زبان‌شناخت

زبان‌شناخت

کانون‌نمای ki در زبان ترکی آذری

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 گروه زبان و زبانشناسی، واحد زنجان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، زنجان، ایران
2 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد زنجان، گروه زبانشناسی، زنجان، ایران
چکیده
زبان ترکی آذری به دلیل مجاورت با زبان فارسی تحت تاثیر آن زبان قرار گرفته و نه تنها واحدهای واژگانی بلکه عناصر دستوری نیز وارد زبان قرض گیرنده شده و سپس دچار تغییرات آوایی، معنایی و نحوی می‌شوند (محمودی، 1400، ص.3). یکی از عناصری که وارد زبان ترکی آذری شده است, عنصر ki است. عنصر ki در زبان ترکی آذری نه فقط به عنوان ضمیر موصولی و متمم‌نما بلکه به عنوان کانون‌نما نیز مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. در این پژوهش، بازنمایی ki را در زبان آذری مورد بررسی قرار خواهیم داد. پس از تحلیل کاربرد کلامی این عنصر یعنی نقش آن به عنوان کانون‌نما، نمودارهای درختی مربوط به آن بر اساس مدل کمینه‌گرایی ترسیم خواهد شد. همچنین نشان خواهیم داد که در زبان ترکی آذری همانند زبان فارسی، سازه با گرفتن کانون نمای ki برجسته شده و بصورت درجا عمل می‌کند. یعنی اینکه سازه کانونی با کانون‌نمای ki می‌تواند در سرتاسر جمله وجود داشته باشد. به نظر می‌رسد که حرکت سازه دارای کانون‌نمای ki به ابتدای جمله صرفاٌ جهت مبتداسازی است یعنی سازه مبتداشده نیز می‌تواند سازه کانونی باشد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Focus marker 'ki' in Azeri Turkish

نویسندگان English

Sa'eed Moharrami Gheydari 1
Mohammad Reza Oroji 2
Houman Bijani 1
1 department of English and linguistics, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran
2 department of linguistics, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran
چکیده English

Abstract
The Azerbaijani Turkish language, due to its proximity to the Persian language, has been influenced by it; not only lexical units but also grammatical elements have entered the borrowing language and have subsequently undergone phonological, semantic, and syntactic changes (Mahmoudi, 2021, p.3). One of the elements that has entered Azerbaijani Turkish is the particle ki. In Azerbaijani Turkish, the element ki is used not only as a relative pronoun and complementizer but also as a focus marker. In this study, we will first examine the particle ke in Persian, and then analyze its representation in the target language, Azerbaijani Turkish. After analyzing its discourse function as a focus marker, we will draw tree diagrams for it based on the Minimalist Program.
Key words: Azeri Turkish, focalization, focus, focus marker, topicalization

Introduction

Azerbaijani Turkish also uses a focus marker to indicate the prominence of a given constituent. In the following, we will focus solely on the representation of the focus marker kɪ in Azerbaijani Turkish. This study aims to answer the following questions: "What is the representation of the focus marker kɪ in Azerbaijani Turkish?" and "Is the movement of a constituent to the beginning of the sentence in Azerbaijani Turkish for focalization or topicalization?"

Materials & Methods

In this study, the representation of the element ki in Azerbaijani Turkish was investigated. For data collection, plays, series, and films in Turkish broadcast on the local Ishraq network of Zanjan were used. Every sentence containing the element ki was extracted and categorized based on the linguistic intuition of the authors. As will be discussed in the data analysis section, the element ki in Azerbaijani Turkish can function both as a complementizer and as a relative pronoun. Also, similar to Persian, ki can act as a focus marker; it can attach to multiple constituents and focus them in situ. An interview method was also used to collect data: native Zanjani speakers, particularly in the adult age range (40–70 years), were given Persian sentences containing the element (ki) and were asked to translate them into fluent Turkish. The reason younger generations were not used was that they tend to speak Persian more and are more influenced by it. To minimize this influence, the adult age group was asked to cooperate. As mentioned, both field and library methods were used in the present research. For collecting theoretical and descriptive background studies, the library method was primarily used. All transcriptions in this research were prepared according to the 2005 edition of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Furthermore, the focus-marked sentences involving the element ki were analyzed within the framework of the Minimalist Program.

Discussion and Results

As outlined in the introduction and data analysis, Azerbaijani Turkish is influenced by Persian in certain respects. Various elements in Turkish are borrowed from Persian. One such borrowing is the element ki, which functions as a complementizer, relative pronoun, and focus marker. As mentioned earlier, the research data were collected from various sources, including films and local TV series from Zanjan, as well as interviews with elderly residents of Zanjan. Participants were given sentences in Persian and asked to express them fluently in Turkish. As stated in the introduction, the Persian focus marker ke can attach to any constituent—regardless of its syntactic role or information structure (whether new or given)—and highlight it (Oroji, 2012; Oroji & Rezaei, 2013). Similarly, in Azerbaijani Turkish, it was shown that the focus marker ki can attach to any constituent and highlight it. As Mahmoudi (2021) also asserts, the constituent marked with ki will carry contrastive focus. Contrastive focus is marked by the features [+new, +prominent] (Rasakh-Mohand, 2003). However, as previously shown, contrastive focus may also carry old information (Oroji, 2012). Examples and diagrams 25 to 30 demonstrated that various constituents—including subject, object, locative adverbials, temporal adverbials, and even entire sentences—can take the focus marker ki and become highlighted. Additionally, noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and verbs can be used with the ki element.

Conclusions

Thus, as in Persian (Oroji, 2012), in Turkish any constituent can be highlighted in-situ by this focus marker. Based on sentence 30, it can be said that the ki-marked constituent is first highlighted in place and then moves to the specifier position of the topic node for further prominence. This is because, beyond greater prominence, it becomes a topic, making the rest of the sentence about it (Lambrecht, 1994). That is, the topicalized constituent can also be the focus, and being a topic and focus are not mutually exclusive. However, based on the principle of linguistic economy and the application of Occam’s Razor to redundancy, and contrary to the views of Rizzi (2001) and Karimi (2005), the presence of both topic and focus nodes at the beginning of a sentence is not economical. Instead, one can assume a single functional node—the topic node—in the left periphery. The findings of this study confirm those of Oroji (2012), Oroji & Rezaei (2013), and Adrang (2019).
 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Azeri Turkish
focalization
focus
focus marker
topicalization
آدرنگ، دانیال. (1398). تحلیل مبتداسازی زبان ترکی آذربایجانی گویش زنجانی. پایان‌نامه چاپ نشدۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
اروجی، محمدرضا (a1391). کانون‌نماهای زبان فارسی در نظریه صورت نقش. رساله چاپ نشدۀ دکتری رشته زبانشناسی همگانی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
اروجی، محمدرضا (b1391). حرکت سازه به ابتدای جمله در زبان فارسی: مبتداسازی یا کانونی سازی؟، ویژه نامه نامه فرهنگستان، 8، 188-212.
پیرهاشمی، تیمور. (1368). دستور زبان ترکی. تبریز: انتشارات دانشگاه تبریز.
حیدری، عبدالحسین و روحی، افسر. (1393). قلب نحوی در زبان ترکی آذری بر اساس مدل کاوشگر-هدف برنامه کمینه‌گرایی. جستارهای زبانی، 5(1)، 27-44.
دبیر‌مقدم، محمد. (1369). پیرامون را در زبان فارسی. مجلۀ زبان شناسی،  7 (1)، 2- 60.
درزی، علی. (1385). ضرورت تمایز میان فرایند ارتقاء و مبتدا‌سازی، مجله دستور، 2، صفحه 161-187.
راسخ‌مهند، محمد.(1385). قلب نحوی و تاکید در زبان فارسی، مجله دستور، نامه فرهنگستان، جلد دوم، آبان.
غفاری، مهبد. (1396). جایگاه «که»ی تاکید فارسی درنمودار درختی بر اساس برنامه کمینه‌گرا. در محمدرضا رضوی و مرضیه صناعتی (ویراستارها). مجموعه مقالات زبانشناختی جشنواره دکتر محمد دبیرمقدم (صص. 223-259). تهران: کتاب بهار. 
غلامعلی‌زاده، خسرو. (1374). ساخت زبان فارسی. نشر احیاء کتاب، تهران.
کلفچی‌خیابانی، معصومه. (1384). قلب نحوی در زبان ترکی آذری. پایان نامه چاپ نشده کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
ماهوتیان، شهرزاد. (1383). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه رده شناسی، ترجمه مهدی سمائی. تهران: نشر مرکز.
محمودی، سولماز. (1400). تحول زبان ترکی در گذر زمان. سومین همایش بین المللی پیوندهای زبانی و ادبی ایران و ترکیه کتاب مقاله‌های فارسی،  -٩٨ .١١٠.
همایونفر، مژگان. (1386). کانونی‌سازی در زبان فارسی. پایان‌نامه چاپ نشده کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تهران.
 
 
Fukui, N. (1988). Deriving differences between English and Japanese: A case study in pragmatic syntax. English Linguistics, 5, 249– 270.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Haegeman, L., & Gueron, J. (1999). English grammar. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar.  London: Edward Arnold.
Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuroda, S.Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In W. Poser (Ed. ). Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax (pp. 103–143). Stanford: CSLI.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, C. (1999). Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahmoodi, S. (2021). Changing Turkish language over time. Proceedings of 3rd international conference in the linguistics and literary ties between Iran and Turkey, Istanbul university, 98-110.
Miyagawa, S. (2001). The Epp, scrambling, and Wh-in-situ. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.). Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Oroji, M.R. & Rezaei, A. (2013). Exploring “ke” as a focus particle in Persian from both form and function points of view. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 76-84.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
دوره 16، شماره 2
مهر 1404
صفحه 21-48

  • تاریخ دریافت 30 دی 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری 25 فروردین 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 08 اردیبهشت 1403