Typology of Theme System in Persian and Azeri Turkish

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
A. Farshbafian 1
E. Safaei Asl 2
Y. Aram 3
1 Assistant Professor of Persian language and Literature, Tabriz University
2 Alumnus in Linguistics, PhD, Allameh Tabataba'i University
3 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan
Abstract
In systemic functional typology, which studies the systems of languages rather than the whole languages, linguists strive towards empirical generalizations that in principle apply to all languages around the world. In line with the above-mentioned goal of systemic functional typology and having examined the ideational (logical and experiential), interpersonal, and textual systems of the ‘clause grammar’ of different and various languages, Matthiessen (2004) has achieved a series of typological generalizations/universals. In connection with his proposed typological generalizations, Matthiessen (2004) has argued that they can be applied in the description of any language and in the attempt to expand the typological explanations in the framework of systemic functional grammar as well. However, he has immediately stated that “It is not yet possible to propose a generalized map; but we have to move in that direction.”

In line with Matthiessen’s claim mentioned above, the present paper has attempted to describe the THEME system of Azeri Turkish on the one hand and compare it with the THEME system of Persian language on the other hand. This research has been conducted in terms of the following three typological parameters concerning the THEME system: (1) The treatment of unmarked and marked THEME (related to the subsystem of THEME MARKEDNESS), (2) The relationship between THEME and MOOD (related to the subsystem of THEME SELECTION), and (3) The relationship between experiential (topical) THEME and interpersonal and textual THEME (related to the subsystems of THEME TYPE, INTERPERSONAL THEME, and TEXTUAL THEME).

Studying typological behaviors of the Azeri Turkish THEME system in the framework of Matthiessen (2004)’s typological generalizations and comparing those behaviors with the typological behaviors of the Persian THEME system show that the two languages of Persian and Azeri Turkish (1) have an almost identical thematic structure, (2) treat both unmarked and marked Themes similarly, (3) have multiple types of Themes beside simple ones, (4) treat the elements of a multiple Theme similarly, and (5) have a MOOD-free THEME system. These findings show that both languages, which are genealogically different, have a similar THEME system and specifically the three subsystems of THEME MRKEDNESS, THEME SELECTION, and THEME TYPE. This result is consistent with ‘axial principle of congruence’. According to this principle, languages tend to be more congruent with one another in terms of paradigmatic axis/system than in terms of syntagmatic axis/structure.

In the end, it is suggested that the typological behaviors of the THEME system of other languages spoken in Iran be identified and introduced in the aforementioned framework.

Keywords

Subjects

• Aalaee, M. (2009). “Studying Textual Metafunction in SAMT Textbooks”. Researching and Writing University Books. No. 14 (22). PP. 92-113. [In Persian].
• Caffarel, A. (2004). “Metafunctional Profile of the Grammar of French”. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. eds. A. Caffarel, J.R. Martin and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PP. 77-137.
• Caffarel, A., Martin, J.R., and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (2004). “Introduction: Systemic Functional Typology”. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. eds. A. Caffarel, J.R. Martin and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. PP. 1-76.
• Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (2005). Studies in Persian Linguistics (Selected Articles). Tehran: Iran University Press. [In Persian].
• ___________ (2013). Typology of Iranian Languages. Vol. 1. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
•Daneshvar, S. (1970). Suvashun. Tehran: Kharazmi. [In Persian].
• Dehghani, Y. (2000). A Grammar of Iranian Azeri: Including Comparisons with Persian. Münich: Lincom Europa.
• Deljuy, F. (1997). Relative Structure in Azeri Turkish. MA thesis. Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran. [In Persian].
• Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London and New York: Continuum
• Erfani, P. (2012). Azeri Morphosyntax: The Influence of Persian on a Turkic Language. MA thesis. Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada.
• Faghih, E. and M. Bahman (2010). “A Contrastive Study of Theme in English and Azerbaijani Turkish Fictional Texts”. The Journal of Applied Linguistics. No. 3 (1). PP 55-69.
• Fahimnia, F. (2010). “A Hallidayan Functional Description and Analysis of Theme in Persian Primary School Textbooks and Students’ Compositions”. Language and Linguistics. No. 6 (12). PP 41-59. [In Persian].
• Golshiri, H. (1989). Prince Ehtejab. Tehran: Nilufar. [In Persian].
• Haghshenas, A. M., Samii (Gilani), A., Vahidian Kamyar, T., Davudi, H., Zolfaghari, H., Sangari, M. R., …, & S. A. Mirjafari (2015). Persian Language (3). Tehran: Administration of Textbooks Publishing and Distribution. [In Persian].
• Halliday, M.A.K. (2005). “Studies in English Language”. The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Volume 7. ed. J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum. PP. 55-109.
•Halliday, M.A.K. & C.M.I.M Matthiessen (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edition. London and New York: Routledge.
• Hedayat, S. (2004). The Blind Owl. Esfahan: Sadegh Hedayat. [In Persian].
• Johanson, L. (1998a). “The History of Turkic”. The Turkic Languages. eds. L. Johanson and É. Á. Csató. London and New York: Routledge. PP. 81-125.
• Johanson, L. (1998b). “Code-copying in Irano-Turkic”. Language Sciences. NO. 20 (3). PP. 325- 337.
• Kalafchi Khiyabani, M. (2006). Scrambling in Azeri Turkish. MA thesis. Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran. [In Persian].
• Kazemi, F. (2014). “Theme-Rheme Structure in Clause Complexes of Persian Scientific Texts Based on SFG (Systemic Functional Grammar)”. Zabanshenakht (Language Studies). No. 5 (9). PP. 149-170. [In Persian].
• Lee, S. N. (1996). A Grammar of Iranian Azerbaijani. Ph.D thesis. University of Sussex, Brighton, England.
• Mahutian, S. (1999). Persian Language Grammar from a Typological Perspective, (M. Samai, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian].
• Matthiessen, C. M.I.M. (2004). “Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations”. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. eds. A. Caffarel, J.R. Martin and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 537-673.
• Mwinlaaru, I.N. and W.W. Xuan (2016). “A Survey of Studies in Systemic Functional Language Description and Typology”. Functional Linguistics. No. 3 (8). PP. 1-41.
• Pahlavannezhad, M. R. (2004). A Description and Analysis of Clause Structure in Persian Language Based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. Ph.D thesis. Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. [In Persian].
• Rezapur, E., and Z. Soltan Ahmadi (2014). “Studying Textual Metafunction in Intermediate and Advanced-level Persian Language Teaching Books Based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar”. Paper presented at the 1st Conference of Persian Language Teaching, Tarbiat Modarres University. [In Persian].
• Sabahi, G. (1978). Eagle (a series of anecdotes): Tehran: Farzaneh Publication. [In Azerbaijani Turkish].
• Shahriar , M.H. (2001). Shahriar’s Turkish Poems: Including Greetings to Heydar Baba. Tehran: Zarrin. [In Azerbaijani Turkish].
• Tajabad, F, Golfam, A., and Mahmoodi-Bakhtiar, B. (2013). “Exclamation Structures in Persian”. Language Related Research. Vol. 4. No.3. PP. 1-21. [In Persian].
• Teruya, K. and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (2013). “Halliday in Relation to Language Comparison and Typology”. Manuscript.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 6 - Serial Number 48
January and February 2018
Pages 157-186