طرح‌واره‌های ساخت مقایسۀ عالی در زبان فارسی

مقاله حاضر به بررسی طرحواره‌های ساخت مقایسۀ عالی و رمزگذاری ساختواژی-نحوی این مفهوم دستوری در زبان فارسی می‌پردازد. بدین منظور رویکرد شناختی هاینه (1997) به عنوان چهارچوب نظری پژوهش با داده‌های فارسی محک خورده و مورد ارزیابی قرار می‌گیرد. فرضیه تحقیق این است که الگوی نظری پیشنهادی هاینه نمی‌تواند «ساخت مقایسه عالی» و طرحواره‌های این مفهوم دستوری را در این زبان به خوبی تبیین کند. روش پژوهش توصیفی-تحلیلی است و داده‌ها از فرهنگ فارسی عامیانه نجفی (1387) استخراج شده‌اند. یافته‌ها نشان داد که زبان فارسی برای بیان مقایسۀ عالی، علاوه بر هشت طرحوارۀ مطرح شده توسط هاینه (طرحواره‌های کنش، مکان، منبع، هدف، قطبیت، توالی، شباهت و مبتدایی ) از پنج طرحوارۀ اصلی شامل: 1-طرحواره اتصالی، 2-طرحواره مالکیت، 3-طرحواره برابری، 4-طرحواره نام‌اندامی، 5- طرحواره اصطلاحی و همچنین از سه زیرطرحوارۀ فرعی و نیز طرحواره‌های آمیخته (ترکیبی از دو یا چند طرحواره) بهره می‌گیرد. همچنین، به نظر می‌رسد برخی از این طرحواره‌(زیرطرحواره)ها مختص زبان فارسی هستند که در فهرست زبان‌ها و طرحواره‌های مورد مطالعۀ هاینه مورد توجه قرار نگرفته‌اند. علاوه‌براین، نمود صوریِ مولفه‌های نشانگرِ درجه، نشانگر استاندارد و حتی استاندارد در این زبان اجباری نیست و در اینگونه موارد، مفهومِ مقایسۀ عالی توسط عنصر/عناصری رمزگذاری می‌شود که این مولفه‌ها را با یکدیگر ادغام می‌کند.  در پایان، فرضیه تحقیق تایید شد و مشخص شد که رویکرد هاینه اگرچه بسیاری از ساخت‌های مقایسۀ عالی را در زبان‌های مختلف تبیین می‌کند، اما در مواجهه با داده‌های فارسی کفایت لازم و کافی را ندارد و نیازمند بازنگری و ارائه تقسیم‌بندی جدیدی است.

the superlative comparison schemas in persian

the present paper aims to investigate the superlative comparison schemas and to capture the way this grammatical notion is encoded linguistically in persian based on heine’s (1997) cognitive approach. to this end, all comparative constructions involving the notion of superlative comparison were collected as our data through a comprehensive search of the colloquial persian dictionary by najafi (2008). the research hypothesis is that heine’s proposed model cannot account for the persian data. the results of the study showed that in persian, five more schemas, namely the linking, the possession, the equation, the body part, the idiomatic schemas and three more subschemas, as well as some schema blends encoded the superlative notion, in addition to the eight schemas listed in heine’s. furthermore, it seemed that some schemas (subschemas), especially the linking schema, were specific to persian and they had not been documented in heine’s approach. moreover, the formal expression of the degree marker, the marker of standard, and the standard was not obligatory and, in such cases, the superlative comparative meaning was encoded by an element that combined the meaning of these elements together in some way or other. finally, our hypothesis was confirmed and the study ended with a suggestion to modify hein’s schema list to account for the persian data. 1. introductioncomparison is a cognitive general concept in human language dealing with the description of the status and the howness of two or more entities compared to each other. this conceptual domain is encoded in a variety of ways in the languages of the world. heine (1997: 109) points out  “the domain of comparison in general, and the term comparative construction in particular, refer to a number of different conceptual and linguistic forms and the main kinds of comparative notions that are commonly distinguished are as follows: 1- positive, 2-equative, 3- superior comparative, 4- inferior comparative, 5- superlative, 6- elative, 7- excessive.” the superlative notion as a main kind of comparative notion, concerns with the description of the status of one entity and its superiority or priority to more than two entities. the present study aims to focus on this kind of comparative construction, namely “the superlative”.in persian, there are a variety of comparative constructions including various types of superlatives, some of them are not observed and attested in other languages due to the existence of some characteristic features, such as “ezafe construction”, as well as some morphological constructions (phrasal/complex predicates). the present study is innovative and practical in identifying comparative constructions not documented in heine’s cognitive approach making some suggestions to modify this model to make it more comprehensive and inclusive to account for the comparative constructions in the languages of the world. this research will provide the answer to the following questions:research question(s)1-which schemas are used to encode the superlative comparative notion in persian?2-to what extend heine’s cognitive approach (1997) is able to account for the superlative comparative constructions in this language?3-what morpho-syntactic mechanisms does the persian language use to encode the notion of superlative comparison?2. literature reviewamong the first seminal works on comparison and comparative constructions, it can be referred to ultan (1972) and stassen’s (1985) classification of the comparative constructions in different languages of the world. an interesting fact pointed out by stassen (1985) and, a decade later, by breivik (1994) is that most languages do not have a separate construction, but employ existing ones to convey difference in gradeability (parra-guinaldo, 2011: 141). furthermore, some researches have been done about thr comparative constructions in the english language based on these fundamental works. for example, using parallel corpora, nose (2010) examines different types of comparative constructions in three languages, english, japanese, and tok pisin based on stassen’s classification. he claims that the functional differences observed in the comparatives of three languages can be explained in terms of the transitivity model. the last but not the least study, paraginaldo (2011) investigates the comparative constructions -more than in old english and he proposes grammaticalization as a proper explanation for the evolution of the grammatical form particle from a lexical form.as the focus of the present study is to investigate the superlative comparative constructions, the theoretical framework applied here is that of heine’s (1997) cognitive approach examining all kinds of comparative constructions in the languages of the world as the schematic constructions which are usually formed based on other more abstract conceptual sources. heine (1997, 111) calls these conceptual source structures as event schemas. this study is the first research investigating the superlative comparative constructions in persian benefiting from a cognitive approach.3. methodologyas far as the methodology of present research is concerned, this research is a corpus-based and descriptive-analytic study. the data and examples mentioned in this study were extracted from the colloquial persian dictionary by najafi (2008). the corpus on which this dictionary is based comprises more than 120 prose works of modern persian. these works include short stories, novels, periodicals, books and articles. then, the superlative comparison schemas were identified based on heine’s cognitive approach (1997) as the theoretical framework.4. results and discussion