طبقه‌بندی آشکار معانی غیرمعرفتی فعلهای وجهی توانستن، شدن و بایستن بر پایه‌ی الگوی معناشناختی-کاربردشناختی دپراتره

در این مقاله، ابتدا برخی دسته‌ بندی‌های پژوهشگران از معانی غیرمعرفتی توانستن، شدن و بایستن به‌ صورت مختصر بررسی شدند و مشاهده گردید بیشتر آن ها که از چارچوب پالمر پیروی‌کرده‌اند، معیارهای آشکاری برای تفکیک و طبقه‌ بندی معانی غیرمعرفتی این فعل‌ها ارائه ‌نکرده‌اند و با به کارگیری رویکردی کمابیش معنایینحوی، بیشتر به توصیف و ارائه نمونه برای نشان‌دادن معانی و توجیه دسته‌ بندی خود روی‌ آورده‌اند. پژوهش های محدودی هم که از چارچوب پالمر فاصله‌ گرفته‌اند و کاربردشناسی را هم  به صورت همزمان در نظر داشته‌اند، معیارهای معینی را برای تفکیک و دسته‌ بندی معانی غیرمعرفتی افعال ‌ارائه‌ نکرده‌اند. با آگاهی از محدودیت‌های پژوهش های پیشین، الگوی معناشناختی-کاربردشناختی دپراتره (depraetere, 2014)که متشکل از سه لایه‌ (دو لایه معنایی و یک لایه کاربردی) است، معرفی‌ شده و بر اساس آن معانی این افعال تفکیک و دسته‌ بندی گردیدند. برتری اصلی این الگو آن است که، برخلاف دیگر الگوها، معیارهای آشکاری را برای استخراج معنای وابسته ‌به ‌بافتِ افعال وجهی، ارائه ‌می‌دهد. با اعمال این الگو مشخص‌ گردید که می‌توان از ساز و کارهای آن برای شناسایی، تفکیک و دسته‌بندی معانی غیرمعرفتی افعال وجهی فارسی استفاده‌ کرد.

an explicit classification of nonepistemic senses of tavan, shodan and bayestan based on Depraetere’s semanticpragmatic model

In this paper we first briefly investigated some Persian scholars’ classifications of nonepistemic (or root) senses of central Persian modal auxiliaries tavanestan, shodan, and bayestan, which roughly correspond to English can/may/might, can/may/might, and must/should,  respectively.The findings showed that most of them, which mainly follow Palmer’s semanticsyntactic framework, have not proposed any explicit and operationalizable criteria for analysis and classification of various senses of these polyfunctional modals and have mainly identified and described their various senses through researchermade examples (e.g. Akhlaghi, 2006; Taleghani, 2008). Their approach was found to be mainly semanticsyntactic like that of Palmer and his followers. Even, the studies which are done beyond Palmer’s framework and have integrated pragmatics into their approach have not offered any explicit criteria for the classification of Persian modals (Rahimian, 2008; Rahimian and Amouzadeh, 2012; Amouzadeh and Rezaee, 2009), although their works have shed considerable light on the various senses that these modals can convey. Being aware of the limitations of the previous works, we introduced Depraetere’s (2014) semanticpragmatic model which is composed of three distinct layers (two semantic and one pragmatic) and classified the nonepistemic senses of Persian modals accordingly. Her two obligatory semantic layers are contextdependent and contextindependent layers, while pragmatic layer is optional and mainly appears in the conventionalized uses of the modal auxiliary verbs in colloquial language. The contextindependent meaning is either possibility or necessity. The contextdependent meaning, on the other hand, is determined by three parameters (i.e., scope of modality, source of modality, and potential barrier). It is through these parameters that one can explicitly determine the contextdependent meaning of a modal auxiliary. Depraetere tries to reconcile semantics and pragmatics in an integrated framework to account for various senses of modals. She offers explicit criteria and puts an end to the different opinions regarding nonepistemic senses of modal auxiliaries. Upon application, Depraetere’s model proved to be very efficient for a more systematic and intersubjective classification of nonepistemic senses of Persian modals. In our analysis of some examples taken from Persian websites, we found that bayestan can express narrowscope internal necessity, widescope internal necessity and widescope external necessity, like English must. Like English auxiliaries can, may and might, the auxiliary tavanestan can express five senses in Persian, that is, ability (narrowscope, internal, and  [ potential barrier] possibility), permission (narrowscope external, and [+ potential barrier] possibility), opportunity (narrow scope, external, and [ potential barrier] possibility), situation permissibility (widescope, external and [+ potential barrier] possibility) and situation possibility (widescope, external, and [ potential barrier] possibility). Shodan which is typically employed in colloquial Persian can only express permission, and situation permissibility and does not have the capacity to express ability and opportunity senses. Due to the unclear status of khah, like English will, its investigation needs an individual investigation.