. & E. Tognini-Bonelli, (eds) Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. pp 157-176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Louw, B. (2000). Contextual Prosodic Theory: Bringing Semantic Prosodies to Life. Words in Context. A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, Cédérom.

  • Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings- Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Sinclair, J. (1987). “The nature of the evidence”. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), Looking Up. London: Collins. pp 150–159

  • Sinclair, J. (1996). “The empty lexicon”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 1(1). pp 99–119.

  • Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. New York: Routledge.

  • Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and Semantic Profiles. Functions of Language. 2 (1). pp 23–55.

  • Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. New York: Blackwell.

  • Teubert, W. (1999). Corpus Linguistics-A Partisan View. In: TELRI Newsletter 8/99, S. pp 4-19.

  • Tribble, C. (1999). Writing Difficult Texts. Ph.D. Thesis. Lancaster University.

  • Ullmann, S. (1962). “Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning American Anthropologist New Series”. Wiley. Vol. 65, No. 5. Pp. 1190-1192.

  • Xiao, R. & T. Macenry (2006). “Collocation, Semantic Prosody & Near Synonymy: A cross-Linguistic Perspective”. Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press 27/1. pp 103-129.

  • Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Corpus-based Cognitive Semantics: Extended Units of Meaning and Their Implications for Translation Studies. Aarhus School of Business. University of Aarhus.


 

Language Related Research
Volume 7, Issue 1
March and April 2016
Pages 17-38