A Discourse-Pragmatic Study of in & ân (this & that) in Daily Persian Conversations

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
R. Ramazanpour 1
M. Amouzadeh 2
H. Rezaei 3
1 PhD Candidate in General Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Sun Yat-sen University, China/ Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
10.52547/LRR.13.2.19
Abstract
Three types of meaning i.e., propositional, textual and interpersonal were acknowledged for language in the tradition of functional studies. In light of such appraoch, this study aims: 1) to describe different types of meanings of in (this) and ân (that) in Persian and, 2) to show that how basics of grammaticalization can be applied to provide a synchronic survey of the semantic variety of the aforementioned dectic expressions as discourse markers in Persian. On the basis of grammaticalization in terms of Traugott & Dasher (2002), this paper examines the different uses of these linguistic elements by looking at their propositional, textual and interpersonal meanings. The analysis indicates that in & ân are used exophorically, anaphorically and textually in their referential meaning and also used in the bridging contexts. Moreover, the investigation shows unlike ân, the semantic changes of in extends beyond the bridging contexts. So in (this) as a discourse marker, functions textually, subjectively and inter-ubjectively. Grammaticalization of the deictic expressions supports Traugott & Dasher's clines. However, indexicalizing speaker's spatial aspects, in & ân have impersonal subjective meaning. Therefore, Traugott & Dasher's semantic cline, should be modified in way of impersonal subjective > personal subjective > inter-subjective to describe the behavior of these linguistic elements in this respect.





Introduction

Although studying different uses and semantic development of deictic expressions in Persian seems to be perciptible at first, it isnot that much easy to convey the sheer complexity of the situation. This paper tries to study different pragmatic and semantic dimentions of these linguistic expressions on the basis of grammaticalization, which is essentially a diachronic concept. Using samples of in (this) and ân (that) in daily Persian conversations, this study aims: 1) to describe different types of their meanings and, 2) to show that how basics of grammaticalization can be applied to provide a synchronic survey of the semantic variety of the aforementioned dectic expressions as discourse markers in Persian.



2. Literature Review

Most studies pertaining to diectic expressions in (this) and ân (that) in different languages emphasizes their role in expressing speaker’s attitudes and feelings and also discourse management in addition to their propositional meaning (Perera & Strauss, 2015, p.36).

Persian researchers (Amid, 1963, Moeen, 1995, Sadri & Hakami, 2002, Moshkvar, 1971), adopting a traditional approach and insisting upon the concept of referentiality, commomly declared that in and ân are used to refer to near and distant respectively. However, what has been ignored in such studies was that they just paid attention to their referential meanings at sentence level and did not cover the discourse-pragmatic dimentions.



3. Methodology

The data of this study were obtained from fifteen hours of daily Persian conversations in a one-year period. From the mentioned corpus, 260 cases of using the deictic expressions in and ân were identified from different situations and in various constructions. To conduct this research, all 260 cases were first categorized into propositional, textual, and interpersonal meanings, following Halliday (1970, 1979), Trauggot (1982), and Brinton (1996). Different uses of the deictic expressions were then classified based on the classification propopsed by Halliday and Hassan (1976), Lyons (1977), Fillmore (1982), Levinson (1983, 2004) and Diessel (1999) in terms of propositional meaning. After that, according to Heine (2002), items that simultaneously had a propositional meaning at the sentence level as well as discourse meanings (textual and interpersonal) were categorized into bridging contexts. Continuing to examine the types of meanings and uses of the expressions, the cases that functioned as a discourse marker were identified and were put in textual, personal and interpersonal categories based on the concepts presented. Lastly, their semantic variations were examined based on the views of Trauggot and Dasher (2002), analyzed from the perspective of synchronic grammaticalization and the proposed clines of these developments were presented.



4. Results

The analysis indicates that in & ân are used exphorically, anaphorically and textually in their referential meaning and also used in the bridging contexts to function for the retrieval of linguistic information, projection, feeling and emotion expression, avoidance of unpleasant concepts and referent identification. Moreover, the investigation shows unlike ân, the semantic changes of in extends beyond the bridging contexts. So in as a discourse marker, textually has a function in changing the topical trends and creating a pause to formulate the upcoming discourse. It is subjectively used to designate and emphasize the upcoming discourse and to create a contrast and inter-subjectively functions in speech acts such as requesting, asking and advising. Grammaticalization of the deictic expressions supports Traugott & Dasher's clines. However, indexicalizing speaker's spatial aspects, in & ân have impersonal subjective meaning involving the grammaticalization process. Therefore, Traugott & Dasher's semantic cline, should be modified in way of impersonal subjective > personal subjective > inter-subjective to describe the behavior of these linguistic elements in this respect. In sum, the current study used a descriptive-analytical methodology to describe the discourse-pragmatic aspects of in & ân and indicated that these linguistic elements have different types of uses which the notion of grammaticalization (e.g. Traugott and Dashar, 2002; and Brinton, 2008) provide a solid theoretical framework to describe and analyze these expressions as discourse markers in Persian. In sum, the current study used a descriptive-analytical methodology to describe the discourse-pragmatic aspects of in & ân and indicated that these linguistic elements have different types of uses which the notion of grammaticalization (e.g. Traugott and Dashar, 2002; and Brinton, 2008) provide a solid theoretical framework to describe and analyze these expressions as discourse markers in Persian.

Keywords

Subjects

• Abdolkarimi, S. & E. Changizi. (2019). Polysemy and grammaticalization of the preposition “ba” on the basis of componential analysis of meaning. Linguistic Essays, 10 (6). 285-317. [In Persian].

• Amid, H. (1963). Amid Persian Dictionary, Ebne Sina Press. [In Persian].
• Auer, J. C. P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 8:627-648.
• Brinton, Laurel J. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer. [1990. Goodwin. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Cook, Haruko M. (1993). Function of the filler ano in Japanese. Choi, Soonja (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, Vol. 3, 19–37. Stanford: CSLI.
• Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Eckardt, R. (2009). Avoid pragmatic overload. M. M. Hansen & M. J. Visconti (eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics (21-41), Bingerly: Emerland.
• Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang, Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. (pp. 31–59)
• Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Fischer, O. A. Rosenbach and D. Stein. (2000). Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Furkó, P. B. (2005). The pragmatic marker discourse marker dichotomy reconsidered: The case of well and of course. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Debrecen, Hungary.
• Furkó, P. B. (2014). Cooptation over grammaticalization. Argumentum 10, 289-300.
• Ghaderi, S. (2019). A study of thetical uses of 'are and næ expressions in the daily Persian discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Isfahan. [In Persian].
• Ghesquiere, L., L. Brems & F. Velde. (2012). Intersubjectivity an intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. Journal of English Text Construction. 5(1), 128-152.
• Günthner, S. (1999). Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisier ungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte. 180: 409–446.
• Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, Reqaiya. (1976). Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
• Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, O., Norde, M. & Perridon, H. (Eds.). Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. (pp. 17-44).
• Hayashi, M. & K. Yoon, (2010). A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. In Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders (Nino Amiridze, Boyd Davis, Margaret Maclagan, eds.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. (pp. 33–66).
• Hayashi, M. and K. E. Yoon. (2006). A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language. 30, 485–540.
• Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. & Diewald, G. (ed.), New reflections on grammaticalization. (pp. 83-102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Heine, B., G. Kaltenböck, T. Kuteva, and H, Long (in press). The rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Himmelmann, N. (1996).Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Fox, Barbara (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. (pp. 205-254).
• Himmelmann, N. (1997) Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tubingen: Narr.
• Hinds, J. (1975). Interjective demonstrativesin Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics. 8, 19–42.
• Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Huang, J. C.-T. (2014). The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publisher.
• Jucker, A., S. Smith & T. Ludge. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics. 35, 1737-1769.
• Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language. 35(4), 848–893.
• Kuteva, T. (2012). On the cyclic nature of grammaticalization. In Ik-Hwan, L., Young-Se, K., Kyoung-Ae, K., Kee-Ho, K., Il-Kon, R., Seong-Ha, K., Jin-Hyung, K., Hyo Young, L., Ki-Jeong, K., Hye-Kyung, K. & Sung-Ho, A. (Eds.), Issues in English linguistics. (pp. 50-67).
• Lakoff, R. (1974). Remarks on this and that. In Proceedings of the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. (pp. 345–356).
• Lehmann, Ch. (2004). Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik. 32(2), 152–187.
• Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT press.
• Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vols 1&2. London: Cambridge University Press.
• McNeill, D., Cassell, J., & Levy, E.T. (1993). Abstract deixis. Semiotica. 95(1/2), 5-19.
• Mo'in, M. (1995). Mo'in Dictionary. Amirkabir Press. [In Persian].
• Moshkvar, M. J. (1971). Instructions on Persian morphology and syntax. Shargh. [In Persian].
• Naghzgooye Kohan, M. (2017). The development of the new first and second person in new Persian from the perspective of grammaticalization. Academy Special Issue, 13. 3-45. [In Persian].
• Naghzgooye Kohan, M. (2019). From grammaticalization to pragmaticalization; the development course of the functional word pᴂs (then) in Persian. Academy Special Issue (Lexicography), 14. 74-100. [In Persian].
• Natel Khanlari, P. (1972). Persian Grammar. Toos. (In Persian].
• Noora, A. (2015). A study of the grammaticalization of discourse markers in everyday Persian. PhD. Dissertaion, Isfahan University. [In Persian].
• Noora, A. (2015). Synchronic multifunctionality of the discourse marker hâlâ ('now') from the perspective of (Inter) subjectification. Linguistic Researches, 6 (2). 121-140. [In Persian].
• Perera, K. and S. Strauss, (2015). Psychology; Journal of Pragmatics.
• Sadri, Gh. et al. (2003). Persian Contemporary Dictionary, Contemporary Dictionary Press. [In Persian].
• Traugott, E. (2010).(Inter)-subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. (pp. 29-70).
• Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language. 65, 31–55.
• Traugott, E. C. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester.
• Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. (pp. 624–47).
• Traugott, E. C. and R. B. Dasher. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Webber, B. L. (1991). Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 107–135.
• Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Language Related Research
Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 68
May and June 2022
Pages 587-621