ساخت‌های همسانی در ترکی آذربایجانی

ساخت‌های همسانی از جنبه صوری و معنایی، وجوه اشتراک فراوانی با ساخت‌های تشابهی دارند و همین امر سبب شده تا ساخت‌های موردِ اشاره به صورت جداگانه و مطلوبی مورد بررسی جدی قرار نگیرند. هسپلمت و همکاران (haspelmath et al., 2017) ضمن بررسی رده‌شناختی، شش نوع الگوی پایه جداگانه از ساخت‌های همسانی را بر می‌شمرده و بر اساس الگوهای موردِ اشاره سه تعمیم بینازبانی ارائه می‌دهند. در پژوهش حاضر، بر اساس تجزیه و تحلیل پیکره‌ای متشکل از داده‌های گفتاری ده گویشور آذری زبان و همچنین شم زبانی یکی از نگارندگان به این نتیجه رسیدیم که در زبان ترکی پنج الگوی پایه از ساخت‌های همسانی وجود دارد اما الگوی نوع دوم در زبان موردِ اشاره موجود نیست. داده‌های زبان ترکی تایید کننده وجود هر سه تعمیم مطرح شده به وسیله هسپلمت و همکاران (همان) است.‌

Equative construction in Turkic Azarbaijani

INTRODUCTION Equative constructions have not been desirably studied due to their formal and semantic similarity to similitive constructions. Haspelmath (2017) proposed the six basic types of equative constructions in distinct patterns based on typological studies. On the basis of these six patterns, there are also three crosslinguistic generalizations. In the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language, we conclude that five types of six types of these basic constructions can be found in the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, all generalizations are valid in (Turkic) Azarbaijani. It should be noted that the data of the present research are based on the corpus of the ordinary speech of the native speakers and the intuition of one of the writers.  MATERIALS AND METHODSIn the present study, we have used a descriptiveanalytical method to examine the data. The data of the present research are based on the corpus of the ordinary speech of the 10 native speakers and the intuition of one of the writers. This research mainly analyzes data from direct elicitation and does not include data from written text.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONEquative constructions express situations in which “two referents have a gradable property to the same degree (Haspelmath, 2016, p. 9). Equative constructions vary widely in different languages, but the six main types are distinguished by Hespelmat (2016). Each of these types is characterized by the following five components: (1) 1                  2                      3                  4                      5Compare      degreemarker parameter standardmarker standardKim        is   [as                      tall]         [as                    Pat]. Type 1: Only equative standardmarker:In this type of equative construction, there is a comparee, standard and standard marker, and there is no degree marker, and also the parameter generally plays the role of a predicate. (2) Sanin  taĉin  xošgel  di. Taĉin has appeared as a standard marker and is mostly used to compare similarities in human traits, and as it is obvious, this standard marker has appeared as a postaddition (after the standard marker). The comparee is used as a pronoun. (3) Maryam mehrnaz ĉimi  gozal  di. ĉimi is standard marker that is placed in postposition of standard (after the standard) and is used to express the similarity of traits between humans and other living things. Type 2: Equative degreemarker and standardmarker:In this type of construction, in addition to the three main components (comparee, standard, parameter), there are also a degree marker and a standard marker. In Azerbaijani, as far as the authors have studied, there is no structure in which it is possible to show both the standard marker and the degree marker based on type 2. Type 3: Equative degreemarker unified:In this type of construction, there are predicate parameter, degree marker (meaning the same degree) and [comparee + standard] exists as a unified unit, but there is no standard marker. In examples (45), ham and bir indicate degree marker.(4) Nɑsirinan mahdya ham qiɑfa dilar.(5) Husseinan Ɂahmad bir Ɂandɑzada dilar Type 4: Primary reach equative:In this type, the predicate is a verb means to reach / unite. In the Azerbaijani (Turkish) language, as shown in Examples (68), the verbs tʃatmaz, jetišmasan, tʃakib are used to mean to arrive, go or unite:(6) Hiškim safihlida   Behruza  tʃatmaz(7) San zirahlixda  maʤida   jetišmasan(8) Sanda tanbalihdan bɑʤuɁɑ tʃakib san.Type 5: Primary reach equative unifiedIn this type of construction, [comparee and standard] appear as a unified unit in role of subject, there is a verb to reach / unite and a parameter (usually in a dative case).(9) Rɑmininan Bahram chohlexdɑ barɑbar dilar.(10) Bizim mɑšininan sizin mɑšini sürɁatda bir dilar. Type 6: Secondary reach equativeIn this type of construction, there is a parameter as the first predicate and a verb (to reach united) as a second predicate. In examples (1113), being good, being tall, and being stingy, respectively, are used as the predicate parameters, and the verb tʃakib is used as the second verb, which implicitly means to unite / achieve.(11) Amir gözal di xɑlasina tʃakib(12) Mohammad uzün   di   Aliya tʃakib(13) Hasan xasi  di   Ɂisya   tʃakib  CONCLUSIONIn the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language, we conclude among six types of these basic constructions, five can be found in the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language. The authors also provide the seventh pattern of the aforementioned constructions by examining other ways of expressing equative constructions in (Turkic) Azarbaijani. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, all generalizations are valid in(Turkic) Azarbaijani.