ابعاد کاربردشناختی و گفتمانی عبارات اشاره‌ای «این» و «آن» در گفت‌وگوهای روزمرۀ زبان فارسی

در سنت مطالعاتی نقش‌گرایانه برای زبان سه کارکرد گزاره‏ای (مفهومی)، متنی و بینِ‏فردی ملحوظ شد. در راستای این رویکرد، پژوهش حاضر بر آن است معانی مختلف «این» و «آن» را در فارسی توصیف کرده، و نشان دهد چگونه مبانی دستوری‏شدگی می‏تواند برای بررسی هم‌زمانی تنوع معنایی این عناصر زبانی به‌منزلۀ نقش‏نمای گفتمانی به‌کار بسته شود. به این منظور، با استناد به الگوی نظری برخی زبان‏شناسان (traugott & dasher, 2002) از ابزار و مفاهیم این نظریه بهره گرفته شد و انواع کاربرد این عناصر زبانی در سه بافت گزاره‏ای (مفهومی)، انتقالی و گفتمانی تحلیل شد. تحلیل داده‏ها،‏ نشان می‏دهد «این» و «آن» در معنای گزاره‏ای مفهومی به‌صورت برون‏زبانی، مرجع‌داری و متنی و همچنین در بافت‏های انتقالی برای بازیابی اطلاعات زبانی، فرافکن اشاره‏ای، بیان عواطف و احساسات، اجتناب از بیان صریح مفاهیم ناخوشایند و تشخیص مدلول به‌کار گرفته می‏شود. بررسی داده‏ها همچنین نشان می‏دهد، دستوری‏شدگی «این»، پس از بافت‏های انتقالی ادامه یافته و به‌منزلۀ نقش‏نمای گفتمانی در تغییر روند موضوعی گفتمان و ایجاد وقفه برای صورت‏بندی بخش آتی گفتمان (متنی)، برجسته‏سازی و تاکید روی بخش آتی گفتمان و ایجاد تقابل و بیان ارزیابی (ذهنی) و در بیان درخواست، پرسش و توصیه (بینِ‏ذهنی) به ایفای نقش می‏پردازد. تنوع معنایی و دستوری‏شدگی و عناصر مذکور گرایش‏ تغییرات معنایی تراگوت و داشِر را تایید می‏کند. بااین‌حال، عناصر مذکور با توجه به اینکه در آغازِ فرایند دستوری‏شدگی از معنای ذهنی برخوردارند، طیفِ غیر‏ذهنی > ذهنی > بینِ‏ذهنی تراگوت و داشر (2002) نمی‏تواند روند تغییرات معنایی عناصر مذکور را به‌درستی توصیف کند. لذا، طیفِ مذکور به‌صورت ذهنیِ‏ غیرشخصی> ذهنیِ شخصی > بینِ‏ذهنی پیشنهاد می‏شود. درمجموع، پژوهش نشان داد عبارات زبانی مذکور دارای تنوع معنایی و کاربردی بوده که اصول دستوری‏شدگی می‏تواند این پدیده را به‌خوبی توضیح دهد.  

A Discourse-Pragmatic Study of in & ân (this & that) in Daily Persian Conversations

Three types of meaning i.e., propositional, textual and interpersonal were acknowledged for language in the tradition of functional studies. In light of such appraoch, this study aims: 1) to describe different types of meanings of in (this) and ân (that) in Persian and, 2) to show that how basics of grammaticalization can be applied to provide a synchronic survey of the semantic variety of the aforementioned dectic expressions as discourse markers in Persian. On the basis of grammaticalization in terms of Traugott & Dasher (2002), this paper examines the different uses of these linguistic elements by looking at their propositional, textual and interpersonal meanings. The analysis indicates that in & ân are used exophorically, anaphorically and textually in their referential meaning and also used in the bridging contexts. Moreover, the investigation shows unlike ân, the semantic changes of in extends beyond the bridging contexts. So in (this) as a discourse marker, functions textually, subjectively and inter-ubjectively. Grammaticalization of the deictic expressions supports Traugott & Dasher’s clines. However, indexicalizing speaker’s spatial aspects, in & ân have impersonal subjective meaning. Therefore, Traugott & Dasher’s semantic cline, should be modified in way of impersonal subjective > personal subjective > inter-subjective to describe the behavior of these linguistic elements in this respect.    IntroductionAlthough studying different uses and semantic development of deictic expressions in Persian seems to be perciptible at first, it isnot that much easy to convey the sheer complexity of the situation. This paper tries to study different pragmatic and semantic dimentions of these linguistic expressions on the basis of grammaticalization, which is essentially a diachronic concept. Using samples of in (this) and ân (that) in daily Persian conversations, this study aims: 1) to describe different types of their meanings and, 2) to show that how basics of grammaticalization can be applied to provide a synchronic survey of the semantic variety of the aforementioned dectic expressions as discourse markers in Persian.2. Literature ReviewMost studies pertaining to diectic expressions in (this) and ân (that) in different languages emphasizes their role in expressing speaker’s attitudes and feelings and also discourse management in addition to their propositional meaning (Perera & Strauss, 2015, p.36). Persian researchers (Amid, 1963, Moeen, 1995, Sadri & Hakami, 2002, Moshkvar, 1971), adopting a traditional approach and insisting upon the concept of referentiality, commomly declared that in and ân are used to refer to near and distant respectively. However, what has been ignored in such studies was that they just paid attention to their referential meanings at sentence level and did not cover the discourse-pragmatic dimentions. 3. MethodologyThe data of this study were obtained from fifteen hours of daily Persian conversations in a one-year period. From the mentioned corpus, 260 cases of using the deictic expressions in and ân were identified from different situations and in various constructions. To conduct this research, all 260 cases were first categorized into propositional, textual, and interpersonal meanings, following Halliday (1970, 1979), Trauggot (1982), and Brinton (1996).  Different uses of the deictic expressions were then classified based on the classification propopsed by Halliday and Hassan (1976), Lyons (1977), Fillmore (1982), Levinson (1983, 2004) and Diessel (1999) in terms of propositional meaning. After that, according to Heine (2002), items that simultaneously had a propositional meaning at the sentence level as well as discourse meanings (textual and interpersonal) were categorized into bridging contexts. Continuing to examine the types of meanings and uses of the expressions, the cases that functioned as a discourse marker were identified and were put in textual, personal and interpersonal categories based on the concepts presented. Lastly, their semantic variations were examined based on the views of Trauggot and Dasher (2002), analyzed from the perspective of synchronic grammaticalization and the proposed clines of these developments were presented.4. ResultsThe analysis indicates that in & ân are used exphorically, anaphorically and textually in their referential meaning and also used in the bridging contexts to function for the retrieval of linguistic information, projection, feeling and emotion expression, avoidance of unpleasant concepts and referent identification. Moreover, the investigation shows unlike ân, the semantic changes of in extends beyond the bridging contexts. So in as a discourse marker, textually has a function in changing the topical trends and creating a pause to formulate the upcoming discourse. It is subjectively used to designate and emphasize the upcoming discourse and to create a contrast and inter-subjectively functions in speech acts such as requesting, asking and advising. Grammaticalization of the deictic expressions supports Traugott & Dasher’s clines. However, indexicalizing speaker’s spatial aspects, in & ân have impersonal subjective meaning involving the grammaticalization process. Therefore, Traugott & Dasher’s semantic cline, should be modified in way of impersonal subjective > personal subjective > inter-subjective to describe the behavior of these linguistic elements in this respect. In sum, the current study used a descriptive-analytical methodology to describe the discourse-pragmatic aspects of in & ân and indicated that these linguistic elements have different types of uses which the notion of grammaticalization (e.g. Traugott and Dashar, 2002; and Brinton, 2008) provide a solid theoretical framework to describe and analyze these expressions as discourse markers in Persian. In sum, the current study used a descriptive-analytical methodology to describe the discourse-pragmatic aspects of in & ân and indicated that these linguistic elements have different types of uses which the notion of grammaticalization (e.g. Traugott and Dashar, 2002; and Brinton, 2008) provide a solid theoretical framework to describe and analyze these expressions as discourse markers in Persian.