سبک شدن فعل سنگین: مطالعه‌ی موردی فعل «دادن» در چارچوب معنی‌شناسی شناختی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژ‍وهشی

نویسندگان

• رضا سلطانی
• محمد عموزاده

دانشگاه اصفهان

https://doi.org/10.22067/lj.v10i18.66593

چکیده

ساخت‌های سبک و مرکب در زبان فارسی بسیار فراوان هستند به گونه‌ای که یک فعل سنگین می‌تواند به عنوان فعل سبک در ساخت‌های متعددی حضور داشته باشد. این مسئله باعث می‌شود که فعل سنگین بخشی از معنی اصلی خود را در این ساخت‌ها از دست بدهد و از معنی سرنمون خود دور شود. با این حال، سبک شدن به معنی آن نیست که نتوان روابط نظام‌مندی را میان فعل سنگین و فعل سبک متناظر آن جست‌وجو کرد. هدف نوشتار حاضر بررسی این روابط در ارتباط با فعل سنگین «دادن» و ساخت‌های سبک حاصل از آن است. بررسی نمونه‌هایی از این ساخت‌ها در چارچوب کلی معنی‌شناسی شناختی نشان می­دهد که کاربردهای سبک «دادن» تا حد زیادی تابع ساختار معنایی این فعل هستند. حضور جنبه‌های مختلف این ساختار معنایی در ساخت‌های سبک را می‌توان حاکی از آن دانست که سبک شدن فعل «دادن»، تا حد زیادی نظام‌مند بوده و تا چه حدی بر اساس انگیزه‌های شناختی قابل توضیح و تبیین است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• دادن
• فعل سبک
• ساختار معنایی
• معنی‌شناسی شناختی

عنوان مقاله [English]

From Heavy to Light Verb: The Case of dâdӕn (‘to give’) in Persian Based on the Cognitive Semantics

نویسندگان [English]

• Reza Soltani
• Mohammad Amouzadeh

University of Isfahan

چکیده [English]

Extended abstract
1. Introduction
Light verb constructions (LVCs) are so pervasive in Persian that a heavy verb may act in various constructions as a light verb (LV). This makes the heavy verb lose some parts of its main meaning in such constructions and get away from its prototype meaning. However, this does not imply that no systematic relationship can be found between the heavy verb and its light counterpart. The purpose of this paper is to explore these relationships among the heavy verb, dâdӕn (to give), and the resulting LVCs.
2. Theoretical Framework
The framework adopted in this study is cognitive semantics in general and cognitive lexical semantics and force-dynamics in particular. Cognitive lexical semantics consists of various theories including prototype categorization, image schemas, conceptual metaphor and foregrounding. According to this approach, different meanings of a word form a semantic category whose semantic similarities and commonalities are greater in more central meanings than in more peripheral ones. Moreover, the relationships among these meanings may be explained in terms of conceptual metaphor, image schemas and foregrounding. LVs also form a network of related meanings that could be explained in this way. Another concept is force-dynamics which deals with interaction of entities in relation to force. Regarding the LVCs, it is assumed that the characteristics of the interactions of the forces of heavy verbs would be preserved in LVCs. These may include the source of energy, its direction and the recipient of the energy. For example, if a heavy verb denotes a self-oriented action, light uses also refer to a self-oriented event.
3. Methodology
This paper is a descriptive-analytical study. The data included LVCs using the verb dâdӕn and were collected from various library resources and previous studies. To analyze the data, first the semantic structure of the heavy verb, dâdӕn, was examined based on the Newman (1996)’s model and various aspects of this structure was identified. Then, drawing on the principles of cognitive lexical semantics, the light uses of dâdӕn and their relations to the components of the semantic structure of the heavy verb were established. Furthermore, the force-dynamics of the heavy verb dâdӕn and its traces in the light uses were examined. As a result, the ways dâdӕn could be lightened were discussed and characterized in different categories.
4. Results and Discussion
LVCs maintain one or more semantic aspects of the heavy verb dâdӕn. The concept of “interpersonal communication” can be accounted for by the metaphoric mapping between elements of communication and the conduit metaphor. “Causality” is directly related to literal transfer of objects into the receiver’s control domain and the control aspect is associated with the concepts of “permission” or “strength” in LVCs. Moreover, control domain may be related to the concepts such as “emergence” of a phenomenon. Concerning the force-dynamic properties, light uses of dâdӕn mostly tend to keep these properties as other-oriented outward actions.
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
At first it seems that the heavy verb, dâdӕn, has a simple structure and its main parts consist of a sender, an object, and a receiver. However, there are more to this structure such as control domain, force-dynamics, and transfer. The light uses of dâdӕn are systematically related to various aspects of the semantic structure of the heavy dâdӕn. In other words, these literal aspects are mapped onto more metaphorical concepts such as causality which is one of the most common concepts expressed by the light dâdӕn. This means that the light dâdӕn has turned into a causal verb in the process of losing the meaning of its prototype as a heavy verb. This may be directly a function of the force-dynamics of heavy dâdӕn which similar to a causative verb, expresses actions towards other entities. In other words, transfer or imposition of a state on an entity is perceived as transfer of an object to a receiver.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• dâdӕn
• light verb
• semantic structure
• cognitive semantics

مراجع

1. منابع
2. دبیرمقدم، محمد (1376). «فعل مرکب در زبان فارسی». مجله‌ی زبانشناسی، 12، 2-45.
3. شریف، بابک (1394). بررسی شناختی افعال سبک در زبان فارسی. پایان‌نامه‌ی دکتری. دانشگاه اصفهان.
4. صادقی، علی اشرف (1372). «درباره‌ی فعل‌های جعلی در زبان فارسی». مجموعه مقالات سمینار زبان فارسی و زبان علم. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. 236-246.
5. عموزاده، محمد، و بهرامی، فاطمه (1391). «ساخت افعال سبک بر اساس زبان‌شناسی شناختی». فصل‌نامه‌ی پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، 3(4)، ص. 169-191.
6. فرشیدورد، خسرو (1351). «کلمه‌ی مرکب و معیارهای تشخیص آن در زبان فارسی». مجموعه سخنرانی‌های دومین کنگره‌ی تحقیقات ایرانی (ص. 169-217). مشهد: دانشگاه مشهد.
7. فرشیدورد، خسرو (1373). «فعل مرکب و ساختمان آن». آشنا، 74-82.
8. کریمی دوستان، غلامحسین، و روحی بایگی، زهرا (1395). «بررسی چندمعنایی فعل سبک «زدن» از دیدگاه شناختی». دوماهنامه‌ی جستارهای زبانی، 7(3)، ص. 129-148.
9. وحیدیان کامیار، تقی (1351). «در زبان فارسی فعل مرکب نیست». مجموعه سخنرانی‌های دومین کنگره‌ی تحقیقات ایرانی (ص. 264-268). مشهد: دانشگاه مشهد.
10. Brugman, C. (1981). The Story of 'over': Polysemy, Semantics and the Strudcture of the Lexicon. Berkeley: MA Thesis: University of California.
11. Brugman, C. (2001). “Light verbs and polysemy”. Language Sciences, 23, 551-578.
12. Cattell, R. (1984). Syntax and Semantics: Composite Predicates in English. London: Academic Press.
13. Family, N. (2006). Explorations of Semantic Space: The Case of Light Verb Constructions in Persian. Paris, France: PhD Dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etude en Sciences Sociales.
14. Family, N. (2008). “Mapping semantic spaces: A constructionist account of the “light verb” xordæn “eat” in Persian”. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From Polysemy to Semantic Change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations (pp. 139-161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Foley, R., Harly, H., & Karimi, S. (2005). “Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates”. Lingua, 115(10), 1365-1401.
16. Goldberg, A. E. (1996). “Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate”. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society.
17. Goldberg, A. E. (2003). “Words by default: The Persian complex predicate construction”. In E. Francis, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar (pp. 83-112). CSLI Publications.
18. Grimshaw, J., & Mester, A. (1988). “Light verbs and θ-marking”. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(2), 205-232.
19. Jespersen, O. (1940). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: Allen & Unwin.
20. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Johnson, M. (1991). “Knowing through the body”. Philosophical Psychology, 4(1), 3-18.
22. Johnson, M. (1993). Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Karimi Doostan, G. (1997). Light Verb Constructions in Persian. Essex: University of Essex.
24. Karimi Doostan, G. (2001). “N + V complex predicates in Persian”. In N. Dehe, & A. Warner (Eds.), Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs (pp. 277-292). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
25. Karimi Doostan, G. (2005). “Light verbs and structural case”. Lingua, 115(12), 1737-1756.
26. Karimi Doostan, G. (2008). “Predicative nouns and adjectives”. Grammar 3: The Journal of Iranian Academy of Persian Language and Literature, 3, 187-202.
27. Karimi Doostan, G. (2011). “Separability of light verb constructions in Persian”. Studia Linguistica, 65(1), 70-95.
28. Karimi, S. (1997). “Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional”. Lexicology, 3(2), 273-318.
29. Karimi, S. (2008). “Opening Remarks: Scholarship on Complex Predicates”. International Conference on Complex Predicates, Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris iii, France.
30. Kövecses, Z. (2008). “Metaphor and emotion”. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 380-396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Lakoff, G. (1990). “The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?”. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39-74.
33. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36. Mohammad, J., & Karimi, S. (1992). “Light verbs are taking over: Complex verbs in Persian”. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), (pp. 195-212).
37. Müller, S. (2010). “Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses”. Journal of Linguistics, 46(3), 601-655.
38. Newman, J. (1996). Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
39. Reddy, M. J. (1979). “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language”. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 284-324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Rosch, E. (1975). “Cognitive representations of semantic categories”. Journal of Experimental Psychology(104), 192-233.
41. Rosch, E. (1978). “Principles of categorization”. In E. Rosch, & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Rosch, E., & Mervis, B. (1975). “Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories”. Cognitive Psychology(7), 573-605.
43. Samvelian, P., & Faghiri, P. (2013). “Re-thinking compositionality in Persian complex predicates”. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 39th Annual Meeting. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
44. Samvelian, P., & Faghiri, P. (2014). “Persian complex predicates: How compositional are they?”. Semantics‐Syntax Interface, 1(1), 43-74.
45. Talmy, L. (1985). “Force dynamics in language and thought”. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 293-337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
46. Talmy, L. (1988). “Force dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
47. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.