Volume 13, Issue 2 (2022)
LRR 2022, 13(2): 587-621 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ramazanpour R, Amouzadeh M, Rezaei H. A Discourse-Pragmatic Study of in & ân (this & that) in Daily Persian Conversations. LRR 2022; 13 (2) :587-621
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-43615-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-43615-en.html
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 ,amouzadeh@fgn.ui.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor of 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
Abstract: (2315 Views)
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.
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.
- Introduction
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.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |