A New Glance at the Third Person Singular Pronoun Enclitic (aš/eš) in Colloquial Persian based on Functional Approach

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 2, Volume 15, Issue 4 - Serial Number 33, March 2024, Pages 25-49   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2024.83887.1185

Authors

Faeqe Ebrahim Poornik^{* 1}; Aliyeh Kord Zafaranlu Kambuziya²; Mohammad Dabirmoghaddam³

¹PhD Candidate in Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

²Associate Professor in Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

³Professor in Linguistics, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This research tried to investigate a specific case of pronominal enclitic (eš/aš) in colloquial Persian based on functional approach. Two novels including a total of 56,500 words and the data on the internet were used as corpus. A corpus of 110 sentences with the desired structure were extracted. The investigation revealed that the reference of pronominal enclitic is the common and assumed knowledge of interlocutors which might be represented as a proposition in the discourse or activated by an element in the language. The pronominal enclitic is structurally a presupposition trigger and adjuncts (rastaš, haqiqataš, vaqeiataš) are discourse markers. The reference enclitic holds old information and is a specified definite. The predicate following enclitic holds new information and is a specified indefinite. This predicate contains focal information. The third person singular enclitic appears both as an adjunct and as a clause at the beginning of the sentence and can be omitted. Their semantic and pragmatic function is truth assertion.

Keywords

Pronominal Enclitic; Information Structure; Definiteness; Functionalism; Colloquial Persian

References

Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. In the series Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.‏

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford university press.‏

Bekalu, M. A. (2007). Presupposition in news discourse. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 147-172.‏

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.‏

Burkhardt, P. (2008). Two types of definites: evidence for presupposition cost. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 12, pp. 66-80).‏

Capone, A. (2000). Dilemmas and excogitations: An essay on clitics, modality and Discourse. Messina: Armando Siciliano.

Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of pronominal clitics and propositional attitudes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 459-485.‏

Corver, N & Delfitto, D. (1999). On the nature of pronoun movement. In Henk C. van

Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe, 799–855. Berlin/New York: Mouton deGruyter.

Delfitto, D. (2002). On the semantics of pronominal clitics and some of its consequences. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 41-69.‏

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: E. Amold.

Lambrecht, K. (1996). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Vol. 71). Cambridge university press.‏

Leonetti, M. (2007). Clitics do not encode specificity. In Proceedings of the workshop “Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages (pp. 111-139). Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.‏

Levinson, S. C., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge university press.‏

Liang, R., & Liu, Y. (2016). An analysis of presupposition triggers in Hilary Clinton’s first campaign speech. International journal of English linguistics, 6(5), 68-73.‏

Prince, E. F. (1981). Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation. In Annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society , 249-264.‏

Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics. MA.‏

Shahidi, N. (2000). Topicalization in Persian: a functional approach (master’s Thesis). Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59(235), 320-344.‏

Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis, 71-100.‏

Von Heusinger, K. (2002). Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of semantics, 19(3), 245-274

Von Heusinger, K., & Kaiser, G. A. (2003). The interaction of animacy, definiteness and specificity in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Workshop: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity, Romance Languages (pp. 41-65). Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.‏

اعتباری، ز؛ علیزاده، ع؛ و نغزگوی کهن، م. (1401). نقشۀ معنایی مالک واژه‌بستی در ساخت اضافی فارسی نو. جستارهای زبانی. (72). 295‑ 323.

جهان‌پناه، س. (1380). ضمیر متصل (ـش) و (داشتن)؛ دو گرایش تازه در فارسی گفتاری امروز تهران. مجلۀ زبان‌شناسی. (31). 19-42.

حیدری‌زادی، ر. (1387). تحلیل ضمایر و معرفگی بر مبنای نگرش زبان‌شناسی شناخت‌گرا. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. (1). 65-83.

صراحی، م؛ و علی‌نژاد، ب. (1392). رده‌شناسی واژه‌بست در زبان فارسی. زبانشناسی و گویش‌های خراسان. (1). 103‑130.

مدرسی، ب. (1393). نقش ضمیر در بازنمایی ساخت اطلاع جمله در زبان فارسی. مجموعه مقالات دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. شمارۀ 332. (1143-1160). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.

مزینانی، ا؛ و شریفی، ش. (1394). بررسی نظام واژه‌بستی ضمیری در تاریخ زبان فارسی و علل تحول آن. جستارهای زبانی. (4). (25). 275-305.

مزینانی، ا؛ علیزاده، ع؛ و شریفی، ش. (1395). واژه‌بست‌های مفعولی و آرایش بنیادین واژگان در زبان فارسی. جستارهای زبانی. (6). (34). 49-72.

نغزگوی کهن، م. (1393). از واژه‌بست تا وند اشتقاقی. مجموعه مقالات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی. (332). 1345-1350.

وحیدیان کامیار، ت. (1343). دستور زبان عامیانۀ فارسی. تهران: امیرکبیر.