تحلیل معنایی فعل «گفتن» در چارچوب نظریۀ معناشناسی قالبی: یک بررسی پیکره‌بنیاد

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
لیلا رحمتی نژاد 1
سید مصطفی عاصی 2
علی رضا قلی فامیان 3
مسعود قیومی 4
1 دانشجوی دکتری زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات قم
2 استاد زبان‌شناسی پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار زبان‌شناسی دانشگاه پیام‌نور، تهران، ایران.
4 استادیار زبان‌شناسی پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
یکی از دستاوردهای مهم زبان‌شناسی شناختی، «نظریۀ معنا‌شناسی قالبیِ» فیلمور (1982) است. این نظریه بیانگر اصلی مهم در معناشناسی شناختی است که بیان می­کند معانی واژه‌ها درون نظامی از دانش درک می‌شوند که در تجربۀ اجتماعی و فرهنگی انسان ریشه دارد. درواقع، فیلمور در این نظریه درک معنای واژه‌ها را از طریق قالب‌هایی که هر واژه فرا می‌خواند، میسر می‌داند و «قالب‌های معنایی» را نمایانگر بخش‌های یک رویداد می‌داند که برای اتصال گروهی از کلمات به مجموعه‌ای از معانی به­کار می‌روند. از طرفی، افعال به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین ارکان زبان در بیشتر حالت­ها و اعمال یک رویداد حضور دارند و در تفسیر معنا نقش بسزایی ایفا می‌کنند. هدف پژوهش حاضر، ارائۀ تحلیل پیکره­ بنیاد و توصیفی برای شناسایی حوزه‌ها و قالب‌های معنایی فعل «گفتن» در زبان فارسی و ترسیم قالب اصلی آن در چارچوب نظریۀ معناشناسی قالبی و طرح تحقیقاتی فرهنگ‌نگاری «فریم‌نت» است. برای نیل به این هدف، با بهره‌گیری از فرهنگ‌ها، پیکره‌های معاصر فارسی و سامانۀ فریم‌نت 44 حوزه و قالب معنایی از فعل «گفتن» در زبان فارسی شناسایی شد. سپس، مفهوم «بر زبان آوردن و بیان کردن» به‌عنوان معنای اصلی و سر­نمون این فعل تعیین و «انگارۀ شعاعیِ» آن برای نخستین­بار ترسیم گردید. در نهایت، قالب اصلی این فعل با استفاده از اصول و مفاهیم مطرح در نظریۀ قالبی فیلمور ایجاد شد.


کلیدواژه‌ها
واژه­های کلیدی: نظریۀ معناشناسی قالبی
قالب معنایی
فریم‌نت
چندمعنایی
مقولۀ شعاعی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Semantic Analysis of the Verb “Goftan” (to Tell) Based on Frame Semantics Theory: A Corpus Based Study

نویسندگان English

Leila Rahmati Nejad 1
Mostafa Assi 2
Ali Reza Gholi Famian 3
masood ghayoomi 4
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics – Islamic Azad University – Qom- Iran.
2 Professor of Linguistics- Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies- Tehran- Iran
3 Associate Professor of Linguistics- Payame Nour University – Tehran –Iran.
4 Assistant Professor of Linguistics - Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies- Tehran- Iran.
چکیده English

The movement of “Cognitive Semantics” appears against the independence of the syntax from lexical domain and calls into question the semantics being peripheral as it is mentioned in Chomsky's (1982) “Generative theory”. In this regard, Fillmore's (1982) “Frame Semantics theory” is one of the major achievements of cognitive semantics. In this theory Fillmore states that understanding the meanings of words is possible through frames that each word calls for. He also maintains that “Semantic Frames” display sections of an event used for connecting a group of words to a set of meanings and the meanings of words are perceived within a system of knowledge arising from the human's social and cultural experience. In fact, the difference between Frame Semantics with other lexico semantic hypotheses is its emphasis on the background knowledge based on which the meaning of words can be interpreted (Fillmore & Atkins, 1992, 1994, 2000; Fillmore & Baker, 2010). Also, the “FrameNet Project” is a Corpus-based study based on Fillmore's theory (Fillmore, et al., 2003). It is a lexicographic research project housed and administered at the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, California. In this system, the meaning of words can be understood on the basis of semantic frames that are mental concepts. On the other hand, verbs are present as the most important element in most of the situations of an event and play significant role in the interpretation of the meaning; thus, working on it is a useful idea.

The purpose of this study is to present a quantitative and corpus-based analysis in order to recognize the semantic domains and frames of the verb “Goftan” (to Tell) in Persian and sketch its main frame within the framework of Frame Semantics theory and the fact-finding model of FrameNet lexicography. In fact, it attempts to investigate what Fillmore and his colleagues did in English FrameNet and others in different languages as well as in the domain of Frame Semantics to be considered in Persian too. So, the main questions of this study are:

What are the semantic domains and frames of the verb “Goftan” (to Tell) in Persian based on the major concepts of Frame Semantics theory and FrameNet?
Is it possible to design the main semantic frame of the verb “Goftan” (to Tell) in Persian?

To answer these questions, the authors investigate the background of studies and introduce Frame semantics theory and FrameNet lexicography. Then, they tried to be familiar with the verb “Goftan” and it’s frequency in Persian based on Persian Language Database (PLDB). To this end, 44 semantic domains and frames of the verb “Goftan” were recognized using encyclopedias, Persian contemporary corpora and FrameNet database. Then, the concept of “bar zabân Ɂâvardan va bayân kardan” (to express) was determined as the main meaning and prototype of this verb and for the first time its “Radial category” the authors sketched. Finally, the main frame of “Goftan” was created using principles and concepts proposed in Fillmore's Frame Semantics theory

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Key words: Frame Semantics theory
semantic frame
FrameNet
polysemy
radial category
• Afrashi, A. (2016). Cognitive Semantics.Tehran. Institue for Humanities & Cultural Studies publications. [In Persian].
• Agha Golzadeh, F. (2003). “Thinking and Language: an Overview”. Advances in Cognitive Science. No. 5 (1).Pp.57-64. [In Persian].
• Ajdadi, M. & M. Razavi (2016). “The study of semantic frames of external body part terms in Persian language”. The Journal of Language Research (ZABANPAZHUHI). [In Persian].
• Anvari, H. & H. Ahmadi Givi (2007). Persian Grammar. (Vol. I, 2).Tehran. Fatemi publications. [In Persian].
• Anvari, H. (2009). Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary (PERSIAN- PERSIAN). (Vol. I, 2).Tehran. Sokhan publications. [In Persian].
• Aryanpur Kashani, M. (2012). The Aryanpur Progressive PERSIAN-ENGLISH Dictionary (Vol.4) Comprehensive).With the Collaboration of Seyyed Mostafa Assi.Tehran. Jahan Rayaneh publications. [In Persian].
• Assi, S.M. (1996). “A report of the 6th International Conference of the European Association for Lexicography”. Special Linguistics culture. No.17. Pp. 391-400. [In Persian].
• Assi, S.M. (1997). “Farsi Linguistic Database (FLDB)”. The International Journal of Lexicography. Vol.10. No.3. Pp.6. Oxford University Press.
• Assi, S.M. (2005). “Persian Linguistic Database (PLDB)”. Researches. No. 2. [In Persian].
• Blank, A. (2003). “Polysemy in Lexicon and in Discourse”. In B. Nerlich.(Eds.). Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Berlin & New York. Mouton de gruyter. Pp.267-296.
• Boas, H.C. (2002d). Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. Department of Germanic Studies. University of Texas at Austin.
• Borin, L., & et al. (2010). “The past meets the present in the Swedish FrameNet++”.
• Chomsky, N. A. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge. M.I.T. Press.
• Givón, T. (2001). Syntax.(Vol.I,2). John Benjamins. Amesterdam.
• Delaramifar, M. & et al. (2017). “Semantics Relations of Persian Verb "gereftan": Filmore's Frame Semantic (1997)”. The Journal of Language Researches No.8 (1).Pp.79-98. [In Persian].
• Evans, V. & M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction .Edinburgh University press.
• Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University press.
• Fayyazi, M.S. (2009). Looking into the notion of Polysemy in Persian: A Cognitive Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tarbiat Modares University (TMU). Tehran. Iran. [In Persian].
• Fillmore, C. J. (1968). “The case for case”. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.). Universals in linguistic theory. Pp. 1-88. New York. Holt Rinehart & Winston.
• ________ (1976). “Frame semantics and the nature of language”. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech. vol. 280. Pp. 20–32.
• ________ (1982b). “Frame semantics”. In the linguistic society of Korea. (Eds). Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul. Hanshin. Pp.37-111.
• Fillmore, C.J., & B.T.S. Atkins (1992). “Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its Neighbors”. In Lehrer, A., & E. Kittay. (Eds.). Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale. Erlbaum.
• Fillmore, C.J., & B.T.S. Atkins (1994). “Starting where the Dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography”. In Atkins, B.T.S., & A. Zampolli. (Eds.). Computational approaches to the lexicon. Oxford University Press.
• ________ (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. Ravin, Y., and C. Laecock. (Eds.). Polysemy. Oxford University Press.
• Fillmore, C. J. & C. Baker (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog. (Eds.). The oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gandomkar, R. (2015). “Semantic Analysis of Persian Words Based on Format-Based Semantics”. Language Science. No. 2(2). Pp.117-142. [In Persian].
• Greeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press.
• Hesabi, A. (2016). “The Verb “xordan” from the Perspective of Cognitive Linguistics”. Language and Linguistics. No.11 (22). Pp.1-26. [In Persian].
• Ghayoomi, M. (2009). Frame Assignment with Active Learning. M.S. Thesis. Department of Computational Linguistics and Phonetics. Saarland University.
• Khavari, N. (2013). The Description and Classification of Persian Verbs on the Basis of FrameNet’s Approach. M.A. Thesis. BU-Ali Sina University. Hamedan. Iran. [In Persian].
• Kharrazi, S.K. (2017).A Dictionary of Cognitive Sciences (ENGLISH-PERSIAN).Tehran. Farhang Moaser publications. [In Persian].
• Khodaparasti, F. (1997). Comprehensive Dictionary of Persian Synonyms & Antonyms. Shiraz. Fars Encyclopaedia publications. [In Persian].
• Lakeoff, G. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago. Chicag University Press.
• Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. (vol.1).Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.
• Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
• Madarshahiyan, S. (2015). “Role of Topic Shift and Violence of Grice Principles in Interrogation: Forensic Linguistics”. The Journal of Language 1444Research (ZABANPAZHUHI). No.7 (16). Pp. 101-132. [In Persian].
• Motavallian Naeini, R. (2017). “Toward developing Persian-English verb valency dictionary”. Foreign Language Research Journal. No. 6 (2). Pp. 449-475. [In Persian].
• Mousavi, S.H.; M. Amoozadeh & V. Rezai (2016). “Analysis of the Word ‘Didan’ Based on Frame Semantics”. Language Related Research. No.6 (7). Pp. 219-236. [In Persian].
• Mousavi, S.H. (2017). “ColloNet: A network for Analyzing Collocations”. Language Related Research. No. 8 (8, 37). Pp. 197-223. [In Persian].
• Nayeblui, F. (2014). Emotion Words (Happiness & Love) in Farsi: Persian FrameNet. M.A. Thesis. Institue for Humanities & Cultural Studies. Tehran. Iran. [In Persian].
• Nayeblui, F.; S.M. Assi & A. Afrashi (2015). “Persian FrameNet”. A Journal of Comparitive Linguistic Researches. No. 5(9). Pp.261-282. [In Persian].
• Ohara, K., & et al. (2004). “The Japanese FrameNet project: An introduction”. Proceedings of the Workshop on Building Lexical Resources from Semantically Annotated Corpora. Eds. Charles J. Fillmore, et al. Lisbon: LREC 2004.Pp. 9-12.
• Palmer, F.R. (1976). Semantics, A New Outline. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
• Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge. MIT.
• Rasekh Mahand, M. (2015). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics: Theories & Concepts. Tehran. SAMT publications. [In Persian].
• Rasooli, M.S., et al. (2011). “A Syntactic Valency Lexicon for Persian Verbs: The first steps towards Persian Dependency Treebank”. 5th Language & Technology Conference (LTC): Human Language Technologies as a Challenge for Computer Science and Linguistics. Pp. 227-231. Poznan. Poland.
• Razavi, M. (2013). “Semantics and Persian Treasure (2)”. Lexicography (Farhangnevisi). No.5&6. Pp. 44-65. [In Persian].
• Roshan, B. & L. Ardebili (2016). An Introduction to Cognitive Semantics. Nashr-e Elm publications. [In Persian].
• Ruppenhofer, J. & et al. (2016). FrameNet II: extended theory and practice.
• Safari, A. (2015). “Frame Semantics and LVC Alternation in Persian”. Language Related Research. No .6(1, 22). Pp. 153-172. [In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (2011). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran. Soureh Mehr publications. [In Persian].
• Shah Hoseini, F. (2012). “Prototypical Transitivity in Speech Verbs”. A Journal of Comparitive Linguistic Researches. No. 1(2). Pp.57-66. [In Persian].
• Shamsfard, M., et al. (2010). “Semi Automatic Development Of FarsNet: The Persian Wordnet”.Computer Engineering. Dept. Shahid Beheshti University. Tehran. Iran.
• Subirats-Rüggeberg, C., & M. R. L. Petruck (2003). “Surprise: Spanish FrameNet!”. Proceedings of the Workshop on {Frame} {Semantics}” XVII International Congress of Linguists {(CIL)}. Eds. {Eva Hajičová, Anna Kotéšovcová, and Jiří Mirovský. Prague: Matfyzpress.
• Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistics Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 2nd (Eds.). Oxford. Clarendon Press.
• Taylor, J.R. (2003). “Cognitive Models of Polysemy”. In B. Nerlich & Z. Todd. (Eds.). Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Berlin & New York. Mouton de gruyter.Pp. 31-49.
• Taylor, J.R. & J. Littlemore (2017). The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. Traslated by Vajihe Farshi & Najmeh Farshi. Edited by Azita Afrashi. Tehran. Neveeseh Parsi publications. [In Persian].
• You, L., L. Tao, & L. Kaiying (2007). “Chinese FrameNet and OWL representation”. 6th International Conference on Advanced Language Processing and Web Information Technology (ALPIT 2007), Pp. 140-145.