اصطلاحات زبانی: گفتمانه‌هایی خلاق، برآینده از گسست ریزوماتیک

این مقاله در نظر دارد تا از منظر نشانه شناسی اجتماعی و به‌طور مشخص رویکرد نشانه شناختی ون لیوون به گفتمان و کردار اجتماعی، گفتمان برساخته ای از کردار اجتماعی، فرآیند شکل گیری اصطلاحات زبانی را بررسی کرده، مسیر پیموده شده در این فرآیند را توصیف کند و با هدف معرفی این ساخت های زبانی به‌عنوان ساخت هایی گستره آفرین و قدرت آفرین، به این سوالات پاسخ بدهد که اولاً، براساس رویکرد ون لیوون ارتباط میان اصطلاحات زبانی و واقعیت‌های اجتماعی چگونه رابطه ای است؟ ثانیاً، از دیدگاه نشانه-معناشناسی، اصطلاحات زبانی برخاسته از چه گفتمان هایی هستند؟ و ثالثاً، بر اساس رویکرد ژیل دلوز، در تعامل میان اصطلاحات زبانی و متن کلامی معنامندی چگونه حاصل می شود؟ فرضیه های نگارندگان از این قرارند که: 1 - به نظر می رسد اصطلاحات زبانی گفتمان هایی برساخته از واقعیت های اجتماعی باشند. 2- از سوی دیگر، با توجه به اینکه کردارهای اجتماعی غالباً به صورت کنش هایی توسط کنشگرانی اجتماعی رخ می دهند پس این گفتمان ها غالباً کنش محورند و 3- معنامندی از طریق ارزش زدایی و ارزش گذاری، تغییر شناخت و ایجاد عمق و حجم معنایی حاصل می شود. مسئله اصلی پژوهش بررسی این امر است که چگونه ساختِ خلاقانۀ اصطلاحات زبانی از فضایی واقعیت-محور، شناخته شده و معمول خلق می شود. برای بررسی موارد فوق تعداد ده اصطلاح زبانی، از میان اصطلاحات پرکاربرد امروزی، از جلد اول کتاب «ریشه های تاریخی امثال و حِکم» تالیف مهدی پرتوی آملی (1391) انتخاب شده و مورد تحلیل قرار گرفتند. از جمله دستاوردهای اصلی این تحقیق معرفی اصطلاحات زبانی به‌عنوان گفتمانه هایی است که از گفتمان های برساخته از کردارهای اجتماعی نشات می گیرند و دارای سه کارکرد ریزومی، شبکه ای و پازلی هستند.

Linguistic Idioms: the Creative Enunciative Practices Originated from Rhizomatic Ruptures

AbstractIn this paper, the formation processes of linguistic idioms were studied using social semiology framework, specifically, the semiotic approach of Theo Van Leeuween: “discourse as the recontextualisation of social practice”. This paper aimed to introduce linguistic idioms as the structures that make the speeches expansive and powerful. The main problem here was to deal with how the linguistic idioms, which were creative structures, were formed from real, common, and specified situations. To solve this problem, we considered 3 questions: 1) According to Van Leeuween approach, what kind of connection was there between social reality and linguistic idioms? 2) According to semiotic approach, which kind of discourses did the linguistic idioms originate from? 3) According to Deleauze’s approach, how did the interaction between verbal texts and linguistic idioms result in meaning formation? The hypotheses of this study were as follows: 1) It seemed that linguistic idioms were discourses, which were recontextualized through social realities; 2) The linguistic idioms were actionoriented discourses; 3) The meaning formation was done due to devaluation and valuation (value transfer), cognition change, and creation of semantic depth and volume. To evaluate these hypotheses, we studied 10 cases of the most widely used Persian linguistic idioms. The results showed that the first and second hypotheses were confirmed partially and the third one was corroborated completely. One of the main achievements of this research was introducing the linguistic idioms as enunciative practices, which originated from discourses related to social practices and that they had rhizomatic function, network function, and puzzle function.Keywords: social semiotics, Theo Van Leeuween, discourse, enunciative practice, linguistic idioms, Gilles Deleuze IntroductionLinguistic idioms are a group of linguistic structures, which do not have literal and compositional meanings. Their proper use shows language proficiency and language speakers’ high levels of linguistic knowledge. These specified linguistic structures are formed as a result of an interactional and creative process; that means the creative social subjects or language speakers cause a linguistic sign, which is used only in a specific language context and has a limited usage that is spread and becomes metaphorical. Thus, this process is a transition from “being” to “becoming”. Materials and MethodsTo investigate the hypotheses and answer the research questions, 10 commonly used Persian linguistic idioms were examined based on 3 approaches: discourse semiotics, social semiotics of Theo Van Leuween, and Gilles Deleuze’s approach. Discussion of Results and ConclusionAnalysis of the studied idioms in this paper showed that language speakers make discourses related to social practices. These discourses are action discourses, cognitive discourses, sensory perceptual discourses, or a combination of them. Creative speakers make changes on those common and familiar discourses; thus, enunciative practices are created. Due to the interaction between creative language speakers and going through the processes of discourse resistance, discourse insistence and discourse appeasement, they are converted into linguistic idioms. Therefore, idioms are not discourses but enunciative practices; in addition, they are originated not only from action discourses, but also from cognitive discourses, sensoryperceptual discourses, or a combination of them. When these idioms are placed between texts, they have 3 functions: rhizomatic function, puzzle function, and network function.