چندمعنایی و روند دستوری‌شدگی حرف اضافه «با» بر اساس تحلیل مؤلفه‌ای معنی

نویسندگان
سپیده عبدالکریمی 1
سپیده عبدالکریمی 1
احسان چنگیزی 2
1 استادیار گروه زبانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
2 عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
پژوهش حاضر پژوهشی بنیادی در حوزه معنی‏شناسی، در چارچوب تحلیل مؤلفه‏ای معنی، با رویکردی درزمانی است. صورت‏های واژگانی و نقش‏های معنایی «با» از منابع تاریخی و کتاب­های دستور زبان فارسی و نیز فرهنگ هشت­جلدی سخن استخراج و تحلیل شده‏اند. در این پژوهش معانی «با»، روابط این معانی با یکدیگر، مؤلفه معنایی اصلی و روند دستوری­شدگی آن بررسی می­شود. مسئله دیگر، توجیه روند دستوری‏شدگی «با» با استناد به چند­معنایی آن است. حرف اضافه «با» بازمانده *upāka- دوره باستان است. upāka- در سنسکریت به معنی «مجاور و نزدیک» بوده است و مؤلفه معنایی «همراهی» را در بر داشته است. در فارسی میانه به abāg بدل شده که هم کارکرد حرف اضافه را داشته و هم با افزوده شدن پسوند، اسم abāgīh به معنی «همراهی» و فعل abāgēn-/abāgēnīd «همراهی کردن و همراه کردن» ساخته شده است. در این مقاله، چندمعناییِ «با» با توجه به معنی اصلی آن و با تکیه بر الگوی انتقال مفهومی بررسی شده است. پرسش‏هایی که نگارندگان در پی پاسخ به آن‏ها بوده‏اند عبارت­اند از: معنی و کارکرد اولیه «با» چه بوده است و روند دستوری­شدگی آن چگونه و در چند مرحله طی شده است؟ کدام معانی این واژه برگرفته از معنی اولیه آن هستند؟ کدام مؤلفه معنایی معانی گوناگون «با» را به ­هم پیوند می‏دهد و سبب ارتباط این معانی با هم شده است؟ بررسی‏ها نشان دادند این حرف اضافه در تحولات زبان­ فارسی، دو مرحله دستوری­شدگی را طی کرده است: نخست اسم به حرف اضافه بدل شده و بر همراهی دلالت کرده و سپس در مرحله بعد کارکردهای دیگری یافته و نقش­های معنایی خاستگاه و مفاهیم مشتق از آن را رمزگذاری کرده است. نگارندگان در مجموع، شانزده نقش معنایی برای حرف اضافه «با» شناسایی کردند و نقش‏های معنایی را در دو گروه قرار داده‏اند: گروه نخست، نقش­هایی که حاصل گسترش معنای اولیه آن، یعنی همراهی­اند و مفهوم­سازی «شخص» را در سطح نخست استعاره­های مقوله­ای هاینه نشان می‏دهند. گروه دوم معانی حاصل دستوری­شدگی ثانویه «با» هستند و مفهوم­سازی «شیء» و «فعالیت/ فرایند» را در استعاره­های مقوله­ای نشان می‏دهند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
واژه‌های کلیدی: چندمعنایی
دستوری­‌شدگی
حرف اضافه «با» و زبان فارسی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Polysemy and Grammaticalization of the Preposition “ba” on the Basis of Componential Analysis of Meaning

نویسندگان English

sepideh abdolkarimi 1
sepideh abdolkarimi 1
Ehsan Changizi 2
1 assistant professor of linguistics at shahid beheshti university
2 Department of Linguistics, Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English



Present paper is a theoretical research in the field of semantics based on componential analysis of meaning with a diachronic approach. Lexical forms and semantic roles of “ba” have been cited and analyzed from historical sources and books of grammar and also from Sokhan Persian dictionary to be analyzed diachronically within the frame work of structural semantics.

One of the problems investigated in this research is proving polysemy of “ba” with regard to diachronic and synchronic semantic clues. The other investigated problem is justification of the mentioned preposition’s grammaticalization on the basis of its polysemy. The preposition “ba” is the remainder of upāka- from old Persian. upāka- has meant “near, beside” in Sanskrit and has had the semantic component [accompany]. In middle Persian this word has turned into abāg which had prepositional function and with addition of a suffix it had become a noun; abāgīh meant “accompaniment”. Through suffixation it also became verb, meant “to accompany”. In this article polysemy of “ba” has been studied based on its main meaning found via historical view over its semantic behavior and conceptual transmission model.

Questions which the authors have intended to answer are: 1. What was the primary meaning of “ba”? 2. How and in how many steps has this word been grammaticalized? 3. Which meanings of this word have been derived from its primary meaning? and 4. Which semantic component relates different meanings of “ba” together?

Investigations have showed in the process of Persian change, this preposition has passed through two processes of grammaticalization: first, a noun has become a preposition with the meaning of “accompaniment” and second, in the next step it has found other semantic functions; namely “source” and other related meanings. So, in the first step, the preposition has undergone primary grammaticalization and in the next step it has undergone secondary grammaticalization. The authors have recognized sixteen meanings for “ba” and have put these meanings into two groups. The first group contain meanings derived from “accompaniment” which show “person” conceptualization on Heine’s scalar about categorization metaphors. The second group of meanings are those which are the result of secondary grammaticalization of “ba” which are help, instrument, substance, manner, agency, comparison, opposition, and exchange. These show “thing”, “activity” and “process” conceptualized metaphors on Heine’s scalar have been made by Persian speakers.




کلیدواژه‌ها English

Keywords: Polysemy
grammaticalization
The preposition “ba” and Persian Language
• Abolghasemi, M. (2010 [1994]). History of Persian,2nd. edn. Tehran: Samt.
• Abolhassani Chimeh, Z. (2014). “Functional or content? A prosodic- scalar analysis on the category preposition” in Language Related Research, Vol 5. No 2. Pp: 1-20. [In Persian].
• Anklesaria, T. D. (1913). Dânâk-u Mainyô-i Khard. Bombay: Missrs. T.D. Anklesaria.
• Anvari, H. & H. Anvari Givi, (2015), Persian Grammar. Vol 2. Tehran: Fatemi. [In Persian].
• Anvari, H. & colleagues (2002[1381]). Sokhan Persian Dictionary, Tehran : SAMT. [In Persian].
• Asha, R. (2017). Pārsīg Lanhuage (Parts of Speech, Word Formation and Phonology). Tehran: Sade Publication.
• Bagheri, M. (2015). History of Persian. Tehran: Ghatreh. [In Persian].
• Bamshadi, P. et. Al. (2017). “Semantic investigation of two prepositions læ & wæ in Gurani Kurdish: A cognitive approach” in Linguistic Research. Vol 8. No 1.Pp. 21-40. [In Persian].
• Bamshadi, P. & F. Ghatreh, (2016), “Investigation of three prepositions wæl، ta, æra in Gurani Kurdish from a cognitive perspective“ in Language Related Research. Vol 7. No 4. Pp. 59-80. [In Persian].
• Bartholomae, C. (1961). Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Berlin: W. De Gruyter.
• Blake, B. J. (2004). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brinton, L. J., & E. C. Traugott, (2005), Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge University Press.
• Brunner, Ch. j. (1977). A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian, Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
• Bubenik, V. (2006). “Case and Prepositions in Iranian”. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Vol. 280. J. Hewson & V. Bubonic, (Eds.), Amesterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Pp. 131-158.
• Crystal, D. (2006). A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, 6th. edn. UK: Blackwell.
• Dhabhar, E.B.N. (1949). Pahlavi Yasna and Visperad, Bombay: S. F. Desi for the Trustees of the Parsi Puncheyet Funds and Properties.
• Evans, V. & M. Green, (2006), An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Farahvashi, B. (2008). Ardeshir Babakan’s Letter, Tehran: Tehran University Press. [In Persian].
• Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. USA: New York: Oxford University Press. [In Persian].
• Gharib, A. et al (2013). Persian Grammar (Five Professors).ed. by: Jahangir Mansour. Tehran: Nahid. [In Persian].
• Givón, T. (1991) “The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew.” In E. C.Traugott and C. Heine (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization (Typology Studies in Language, 19). vol.2. Amesterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 257-310.
• Hassandoost, M. (2014). Persian Ethymological Dictionary, 1st. Vol. 2nd. Edn., Tehran : Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian].
• Heine (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization (Typology Studies in Language, 19). vol.2. Amesterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 257-310.
• Heine, B. (1997a). The Cognitive Foundation of Grammar. Oxford: University Press.
• Heine, B. (1997b). Possession: Cognitive Source, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: university Press.
• Heine, B. (2004). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: University Press.
• Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hnnemeyer. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University Press.
• Hopper, P.J. (1991). “On Some Principle of Grammaticization”. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds). Volume 1. Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
• Jackson, A. V. W. (1892). An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
• Jones, H.R. (2003). Cognitive Aspects of Medieval Welsh Prepositions, Dissertation, University of Berkeley, California.
• Kent. R. (1953). Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
• Lazar, G. (2005). Contemporary Persian Grammar. Translated by: Mahasti Bahreyni. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian].
• Lemmer, L. (2017). “The Development of the Origin Sense of the Preposition “in” in Biblical Hebrew”. Journal for Semitics. Vol. 26, No. 1.
• Luraghi, S. (2003). On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Vol. 67. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Luraghi, S. (2015). “Instrument and Cause in the Indo-European Languages and in Proto-Indo-European.” ИНДОЕВРОПЕЙСКОЕ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЕ И КЛАССИЧЕСКАЯ ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. St. Petersburg. Nauka .Pp. 603-618.
• MacKenzie, D. N. (1971). A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. Great Britian: Antony Rowe Ltd. Chipenham.
• Mahoutiyan, Sh. (2008). Persian Grammar from a Typological Perspective. Translated by: Mehdi Samayi. Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian].
• Mayrhofer, M. (1976). Kurzgefaβtes Etymologisches Wőrterbuch des Altindischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag.
• Meshkatoddini, M. (1995). Persian Grammar based on Transformational Theory. Mashhad: Ferdowsi Univesity press. [In Persian].
• Meshkatoddini, M. (2009). Persian Grammar: Lexicon and Constructional Links. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
• Mokhtari, Sh. & Rezayi H. (2013). “Cognitive investigation of semantic network of “ba” in Persian” in Linguistics and Dialects of Khorasan. No 9. Pp. 73-94. [In Persian].
• Monier-Williams, M. (1899). A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
• Narrog, H. (2009). “Varieties of Instrumental”. The Oxford Handbook of Case. A. Malchukov and A. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 593-600.
• Narrog, H. (2010). “A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions”. Linguistic Discovery. Vol. 8/1. Pp. 233-254.
• Natel Khanlari, P. (1998). History of Persian Language. Tehran: Ferdows. [In Persian].
• Natel Khanlari, P. (2013). Historical Grammar of Persian. Tehran: Tous. [In Persian].
• Nemati, F. & S. Nowrouzi, (2015). “Preposition “si” in Delvari; A grammaticalized remainder of prepositions in old Persian?” in Comparative Linguistics. Vol 5. No 9. Pp. 225-241. [In Persian].
• Nyberg, H. S. (2002). A Manual of Pahlavi. Asatir.
• Palmer, F. (2006). Semantics ; A New Outline, translated by K. Safavi, Tehran : Maad. [In Persian].
• Rasekh Mahand, M. & Rangbar-e Zarabi N. (2013). “ Semantic network of the prepositions « dar » and « sar » » in Comparative Linguistic Research. 3rd. Year.No. 5. Pp. 95-111. [In Persian].
• Rashed Mohassel, M.T. (2006 [1987]). Vazidgihaye Zadesparm, 2nd. Edn., Tehran : Research Center of Human Sciences and Cultural Studies. [In Persian].
• Rashed Mohassel, M.T. (2008 [1989]). Dinkard. 7th.Edition. Tehran : Research Center of Human Sciences and Cultural Studies. [In Persian].
• Sadeghi, A. A. (1970). “Prepositions in Modern Persian” in Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences of Tabriz. Vol 22. No3. Pp. 441- 470. [In Persian].
• Saeed, J. I. (2012). Semantics.. Blackwell. Oxford. UK.
• Safavi, K. (2007). Getting Familier with History of Iranian Languages. Tehran : Pedjvake Keyvan.[In Persian].
• Shari’at, M. J. (2005). Persian Grammar. Vol 8. Tehran: Asatir. [In Persian].
• Stolz, T. And C. Stroh and A. Urdze, (2009), “Varieties of Comitative”. Case: The Oxford Handbook of Case, Ed. A. Malchukov and A. Spencer, Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 601-608.
• Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher (2001). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: University Press.
• Tyler, A. & Evans V. (2001). “Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over”. Language. vol. 77. No. 4. Pp: 724-765.
• Yasami, R. et al. (1992). Persian Grammar. Tehran: Negah-e- Elm. [In Persian].
• Yousefiyan, P., Taki, G. & Moradi, E. (2016). “Semantic study and classification of Persian prepositions based on Lieber”. Language Related Research.Vol. 6. No. 6.
• Zdino, Ph. (2003). Ardavirafnameh, translated and researched by Zdaleh Amouzgar, 2nd. edn., Tehran: Mo’in & Iranistics Society of France.