CC BY
93
НОМАИ ДОНИШГОҲ* УЧЕНЫЕ ЗАПИСКИ* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*
№1(42) 2015
UDA 4И (p) LBC 81,2 (p)
H.VAEZI
S.S.KHOLOV
THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTERROGATIVE STRUCTURES IN PERSIAN AND TAJIK LANGUAGES
1 - Introduction
Functional linguists study the language with critical approach towards philosophical and psychological views of structural linguists. They believe that structural linguistics' studies have puzzled within their analysis of language seeing closing down on previous beliefs and applying different approaches only as a way out of it (3, 31). Functional linguists consider the study of communicative functions of language as the actual study of language, and their dictum is that language is a means of communication. These linguists are called transcendent (2, 41). They support the application of extralinguistic factors in the study of language such as location, context, background knowledge, frequency, relationship between a speaker and a listener, and so on. Syntax in this approach is of the second category; that is this approach is not syntax-oriented as structural linguistics. Their purpose of doing functional analysis is to reveal functional properties of language, and their object of analysis within statistical and categorical research covers relative and non-relative languages in a large scale. Application of language functions and categorical analysis broadens their scale of study rather that of structural linguists.
2 - The review of the function of Persian and Tajik Interrogative Structures
Unlike the tendency of structural approach, the functional approach is not restricted only to form in the analysis of sentences. Functionalists analyze sentences within functional and applicability dimensions criteria. Despite similar beliefs and views in both, the functionalists are also classified into radical and moderate by their analysis. As one of the moderate wing functionalists Givon (3) studies sentences by their functional and semantic, and typological dimensions. This approach classifies sentences into three types of declarative, non-declarative and imperative. He reviews interrogative sentence as a means of communication and believes that giving an answer to it a listener provides proper and necessary information.
2-1 - Functional and semantic dimension
Social contact and communication between people is one of social functions during which people exchange information and words. One of the widely used constructions in social relations is interrogative sentence. Givon's functional approach says that non-declarative sentences contain old and new information where the speaker intends to find an answer to an elusive information he/she has in mind by application of interrogative sentences. This elusive information can be related to subject, object, time, place and cause of action/manner. That is why an interrogative word, which is an elusive information of a sentence, shows the types of questions which the following are the examples of those types:
A) Subject Question:
1. Ki kitobu ba Ali dod? (Persian). Ki kitobro ba Ali dod? (Tajik).
Who the book to Ali gave?
Who gave the book to Ali?
B) Object Question:
2. Chiyu Maryam ba Ali dod? (P). Chiro Maryam ba Ali dod? (T).
What (postposition "-yu"(P), "-ro"(T)) Maryam to Ali gave?
What did Maryam give to Ali?
C) Indirect Object Question:
3 - Ba ki, Maryam kitobu dod?(P) / Ba ki Maryam kitobro dod?(T).
To whom Maryam the book gave?
To whom did Maryam give the book?
D) (action) manner constraint Question:
4 - Chi tavri Maryam kitobu ba Ali dod? (P) - Chi tavr Maryam kitobro ba Ali dod? (T)
What manner Maryam the book to Ali gave?
160
НОМАИ ДОНИШГОҲ* УЧЕНЫЕ ЗАПИСКИ* SCIENTIFIC NOTES
№1(42) 2015
How did Maryam give the book to Ali?
E) Time Adverbs Question:
5 - Kai Maryam kitobu ba Ali dod? (P) Kai Maryam kitobro ba Ali dod? (T)
When Maryam the book to Ali gave?
When did Maryam give the book to Ali?
F) Place Adverbs Questions:
6 - Kujo Maryam kitobu ba Ali dod?(P)-Dar kujo Maryam kitobro ba Ali dod? (T)
Where Maryam the book to Ali gave?
Where did Maryam give the book to Ali?
G) Verbs Question:
7 - Maryam baroi Ali chi kor kard? (P) - Maryam chi kor kard?-Maryam ba Ali chi kor kard?(T)
Maryam for Ali what (action, work) did? Maryam what did? Maryam to Ali what (action, work) did?
H) Cause of action Question:
8 - Charo Maryam kitobu ba Ali dod? (P) Charo Maryam kitobro ba Ali dod? / Baroi chi Maryam kitobu ba Ali dod?(P)-Baroi chi Maryam kitobro ba Ali dod?(T).
Why Maryam the book to Ali gave?
What for Maryam the book to Ali gave?
Why did Maryam give the book to Ali?
For what did Maryam give the book to Ali?
I) Possession Question:
9 - In kitob moli kie? (P) In kitob az oni kist/ki hast?/ In kitobi ki hast?(T)
This book material who's? (P) This book whose is/who is? This book/of who is? (T)
Whose book is this? Whose is this book? Whose book is this?
J) Quantified Questions:
a: Question to quantity indicator constraints (countable)
10 - Chand nafar az donishomuzon /chand donishomuz ba unvoni behtarinho muarrifi shudand?(P). Chand nafar donishjujoihoi namoyonro giriftand? Chand donishjujoi avvalro girift?(T).
How many of students/ how many student to title best presented?(P)
How many student places best took? How many student place first took? (T)
How many students were presented as the best ones?
(P) How many students won the best places? (T)
b: Question to quantity constraints (non-countable)
11 - (U) chi kadar shir nushid?
(He) what much milk drank?
How much milk did he drink? c: Question to adjective (in the function of PREDICATE )
12 - a) Balandii kash chi qadar ast? (Absolute size)
b) Khonaash ba chi buzurgi as?(P)/Hajmi khonaash chi qadar ast? (T) (Relative size)
Height hill what much is?
How high is the hill? (absolute size)
House/his to what big is? Space house/his what is?
How big is his/her house?
What is the size of his/her house? d) Question to state constraints
13 - (U) chi tavr dars mekhonad?
(U) how manner lesson he/she study?
How well does he/her study?
K) Instrumental Question:
14 - Bo chi darro boz karded?-Bo chi darro kushoded? (T) / Bo chi umadi?-Bo chi omadi?(T)
With what the door open did? With what the door opened? With what came/you?
What did you open the door with?
L) Alternative Question:
15 - Kadom yakero mepisanded?(P) Kadomash ba shumo makul ast? (T) Kadomashro mekhohed?(T)/ Kadom pirohanro kharidi? (P) Kadom kurtaro kharidi? (T)
M) Value Question:
16 - Where have you gone up? / How much did you buy?
161
НОМАИ ДОНИШГОҲ* УЧЕНЫЕ ЗАПИСКИ* SCIENTIFIC NOTES
№1(42) 2015
N) Questions:
17 - Bo ki kor mekuni?
The examples show that the number of Interrogative words both in Persian and Tajik languages is limited. If it's something that all languages extend we can claim that the number of Interrogative words in any language is limited. Sometimes this limited number come together in a multiple questions as follows:
O) Multiple Question:
18 - Ki chiyu ba ki dod?(P)- Ki chiro ba ki dod? (T).
The interrogative words which are presented in the examples (1-17) show diverse functions based on the question, on the other hand they can be distinguished from each other based on semantic criteria. These semantic criteria are:
a: Case (such as Nominative, Accusative) The Interrogative words have different functions based on their questioning structures as in example (1-17).
b: GenderThe Interrogative words can be distinguished from each other by their relating to male or female gender, which is not observed both in Persian and Tajik languages.
c: Number (singular or plural) The Interrogative words can be singular or plural by their category of number.
d.Referral and definiteness referential (referral or non-referral; definite or indefinite) According to the answer given, the interrogative words can be classified into referral, non-referral, definite and indefinite. Definiteness and Referential are represented as semantic criteria and represented in a systematic way in English (3, 794). For example, by adding a noun, a proper quantity, one can mark them and show their true nature. The above data indicates that the interrogative words are closely connected to definiteness and referral semantic features.
Example:
a) Without limitation:
19 - Ki Aliro ba qatl rasond?
1 - Hasan —Definite
2 - Afrode, ki nameshinokhtam — referential, indefinite
3 - Yak muhojir (rahguzar)--------indefinite
Sentence (19) is a subject question which can have all three states as its answer: The doer of the action, that person, is fully recognized or known in the first response, definite; but the second refers to people who are not known; and the third uses an indefinite and unknown noun.
b) Referential definite:
20 - Kadom yake az onho in korro kard?
1 - Hassan----definite
2 - Afrode, ki nameshinokhtam-----referential indefinite
3 - Yak rahguzar-----non-referential
c) non-referential:
21 - Chijur (Chi khel (T)) odame in korro kard?
1 - Hasan-------referential definite
2 - Afrode, ki nameshinokhtamshu------referential indefinite
3 - Yak rahguzar-----non-referential
This interrogative word in this example represents completely non-referential case.
22 - Kiyu (kiro) rasondi?
1) Hasanu (Hasanro)-----------referential, definite
2) Afrodeyu (afrodero), ki nameshinosi--------indefinite, referential, plural
3) Yak rahguzar-------indefinite, referential
Passive Interrogative word shows two states. Indefinite and definite referential are permitted for passive question.
23 - Chiyu (chiro) kharidi?
1) Kitobu (kitobro)------definite
2) Kitobeyu (kitobero), ki tu dori----referential, definite
3) Hichi (hej chiz)---non-referential
24 - Bo ki rafti?
1) Bo Hasan — definite, referential
2) Bo guruhe, ki nameshinosi------indefinite, referential
3) Bo yak rahguzar------- indefinite
25 - Charo rafti?
162
НОМАИ ДОНИШГОҲ* УЧЕНЫЕ ЗАПИСКИ* SCIENTIFIC NOTES
№1(42) 2015
1) Non-referentiality and definiteness and indefiniteness do not apply to this interrogative word.
26 - Kuja (be kuja) meravi?
1) Khona (ba khona)-------definite, referential
2) Yakjoe (ba yak joe)------indefinite, referential
T hus we can come to a conclusion that the kind interrogative word can propose the answer largely to some extent. For instance the interrogative word "Ki" or "Chi" assumes a certain noun group like "Hassan", "a man" etc. or a quantitified noun group like "everyone/everybody", "all", etc.; while the interrogative word "kujo" or "kai" require temporal and spatial modifiers. The data show that that reliance to referential is not sufficient in general and this specific semantic category contains two "explicit referential"'and "implicit referential".
A: Explicit referential:
27 - Kiyu (kiro) didi, Maryamu yo Aliyu (Maryam ro ya Aliro)?
28 - Chi dust dori barayat bigiram, falude ya bastani? (1, 52).
REFERENCES:
1. Akhloqi, M. The structure and pronouns of" application" in Persian. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of Linguistics, Allameh Tabatabai University. 1383 hijri.
2. Dabir Moghaddam, M. Theoretical linguistics: the emergence and development of generative grammar. (Second edition), fourth edition. Tehran, 1389 hijri.
3. Givon, T. Functionalism and Grammar., Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1995.-479 p.
4. Muhammad, M. Types of" emphasis" in Persian. Journal of Language and Linguistics, No. 1, 5-19. 1384 hijri.
5. Vaezi, H. Formal review, role, and cognitive building - the question in the Persian language. PhD thesis, Department of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages -, Allameh Tabatabai University. 1389 hijri.
Функциональный анализ вопросительных структур в персидском и таджикском языках
Ключевые слова: Сравнительный Фокус, информационный Фокус, предположение, WH-вопросы, функционализм, синтаксические и семантические особенности
В статье обсуждается вопросительные слова персидского и таджикского языка в составе вопросительных предложений с точки зрения функционализма. Исследование основано на подход Т. Гивона (2001). Целью данного исследования является оценка способа и отношение этого подхода в отношении вопросительных слов в вопросительных предложениях. Исследование роли вопросительных структур по этому подходу проводится на основе двух функциональных и синтаксических аспектах. С точки зрения функциональности и семантики, вопросительные предложения подразделяются на различные типы по критериям функционального подхода. Вопросительные предложения делятся на следующие типы активных, пассивных, не выраженный прямо пассивных, ограничений по обстоятельству, ограничений по времени, действия, причины действий, поведения, особенность, количество, средство, выбор, значение, и примыкание. Семантический анализ вопросительных слов в соответствии с заданный ответ показывает их семантические особенности. Объектом данного исследования является семантические особенности вопросительных слов. Семантические
особенности: определенность, неопределенность, адресованностъ, неадресованностъ, одушевлённый и неодушевлённый.
The functional analysis of interrogative Structures in Persian and Tajik languages
Keywords: Contrastive Focus, Informative Focus, Presupposition, wh-questions, functionalism, syntactic and semantics features.
The paper approaches the performance of Interrogative words in Persian and Tajik interrogative sentences in terms of functionalism. The study is based on Givon's (2001) approach. The aim of this study is to evaluate the manner and attitude of this approach in terms of Interrogative words in interrogative
163
НОМАИ ДОНИШГОҲ* УЧЕНЫЕ ЗАПИСКИ* SCIENTIFIC NOTES
№1(42) 2015
sentences. Investigating the role of Interrogative structures in this framework is based on two functional and syntactical aspects. In view of functionality and semantics, Interrogative sentences are classified into different types within the functional framework criteria. Interrogative sentences are divided into the following types of active, passive, non-explicit passive, state constraints, time constraints, actions, causes of action, conduct, property, quantity, means, choice, value, and adjacent. Semantic analysis of interrogative words according to the given reply reveals their semantic features. The object of this study is the semantic features of interrogative words. Semantic features are: definiteness, indefiniteness, referral, non-referral, animate and inanimate.
Сведения об авторах:
Хангома Ваизи, кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры английского языка и лингвистики Университета Аллама Табатабаи (Исламская Республика Иран, Рашт), E-mail: hengamehvaezi@yahoo. com
Холов Саидмухиддин Саидмуродович, старший преподаватель кафедры перевода и грамматики английского языка факультета иностранных языков Худжандского государственного университета имени академика Б.Г.Гафурова (Республика Таджикистан, г. Худжанд), E-mail: saidmuhiddin@yahoo. com
Information about the authors:
Hengameh Vaezi, PhD in Philology, Assistant Professor English and Linguistis Depatment, University of Allameh Tabatabai, (Islamic Republic of Iran, Rasht), E-mail:
hengamehvaezi@yahoo. com
Kholov Saidmuhiddin Saidmurodovich, Senior Lecturer at Translation and English Grammar Department, the Faculty of Foreign Languages, Khujand State University named after B.Gafurov (Republic of Tajikistan, Khujand), E-mail: saidmuhiddin@yahoo.com
164
