وجهیت احتمالی/ تداولی در زبان ترکی آذربایجانی با رویکرد نظام دستور نقشی هلیدی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی ، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اهر، آذربایجان شرقی، ایران.

2 استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اهر، آذربایجان شرقی، ایران.

چکیده

عدم توجه به مقولة وجهیت در دستور زبان ترکی آذربایجانی باعث آمیختگی آن با مفهوم وجه و ایجاد ابهام، کثرت و گاه تناقض در تقسیم‌بندی­ وجه شده است. هدف این جستار، مطالعة زبان ترکی بر اساس رویکردی است که بتواند تمایزی شفاف بین این دو مقوله ایجاد کند. روش تحقیق، بررسی وجهیت احتمالی/ تداولی در ترکی با توسل به بند­های ترکی با معادل­های انگلیسی و فارسی  آن‌ها و با پیروی از الگوی ساختار وجه در رویکرد دستور نقشی بوده و این نتایج به دست آمد: حالت­های احتمال و تداول در سه درجه و سطح متفاوت در زبان ترکی مشخص شد. برخلاف زبان انگلیسی، در برخی موارد در ترکی آذربایجانی، پیوند­هایی که سطح یقین بالا و متوسط را از هم متمایز کند وجود نداشته، بلکه برای دو حالت مذکور از پیوند یکسانی استفاده می‌شود. همچنین تمایز معنایی زمان‌داری‌های مختلف برای بیان درجة امکان در انگلیسی، در زبان ترکی بدلیل استفاده از یک پیوند امکان‌پذیر نیست. حضور افزوده‌های وجهی در بند­ها سبب ارتقای سطح یقین در این زبان شده و ابهام در تمایز بین درجات زمانداری‌ها­ در زبان ترکی را رفع می­کند. مفهوم زمان در زمانداری‌های وجهی در زبان ترکی، برخلاف انگلیسی، به واسطة پیوند-ıd  و عدم حضور آن یعنی تکواژ صفر نمود پیدا می‌کنند که به ترتیب بیان‌گر زمان گذشته و حال می­باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Modalization in Azerbaijani Turkish Language Based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar

نویسندگان [English]

  • Bahram Mokhtari Khiyavi 1
  • Masoud Zoghi 2
  • Nader Asadi 2
1 PhD student in Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch, Azerbaijan sharghi, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch, East Azerbaijan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
 
This research analyzes and evaluates modalization based on Halliday's systemic functional grammar (SFG) in the Azerbaijani Turkish language. In this SFG-based approach, mood and modality are examined within the mood structure which consists of two parts: (i) mood with elements of subject and finite and (ii) residue. In short, modality in this system refers to the space between two polarities, namely 'yes' and 'no'. In modalization, the commodity being exchanged is information and the utterance is considered as a proposition in which the speaker's attitude to the event is in the form of degrees of probability or possibility of occurrence or degrees of usuality; this means the possibility of recurrence. Despite the lack of attention to modality and its integration into the concept of mood in the Turkish grammar, the concept of modality in this system has been significantly distinguished from the category of mood. This research is an attempt to address the issues about (i) the presentation of modalization, (ii) the role of adjuncts in distinguishing between degrees of certainty and usuality and (iii) the presentation of past and present tense in mood finites in the Turkish language.
 
 
Methods & Materials
 
First of all, to investigate modalization in the Azerbaijani Turkish language, the elements and constituents that make up mood structure and modalization in terms of possibility of occurrence, frequency, degrees, levels and elements involved in their formation were examined. In so doing, Azerbaijani Turkish clauses and their English and Persian equivalents were used. The theoretical framework of the current analysis was based on the mood structure in SFG) and the corpus was taken from the clauses in the literary and fictional sources in the Turkish language. The concept of modality has not been mentioned at all in the sources of the Azerbaijani Turkish grammar, and no study was found in the literature to address this issue based on SFG. Aijmer (2016), Nuyts (2001), Eggins (2004), and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) have widely examined modality based on SFG. Considering the integration of the concept of mood and modality in Turkish grammar, the aim of this research was to study the Azerbaijani Turkish language based on an approach that can make a clear distinction between these two categories.
 
 
 
 
Discussion
The findings show that the mood structure in the Turkish language is also made up of two parts: mood and residue. The mood itself is composed of two components: the subject and the finite, and the residue includes the three functional elements of predicator, complement and adjunct. Results also show that predicators are an integral part of the mood structure and determine the presence, absence and number of complements in this constituent, while the presence of adjuncts in this structure is not mandatory and they can be removed from the clause. Concerning modalization, the study of the syntactic behavior of the elements and the morphemes involved in the clauses indicates that Azerbaijani Turkish expresses modality with "high" and "medium" degrees of certainty by means of the finite -mali. Also, unlike the English language that uses different finites, i.e., may and could, Azerbaijani Turkish uses the morpheme -abil which does not represent the semantic differences in its English equivalents. Examining the clauses of modalization in terms of probability and only with the presence of mood adjuncts showed that the ambiguity in Azerbaijani Turkish in terms of making a distinction in the degree of probability of occurrence is removed due to the presence of mood adjuncts. Furthermore, examining the modalization in terms of usuality with the presence of adjuncts of frequency in Azerbaijani Turkish showed that there is no ambiguity in the levels of usuality. A third state related to modalization in terms of probability with high and low degrees of certainty was also found. It was evident that the mood finites and the mood adjuncts were employed simultaneously. Despite the fact that the mood finites are the same in Azerbaijani Turkish, the ambiguity in the distinction between high and medium levels has been removed due to the presence of mood adjuncts; different mood adjuncts have raised the scale of certainty. Finally, the examination of modal verbs showed that in Azerbaijani Turkish - unlike English - the concept of tense does not appear in an integrated form with lexical verbs, but it emerges as a dependent morpheme. These morphemes are -di in the past tense and zero in the present tense. Surprisingly enough, in the current grammar sources of Azerbaijani Turkish, the morpheme -ir is mistakenly introduced as the morpheme of the present tense.
 
Conclusion
Overall, it is concluded that modalization in terms of probability in the Azerbaijani Turkish language is represented in three levels and states: (i) only with the presence of mood finites, (ii) only with the presence of mood adjuncts, and (iii) with the simultaneous presence of mood finites and mood adjuncts. The only difference is that the distinction between high and medium levels and also the semantic distinction between could and may at the low level is not possible in Azerbaijani Turkish. Modalization in terms of usuality is manifested only with the presence of mood adjuncts, and no ambiguity in different levels is observed. Not only the presence of mood adjuncts in modalization removes the ambiguity in the distinction between levels, but also their presence along with the mood finites can raise the degree of certainty of modalization in terms of probability. The combination of the morphemes of modality and tense generates mood finites in Azerbaijani Turkish. The morpheme -di indicates the past tense and its absence indicates the present tense, i.e., zero morpheme. Although the morpheme -ir is often reported to indicate the present tense in the Azerbaijani Turkish grammar sources, the SFG-based approach to Azerbaijani Turkish shows the process of the occurrence of verbs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Functional Grammar
  • Mood Adjunct
  • Mood
  • Modality
  • Modalization
آقا گل­زاده، فردوس و زهرا عباسی (1391). بررسی وجه فعل در فارسی. ادب‌پژوهی، 6 (20)، صص 154-135.
رحیمیان، جلال (1378)، وجه فعل در فارسی امروز. مجله علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، 14 (2)، صص. 41-52.
رحیمیان، جلال و محمد عموزاده (1392). افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی و بیان وجهیت. پژوهش‌های زبانی، 4 (1)، صص. 21-40.
زاهدی، کیوان و آنیتا بازیان (1387). افعال وجهی در ترکی آذری. پژوهشنامه علوم انسانی، 1 (57)، صص. 141-159.
صفایی‌اصل، اسماعیل (1395). نمای فرانقشی دستور زبان فارسی، ترکی آذری، و انگلیسی: مطالعه­های رده‌شناختی. پایان‌نامه دکتری، تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
فرزانه، محمدعلی (1358). مبانی دستور زبان آذربایجانی. (2ج) جلد اول. تهران: یاران.
میراحمدی، فرزاد (1383). بررسی نظام وجه زبان فارسی بر اساس چارچوب نقشگرای نظا‌م‌مند هلیدی. پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد، تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
نقی­زاده، محمود، منوچهر توانگرو محمد عموزاده (1390). بررسی مفهوم ذهنیت در افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی. مجله پژوهش‌های زبانشناسی، 3 (4)، صص. 1-20.
هادی، اسماعیل (1374). ترکی هنر است. تبریز: احرار.
هلیدی، مایکل و رقیه حسن (1393). زبان بافت و متن. ترجمه مجتبی منشی‌زاده و طاهره ایشانی. تهران: علمی.
همایون‌­فر، مژگان (1392). بررسی روند دستوری شدگی فعل‌های وجهی زبان فارسی بر اساس پارامترهای لمان. ویژه‌نامه فرهنگستان، (9)، صص.50-73.
 
Aghagolzade, F. and Z. Abbasi (2012). A study of modal verbs in Persian language. Adab       Pazhuhi, 6 (20), pp 135-154.     
Aijmer, K. (2016). Modality and mood in functional linguistic approaches. in Nuyts, J. and Van Der Auwera, J. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of mood and modality. 1st ed. pp. 495-513, Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. 2nd. edition. London & New York: Continuum.
Farzane, M. (1979).  Basics of Azerbaijani grammar. Vol.1. Tehran: Yaran Press.
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In: Bach, E., Harms, R.T. (Eds.), universals in linguistic theory. pp. 1–88. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hadi, E. (1995). Turkish language is an art. Tabriz: Ahrar.
Halliday, M. and R. Hassan (2014). Context and text. Translated by Monshizade, M. and T. Ishani.  Tehran: Elmi.  
Halliday, M., & C. Matthiessen (2004[1985]). An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.
Homayunfar, M. ( 2013). Investigating the process of grammaticalization of modal verbs in Persian  language based on Lehmann's parameters. Academy special issue.(9), pp. 50-73.    
Lehmann, C. (2002). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd revised edition (ASSidUE 9). Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Lyons, J. (1997). Semantics. Vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mirahmadi, F. (2004). A study of mood of Persian language based on systemic functional grammar. M.A thesis in linguistics. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti university.    
Naghizade, M., M. Tavangar and M. Amuzade (2011). A study of the concept of subjectivity in modal verb in Persian language. Journal of Linguistic Research. 3 (4), pp.1-20.  
Narrog, H. (2005). On defining modality again. Language Sciences, 27, pp. 165–192.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality. Language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
   of language research, 4 (1), pp. 21-40.     
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rahimiyan, J. (1999). Mood of verbs in today's Persian. Journal of social and human sciences of Shiraz University, 14 (2), pp. 41-52.     
Rahimiyan, J., M. Amuzade (2013). Persian modal verbs and expression of Modality. Journal
Safayi Asl, E. (2016). Metafunctional profile of Persian, Azari Turkish and English Grammar:A typological study. Doctoral thesis in linguistics. Tehran: Allame Tabatabayi University.
Tavangar, M., & M. Amouzadeh, (2009). Subjective modality and tense in Persian. Language Sciences, 31, pp. 853-873.
Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. 3rd ed. London: Routledge