«یکی مهربان بودم اندر سرای» مهربانِ بی‌ریش فردوسی مرد یا زن؟ (خوانشی جنسیتی از دیباچۀ بیژن و منیژه در الشاهنامه)

نگارندۀ مقالۀ پیش‏رو رهیافت «چرخش فرهنگی» را در مطالعات ترجمه به‌کار می‏بندد تا دریابد چرا قوم‏الدین بُنداری، در سدۀ هفتم هجری، هنگام برگردان مصراع «یکی مهربان بودم اندر سرای» برابرنهادِ واژۀ «مهربان» را «الغلام» برمی‏گزیند. از آنجا که متن شاهنامه عاری از نشانه‏ای است که جنسیت «مهربان» را روشن سازد پس مذکر پنداشتنِ «مهربان» دلیلی فرامتنی دارد. واکاوی الگوی میل و کردوکار جنسی در عصر مترجم، و نیز پیش و پس از آن، نشان می‏دهد که کنش‏مند/سوژۀ مذکر در کردار جنسیِ خود، همزمان به دو کنش‏پذیر/ابژه نظر داشته است: کنش‏پذیر (نا)مذکر و کنش‏پذیر مونث. به دیگر بیان برخلاف الگوی میل جنسی معاصر که بر دگرجنس‏خواهی و دوگانۀ مذکر مونث استوار است در آن دوره، افزون‌بر دوگانۀ یادشده، حضور دوگانۀ مذکر (نا)مذکر نیز در کردار جنسی هویداست. کاوش در منابع نوشتاری و نانوشتاری، همچون نگاره‏های برجامانده از پیشینیان، آشکار می‏سازد که ابژۀ (نا)مذکر امرد، مخنث، مابون و خصی/ خواجه را دربر می‏گیرد که از این میان بنداری به‌سبب کنش‏هایی که در متن شاهنامه به «مهربان» نسبت داده شده، الغلام/امرد را همچون معادلی برای «مهربان» برمی‏گزیند. بدین ترتیب این گزینش نه در هم‏ارزی دو واژه در زبان‏های مبدا و مقصد که در الگوی میل جنسیِ جامعۀ مقصد ریشه دارد.

“A Kind Person Was in My House” Ferdowsi's Beardless kind man or woman? Gender-based reading of Bijan and Manijeh's Introduction in Al-Shahnameh

In this paper the structure and the symmetric merge of a noun phrase in the matrix and dependent clauses of the objectobject relative clause in Persian language was studied based on the notions of symmetric merge and multi dominance proposed by Citko (2011b) and the results of study by Riemsdijk (2006a). Different examples of relative clauses in Persian language were analyzed based on the notion of symmetric merge proposed by Citko (2011b). These analyses showed that the classification of relative clauses in Persian language into two groups of headed and free relative is not completely compatible with what has been proposed by Citko (2011b) since in Persian language if we use the whword as the head of free relative clause, it would contribute to making the sentence as a whquestion one which is against the findings of Citko (2011b) in English language. Moreover, the results of this research showed that the observed properties of the shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses of the object relative clause in Persian language namely as having the same case, syntactic function, and thematic roles proveed that this noun phrase is merged simultaneously between the two clauses and is a shared constituent between two lexical verb heads in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. This approach provides a clear and costfree explanation for the characteristics of the shared element in the object relative clause in Persian language. In this paper the structure and the merge of a noun phrase in the matrix and dependent clauses of the objectobject relative clause in Persian language is studied based on the notions of symmetric merge and multidominance proposed by Citko (2011b) and the results of study by Riemsdijk (2006a). Chomsky (2001) proposed two kinds of merge namely as external merge and internal merge. Citko (2000, 2003, 2005 and 2011b) based on the practical evidence and properties of these types of merge proposed the third kind of merge operation namely as Parallel merge (symmetric merge) which is similar to External Merge in that it takes two distinct objects as its input and is also like Internal Merge in that it combines one with a subpart of the other.The objectobject relative clause (object relative clause) is a kind of free relative clause of which the nucleus has the syntactic role of objects in both the matrix and dependent clauses. In symmetric merge a constituent is merged simultaneously in two operations and is ccommanded by two different maximal projections.The main question upon which this research was done was whether there is any evidence in support of symmetric merge of a constituent in structure of the object relative clause in Persian language. In this regard, different examples of relative clauses in Persian language were analyzed based on the notion of symmetric merge of a noun clause in the object relative clause proposed by Citko (2011b). Citko (2011b, p.95) proposed that there are two kinds of relative clauses in English: headed and free relative clauses. This difference is illustrated in sentences one and two; the relative clause in sentence one is headed by the DP ldquo;the woman rdquo;, whereas the free relative in sentence two appears to either lack the head entirely or to be ldquo;headed rdquo; by the whphrase itself.1. We hired the woman who (m) Mary recommended. headed relative2. We hired whom Mary recommended. free relativeThere are two views on the structure analysis of free relative clauses as the Comp Account and the Head Account. On the Comp Account, the head position is empty and the whphrase is in [Spec, CP], as argued by Caponigro (2003), GračaninY uuml;ksek (2008), Groos and Van Riemsdijk (1981), Grosu (1994, 1996), and Grosu and Landman (1998), among many others (sentence 3). On the Head Account, the [Spec, CP] position is empty and the whphrase occupies the head position, as shown in (142b), as argued by Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978), Bury (2003), Citko(2000, 2002, 2008b), Donati (2006) and Larson (1987, 1998), among others (sentence 4).Mary eats [DP O [CP what(ever) i [TP Bill cooks t i]]] Comp Account Mary eats [DP what (ever) i [CP [TP Bill cooks t i]]] Head AccountCitko (2011b, p.96) classified the free object relative clauses into two groups based on the status of their head. Headed object relative clause in which the relative clause has a DP as the head (sentence 5) and the second one, the free object relative clause in which the relative clause has no head or a whphrase is its head (sentence 6).5. We hired [the woman that Mary Recommended].6. We hired [whom Mary recommended].Citko (ibid) proposed that we have two kinds of free object relative clause namely as standard free relative and transparent free relative. After studying their internal structure, Citko (2011b, p.99) concluded that there is a symmetric merge in the structure of the standard and transparent free relative. In the standard free relative clause, the whphrase is shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses but in the transparent free relative clause, the semantic nucleus is a shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses.Based on the findings of Citko (2011b) the relative clauses in Persian language analyzed and their properties were studied. These analyses showed that the classification of relative clauses in Persian language into two groups of headed and free relative is not completely compatible with what has been proposed by Citko (2011b) since in Persian language if we use the whword as the head of free relative clause, it would contribute to making the sentence as a whquestion one which is against the findings of Citko (2011b) in English language. The result of this research showed that the observed properties of the shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses of the object relative clause in Persian language namely as having the same case, syntactic function, and thematic roles proved that this noun phrase is merged simultaneously between the two clauses and is a shared constituent between two lexical verb heads in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. This approach provides a clear and costfree explanation for the characteristics of the shared element in the object relative clause in Persian language.