تحولات واجی و صرفی وام‌واژه‌های فارسی در زبان ترکی عثمانی در فرآیند بومی‌سازی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری تخصصی فرهنگ و زبانهای باستانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار فرهنگ و زبانهای باستانی و ایرانشناسی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران
3 استاد بازنشسته فرهنگ و زبانهای باستانی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
در پژوهش حاضر بر مبنای روش توصیفی-تحلیلی به بررسی تغییرات واجی و صرفی وام‌واژه‌های فارسی در فرآیند بومی‌سازی و نیز دامنه نفوذ و تاثیر زبان فارسی در زبان ترکی عثمانی پرداخته شده است. بدین منظور، با مراجعه به تمام فرهنگها و لغتنامه‌ها، فرهنگ تعابیر و کنایات، فرهنگهای موضوعی و دایره‌المعارفهایی که در طول دوره امپراطوری عثمانی در آناتولی نوشته شده‌اند، داده­های مورد نیاز برای این پژوهش ، که در حدود 6000 وام‌واژه فارسی بوده‌اند ، جمع­آوری و بررسی شدند. در این پژوهش با استفاده از نرم­افزار excel در رایانه، درصد و بسامد وقوع فرآیندهای رایج در حوزه واجی و صرفی، مشخص شده‌اند. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که از میان فرآیندهای آوایی و واجی شامل هماهنگی واکه‌ای، فراتمایز آوایی، همگونی، قلب، درج، حذف، ابدال و تضعیف‌شدگی؛ هماهنگی واکه‌ای که از ویژگیهای بارز زبان ترکی به عنوان یک زبان پیوندی است، دارای بیشترین فراوانی است. در حوزه صرفی که فرآیندهای ترکیب و اشتقاق مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند، اشتقاق دارای بیشترین فراوانی بوده‌ است. با وجود خصوصیات رده‌شناختی متفاوت دو زبان فارسی و ترکی، ارتباط این دو زبان گسترده و پیامدهای آن بطور چشمگیری یک طرفه بوده است که پیامد آن، وجود بسیاری از واژه‌های فارسی در زبان ترکی عثمانی است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Phonological and Morphological Changes of Persian Loanwords in Ottoman Turkish Language in the Process of Localization

نویسندگان English

Samaneh Hassanalizadeh 1
Ali Shahidi 2
Zohreh Zarshenas 3
1 Ph.D Student of Iranian Ancient Culture & Languages, Science & Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant professor of Iranian Ancient Culture & Languages, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 professor of Iranian Ancient Culture & Languages, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

In the current research, based on the descriptive-analytical method, the phonological and morphological changes of Persian loanwords in the process of localization, as well as the influence and impact of the Persian language on the Ottoman Turkish language, have been studied. For this purpose, by referring to all the dictionaries, the dictionary of definitions and allusions, thematic dictionaries and encyclopedias that were written during the period of the Ottoman Empire in Anatolia, the data required for this research, which were about 6000 Persian loanwords, were collected and examined. In this research, using Excel software and with the help of computer, the percentage and frequency of occurrence of common processes in the field of phonology and morphology have been determined. The results of the research show that among phonetic and phonological processes including vowel harmony, phonetic over differentiation, assimilation, metathesis, insertion, omitition, lenition, and weakening; Vowel harmony, which is one of the prominent features of Turkish as an agglutinating language, has the highest frequency. In the morphological field where the processes of composition and derivation were examined, derivation has the most frequency. Despite the different typological characteristics of the Persian and Turkish languages, the relationship between these two languages ​​has been extensive and its consequences have been remarkably one-sided, the consequence of which is the existence of many Persian words in the Ottoman Turkish language.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

loanwords
morphological and phonological process
localization
Ottoman Turkish language
Persian language
Farsi:
Ajand,Y.(1364).Adabiyate Novine Torkiye.Tehran:Amirkabir
Abuziya.(1886).Loghate Abuziya.Gostantaniye:Abulziya
Bateni,M.(1373).Zaban va tafakkor:Majmooe Maghalate zabanshenasi.Tehran:farhange Moaser
Jamei az Nevisandegan.(1369).Molana az Didgahe Torkan va Iraniyan.Tehran:Vezarate Farhang
Judi,E.(1916).Loghate Judi.Istanbul
Halimi,L.(2013).Loghate Halimi.Istanbul:Turk Dil Korumu
Xalil.(1853).Montaxabe Loghate Osmani.Istanbul
Ramzi,H.(1888).Lugate Ramzi.Istanbul
Riyahi,M.(1369).Zaban va Adab dar Galamro Osmani.Tehran:Pajang
Sami,S.(1901).Gamose Torki.Istanbul:Igdam
Shagagi,V.(1387).Mabanie Sarf.Tehran:Samt
Sukur,M.(1358).Saljugiyan.Tarjomeh:Salehi,N.Tehran:Adyan
Salahi,M.(1910).Gamoose Osmani.Istanbul:Mahmut Bey
Golshani,A.(1354).Farhange Iran dar Ghalamroe Torkan,Tehran:Tejaratxane golshani
Lois,B.(1350).Istanbul va Tamadone Osmani.Tarjome:Mahmelek,B.Tehran:Bongahe Tarjome va Nashr
Modarresi,F.(1384).Zaban va Adabe Parsi dar Asiyaye Saghir.Tehran:Name Farhangestan,Shomare1,70-84
Modaressi,Y.(1390).Daramadi bar Jamee Shenasi.Tehran:Pajooheshgahe Olume Ensani va Motaleate Farhangi
Moallem,N.(1950).Lugate Naji.Istanbul:Asr
Nakhjavani,H.(1341).Nofuzi Zaban va Adabe Farsi dar Torkiye Al Osman,Tabriz:daneshkade Adabiyat va Olum Enasni Tabriz.Shomare60,42-54
Vafigh Pasha,A.(1877).Lahje Osmani.Istanbul:Matbaee Amere
Latin:
Agoston,G.&Masters.(2009).Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire.Newyork:Infobase Publishing
Aitchison,J.(2000).Language Change:Progress or Decay.Cambridge:Cambridge university Press.
Akulenko,V.V.(1972). Issues of internationalization of the vocabulary of the language.Kharkov:Publishing House of Kharkov University.
Arolotto,A.(2005). Introduction to historical Linguistics (2nd ed.) (Y. Modarresi, Trans.).Tehran: Institute of Humanities & Cultural Studies [In Persian]
Ates,A.(1958).”Hicri VI-VIII (XII-XIV)Asirlarida Anadolu’da Farsca Eserler”,Istanbul,TM, CIII:94-135
Adler,P.J&Pouwels,R.L(2011).World Civilizations.Wadsworth Publishing
Bosnali,s.(2001). “New-Persian Loanwords in Anatolian-TurkishDialects (2)”in:Stachowski Marek (éd.), Languages and Culture of Turkic Peoples. Krakow,Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 5.pp. 193-208.
Burquest,D.A.(1998). Phonological Analysis: A Functional Approach.Texas:SIL International.
Cagbayir,Y.(2017).Otuken Osmanli Turkcesi Sozlugu.Istanbul:Otuken nesriyat
Campo,J.E.(2009).Encyclopedia of Islam.NewYork:facts on the file publication.
Carr,Ph.(1993).Phonology.London:MacMillan Press.
Chomsky,N&Halle,M.(1968).The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers
Crystal,D.(1992).An encyclopedic dictionary of language and languages.Cambridge:Blackwell publications.
Crystal,D.(2008).Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.Wiley-Blackwell
Dohlus, K. (2013). Phonetics or phonology: Asymmetries in loanword adaptations; French and German mid front rounded vowels in Japanese. Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 25(6),1568.
Golden,P.B(2006).”Turks and Iranians:An historical sketch”.Turcologica 62.
Gussenhoven,C&Jacobs,H.(2011).Understanding Phonology. London.
Hafiz,Ola.(1996).”Phonological and MorphologicalIntegration of Loan words into EgyptianArabic”. Égypte/Monde arabe (Première série) 27-28.383-410.
Haugen,E.(1950).”The analysis of linguistic borrowing”. Language, 26(2), 210-231.
Hock, H.(1985). “Regular metathesis”.Linguistics, 23(4), 227-43
Hudson,R.A.(2001).Sociolinguistics. Cambridge.Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, H., & Gussenhoven, C. (2000). Loan phonology: perception, salience, the lexicon and OT. Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition, 193-209.
Johanson,L.(2002).Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. Richmond: Curzon.
Katamba,F.(1989).An Introduction to Phonology. England:longman.
Kenstowicz, M. (2005). The phonetics and phonology of Korean loanword adaptation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first European conference on Korean linguistics.
Kenstowicz, M., & Suchato, A. (2006). Issues in loanword adaptation: A case study from Thai.Lingua, 116(7), 921-949.
Kopurlu,M.F.(1992).The Seljuks of Anatolia: their history and culture according to local Muslims sources.Salt lake city:University of Utah
Korkmaz,z.(1995).Turk Dili Uzerine Arastirmalar.C.1.Ankara:TDK Yay
LaCharité,D.&Paradis,C.(2000).Phonological evidence for the bilingualism of borrowers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Ottawa, Canada.
LaCharité, D., & Paradis, C. (2005). Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(2), 223-258.
Lewis,L.G.(2000).Turkish Grammar.Oxford:Oxford university press.
Myers-Scotton,Carol.(1993).Social Motivation for Codeswitching:Evidence from Africa.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Newby,G.D.(2002).A Conciese Encyclopedia of Islam.Oxford:one world publication
Pakalin,M.Z.(1971).Osmanli Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sozlugu.Istanbul:Milli Egitim Basimevi
Paradis, C. (1995). Derivational constraints in phonology: Evidence from loanwords and implications. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 31st annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Peperkamp, S., Vendelin, I., & Nakamura, K. (2008). On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology, 25(01), 129-164.
Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E. (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: the role of perception. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
Redhouse,J.(1974).A Turkish and English Lexicon.Beyrut
Robins, R.H. (1964). General linguistics: An introductory survey. London:Longmans
Romaine,S.(1989).Bilingualism,Oxford,Basil Blachwell,337p
Senturk,A.A.(2016).Osmanli Siiri Kilavuzu.Istanbul:OSEDAM
Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: evidence from Cantonese.Phonology, 9(2), 298-328.
Şimsek,S.(2017).Tasavvuf Edebiyatı Terimleri Sözlüğü,Stanbul:Litera Yayıncılık
Smith, J. L. (2006). Loan phonology is not all perception: Evidence from Japanese loan doublets. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 63-74.
Stachowski,M.(2012a).”On the consonant adaptation of Arabic (and some Persian) loan-words in an Ottoman Turkish dictionary by Arcangelo Carradori (1650)”.Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 129 supplementum: 373–381.
Stein,H.(2006).”Palatal-velar vocalism of Arabic-Persian loanwords in 16th-century OttomanTurkish”. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects, 62, 143.
Tadmor,U.&Haspelmath,M.&Taylor,B.(2010).”Borrow ability and the notion of basic vocabulary”. Diachronica, 27, 226–46.
Tezcan,S.(1997).”Additional Iranian Loan-wordsin Early Turkiç Languages”.Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları .157-164
Tietze,A.&Lazard,G.(1976).”Persian Loanwords in Anatolian Turkish”.Oriens,5.125-168
Tietze,A.(1992).”Uberlegungen uber lautliche form der arabischen und persischen lehnworter im anatolischen Turkisch”.Wiener Zeitschrift fur die kunde des Morgenlandes 82,349-358
Underhill,R.(1986).”Turkish.Studies”.Turkish Linguistics,7-21
Versteegh, K.(2001).”Linguistic contacts between Arabic and other languages”. Arabica,48(4), 470-508
Webb,C.(1974).Metathesis.PhD dissertation.University of Texas At Austin
Yip, M. (1993). Cantonese loanword phonology and Optimality Theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2(3), 261-291.