رویکردی ساختی ـ شناختی به پسوند «- ار» در زبان فارسی

نویسندگان
پارسا بامشادی 1
نگار داوری اردکانی 2
1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران
2 دانشیار زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران
چکیده
پسوند «- ار» یکی از پسوندهای اسم‌ساز (و گاه صفت‌ساز) زبان فارسی است که به باور بیشتر پژوهشگرانی که تا به امروز دربارۀ آن مطالعه کرده‌اند دارای معناهای فاعلی، مصدری و مفعولی است. در پژوهش پیش‌رو این پسوند را از دیدگاه دستور شناختی لانگاکر (2008, 2009) و نظریۀ ساخت‌واژۀ ساختی بوی (2010, 2016) مورد بررسی قرار داده و کوشیده‌ایم تبیینی شناختی و ساخت‌بنیاد از این پسوند و کاربردهای آن ارائه دهیم. این پژوهش از لحاظ تجربی (یعنی روش گردآوری داده‌ها) پیکره‌بنیاد و از لحاظ نظری (یعنی روش و چارچوب تحلیل) مبتنی بر رویکرد شناختی و ساخت‌بنیاد است. داده‌های پژوهش دربرگیرندۀ 38 واژۀ مشتق ساخته‌شده با پسوند «- ار» است که از پیکرۀ ساخت­واژی خود نگارندگان (شامل بیش از ده هزار واژۀ مشتق و مرکب فارسی) و فرهنگ زانسو گردآوری شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش گویای آن است که این پسوند در پنج زیرطرح‌وارۀ ساختی متفاوت به­کار می‌رود و با پیوستن به ستاک گذشته و اسم، قلمروهای شناختی فرایند، کنشگری، نمود و رابطه را بیان می‌کند. این یافته‌ها همچنین نشان می‌دهد که فرایند شناختی «بریافت» و به‌ویژه دو جنبۀ مهم آن شامل برنمایی و مشخص‌سازی، نقش تعیین‌کننده‌ای در شکل‌گیری زیرطرح‌واره‌های مربوط به پسوند «- ار» دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
کلیدواژه‌ها: پسوند «- ار»
صرف ساختی
دستور شناختی
پسوند اشتقاقی
وندافزایی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

A Constructional Cognitive Approach to the Persian Suffix ‘-ɑr’

نویسندگان English

Parsa Bamshadi 1
Negar Davari Ardakani 2
1 Ph.D. in Linguistics, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.
2 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
چکیده English

Introduction

Affixation is one of the two main word-formation processes in Persian. The suffix ‘-ɑr’ is a nominal (or adjectival) suffix in Persian which is believed by most researchers to express the subject/agent (like xæridɑr ‘buyer’), object/patient (like gereftɑr ‘captive’) or infinitive (like ræftar ‘behavior’) meaning. In Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 2008, 2009) and Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2016) word-formation patterns are considered to be constructional schemas, i.e. schematic representations of morphological constructions. Constructions are pairings of form and meaning. The form pole of a construction includes morpho−syntactic and phonological properties. The meaning pole of a construction comprises semantic properties (conceptual structure), pragmatic properties and discourse properties. Cognitive Grammar posits that an expression invokes a set of cognitive domains as the basis for its meaning, i.e. as the content to be construed. Therefore, the meaning of a linguistic expression depends on two key notions of ‘cognitive domain’ and ‘construal’. A cognitive domain is a coherent area of conceptualization which provides the conceptual base for the meaning of a linguistic expression. The term construal refers to human manifest ability to conceive and express the same situation or event in alternate ways.



Purpose: The present research aims to explore the suffix ‘-ɑr’ within the framework of Cognitive Grammar and Construction Morphology and tries to identify its various constructional schemas and subschemas. Furthermore, it attempts to investigate cognitive domains that underlie the meaning of each subschemas and to analyze the role of construal in formation of each subschemas.



Study questions: the study questions are: (1) what are constructional schemas and subschemas of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ and how is hierarchical relationships among them?

(2) What cognitive domain(s) underlie the meaning of each subschema?

(3) Which cognitive processes do play determinant role in formation of these (sub) schemas?



Methodology: Empirically, the paper adopts corpus-based method and theoretically, it adopts cognitive and construction-based approach. The data include a corpus of 38 derivational words having the suffix ‘-ɑr’ extracted from the authors own morphological corpus (including more than 10000 complex words) and Farhang-e Zansoo (Keshani, 1993).



Analysis: Analysis of research data showed that derivatives of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ belong to different constructional schemas. The schematic-constructional network of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ is represented in Figure 1. As is shown in the figure, ‘-ɑr’ appears in six different subschemas, in five of which the base of derivation is past stem of a verb while in the other the base is a noun. The conceptual base of the five subschemas that have a verb stem as their base is the cognitive domain of ‘processes. The difference among these subschemas is that each subschema profiles a different aspect of the conceptual base. In other words, the difference among them is due to the key notion of ‘profiling’. In the subschema with a noun as the base of derivation, the conceptual base is the cognitive domain of ‘relation’.



Figure 1: The schematic-constructional network of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ in Persian



Conclusion: Results of the study show that the suffix ‘-ɑr’, which is added to past stems of verbs or nouns, can appear in six different constructional subschemas to indicate the cognitive domains of process, agenthood, aspect and relation. These subschemas are:

1) <[[x](Vpast)i -ɑr]Nj ↔ [The human agent who perform the process of SEMi]j>

2) <[[x](Vpast)i -ɑr]Nj ↔ [The non-human agent (or instrument) which perform the process of SEMi]j>

3) <[[x](Vpast)i -ɑr]Nj ↔ [The act of doing the process of SEMi]j>

4) <[[x](Vpast)i -ɑr]Nj ↔ [The result of the process of SEMi]j>

5) <[[x](Vpast)i -ɑr]Aj ↔ [The property of being affected by the process of SEMi]j>

6) <[[x]Ni -ɑr]Nj ↔ [The thing closely related to SEMi]j>



The findings reveal that the cognitive process of ‘construal’ and especially its two aspects of ‘profiling’ and ‘specification’ have a determinant role in the formation of these constructional subschemas.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Persian suffix ‘-ɑr’
Construction Morphology
cognitive grammar
derivational suffix
Affixation
• Bamshadi, P., & Ghatreh, F. (2018). The polysemy of suffix “-i”: An exploration within the construction morphology. Language Related Research, 8(7).Pp: 265-289. [In Persian].
• Bamshadi, P. & Ansarian, S. (2016). Explaining non-hierarchical Morphological structures In Persian within the Framework of Construction Morphology. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Applied Research in Language Studies. 28 January 2016, University of Tehran, Tehran .[In Persian].
• Bamshadi, P. & Ansarian, S. (2016). A Construction-based Approach to Morphology and its Applications to the Teaching of Persian Derivational and Compound words. Proceedings of First International Conference on Investigating TPSOL Textbooks (Vol. 2), 19-20 October 2016, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. (Pp. 999-1020) .[In Persian].
• Bamshadi, P. & Ansarian, S. (2017). The Persian Suffix ‘-gær’ within the Framework of Cognitive Morphology. In Sh. Modarres Khiabani & F. Ghatreh (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Morphology (pp. 35-55). Tehran: Neveeseh Parsi. [In Persian].
• Beheshti, A. (1976). Word Structure in Persian Language Today. Tehran: Pirouz.
• Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Booij, G. (2016). Construction morphology. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Golfam, A., & Karbalaei Sadegh, M. (2013). Remarks on Agent Adjective Construction in Persian: Cognitive Morphology Approach". Proceedings of 8th Iranian Conference on Linguistics (pp. 692-703). Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University. [In Persian].
• Hamawand, Z. (2011). Morphology in English: Word formation in cognitive grammar. London/New York: Continuum.
• Hassandoust, M. (2016). An Etymological Dictionary of the Persian Language. Vol. 2. Tehran: The Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian].
• Kalbassi, I. (2012). The Derivational Structure of Word in Modern Persian (5th ed.). Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian].
• Karimi-Dustan, Gh., & Moradi, E. (2011). The study of semantic contribution of -ār and -andeh Suffixes in Persian. Journal of Language Research, 2 (1).Pp: 101-128. [In Persian].
• Keshani, Kh. (1992). Suffix Derivation in Contemporary Persian. Tehran: University Publication Centre. [In Persian].
• Keshani, Kh. (1993). Farhang-e Farsi-e Zānsoo (Persian Reverse Dictionary). Tehran: University Publication Centre. [In Persian].
• Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Langacker, R.W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Moradi, E. (2007). A study of simple verbs and their derivations in Sorani dialect. M.A Thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
• Rafiei, A. (2012). Agent meaning in the derived words of Persian. Researches in Linguistics, 4(7).Pp:19-32. [In Persian].
• Rafiei, A. & Torabi, S. (2015). Inheritance and motivation of form and meaning in lexicon: Instantiations of Persian word formation patterns. Language Science, 2(3).Pp: 49-64. [In Persian].
• Sadeghi, A. (1991). Ways of word formation in modern Persian language (3). Nashre Danesh, 67. Pp: 28-33. [In Persian].
• Sadeghi, A. (1993). Ways of word formation in modern Persian language (9). Nashre Danesh, 75. Pp: 157-163. [In Persian].
• Samei, H., & Tafsiri, M. (2014). Word Formation Patterns in Persian. Tehran: The Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian].
• Samsami, M. (1967). Persian Prefixes and Suffixes. Isfahan: Mash’al. [In Persian].
• Tabataba’i, A. (1997). Persian Simple Verbs and Word-formation. Tehran: University Publication Centre. [In Persian].