جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « ساخت شرطی » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

Abstract All languages in the world have conditional sentences that behave differently in the conditioning process. That is, the classification of conditional construction has been done in different ways in languages. Conditional construction are linguistic expressions consisting of dependent clause and base clause, one of which is called condition clause and the other is result clause. The subject of this article, according on the typological approach, examines the structural features of condition clauses and linkers of condition in the language of Pashai in the Pashai language, the common pattern conditioning is coming/Ɂæɟæ/linker namely//Ɂæɟær /in Persian, but there is other linker words that form conditional sentences in the language of the Pashai. The first part of the article examines the unmarked construction of conditional sentences in Pashai language And in the second part, will be discussed the about the marked conditional sentences, it means lexical and semantic, The data presented in this article is like this, the text of Pashai language become phonetic, the examples has also been translated.

In addition to the main construction of oath in which one swears to someone or something, it has another form in Persian language. This kind of oath is a conditional construction which, at its first part, is provided with the subject of oath and at the second part, with the act of oath. In this paper, using the "speech act" theory in John Austin's point of view as a theoretical basis and by mentioning examples of literary works as well as examples of slang register, we will specify the conditional construction of oath. The results of the present research show that the form of conditional oath, in comparison with the main form, bears more emphasis and thus is further used in occasions that the addresser tends to emphasize on the subject. 

Oath in Persian has always had a special syntactic construction that has changed over time. The basic complete construction of swearing consists of the following components:  *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)  In this construction, the ‘noun’ is what is sworn by. The ‘sentence’ is subject of the oath, i.e. what the oath is taken for, such as: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article) • ‘I swear by the dust of your feet that I wish to die at your feet’ Apart from the main form mentioned above, the expression of an oath in Persian represents another form through a conditional construction. In a conditional swearing, the subject of the oath (i.e. what the oath is taken for) is stated in the dependent clause, and the act of swearing (i.e. what the oath is taken by) is included in the main clause.   

John Austin’s theory of “speech acts” suggests that, in the human language system, the speech inherently represents the performance of an act. In other words, the expression of words in itself is the doing of the action. Austin calls such speech ‘speech act’, i.e. the speech that carries an action. He argues that when a speaker utters a sentence, three levels of speech acts occur simultaneously: Locutionary act, Illocutionary act, and Perlocutionary act. Locutionary act is the meaningful phrases and sentences that are expressed. In illocutionary act, the speaker expresses phrases and sentences to encode a specific meaning. In the perlocutionary act, the speaker influences the audience through the speech. Austin divides the second speech act, i.e. illocutionary act, into five categories: 1. Verdictive: Acts that emphasize the speaker’s commitment to the truth of a proposition, such as ‘express’ and ‘estimate’ verbs. 2. Exercitive: Acts that indicate the exercise of power, right, sovereignty, will and influence and are expressed through such verbs as ‘choose’, ‘advise’, ‘order’, ‘appoint’ and ‘plead’ . 3. Commissive: Acts that indicate the speaker’s commitment to do something and, by expressing them, the speaker obliges oneself to do things. The verbs ‘promise’, ‘commit’ and ‘swear’ fall into this category. 4. Behabitive: Acts that show the types of social behaviors of language speakers, such as the verbs‘apologize’, ‘thank’, ‘sympathize’, ‘insult’, ‘humiliate’, etc. 5. Expositive: Acts that deal with how words are used in language and describe how speech is organized in the conversational process. This type of act includes the following verbs: ‘Argue’, ‘answer’, ‘assume’, ‘accept’ and ‘explain’. Taking of an oath or oath, which is the subject of this inquiry, belongs to the category of commissive acts in which the speaker takes an oath to express their commitment to an issue. Thus, from the point of view of the theory of speech acts, ‘swearing’ is an act that the speaker does with speech. The pragmatics and semantics of the syntactic construction in question confirm that although the form of speech is conditional, it is used for a certain act, which is the expression of an oath.

In this article, the nature and the status of the conditional construction of oath is examined with examples of classical and contemporary Persian literary works. To do this, with a comprehensive plan and a practical approach, we will examine the conditional construction of oath to understand how the components of this syntactic construction may change to encode a different meaning at different tenses and for first-person, second-person and third-person forms.   

What is needed to know about this type of oath is to answer the following two questions: 1- What is its syntactic form and what are its components? 2- How does each of the syntactic components of this type of swearing change, and in what ways can it be plotted? In other words, in different practical situations, what structural changes might occur in conditional oath constructions to produce different forms of this type of oath? The nature of the conditional type of oath is best revealed when comparing the following examples, which expresses the same subject in both types of oath: The common construction of swearing:   *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article) • ‘I swear by my life that I will not break my covenant’ Conditional swearing: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article) • ‘Broken be my back and my soul! If I break my covenant’ The meaning of both sentences is the same, but the way they are expressed is syntactically different. In the conditional construction, the speaker considers breaking the covenant as a curse upon themselves to show that they do not break the covenant. In this syntactic construction of swearing, the dependent clause in which the subject of the oath is raised is not limited in terms of tense: it is used for any subject in all three present, past and future tenses: Present: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)• ‘May I be a base-born if I have any other mistake than this’ Past: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article) • ‘May my poetry be ill-gotten if I had written only a poem in my life except with the echo of your name’ Future: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)• ‘I would be worse than a dog if I run after bread/sustenance like a dog’ The main clause can be expressed in three forms: ‘declarative’, ‘imperative’ and ‘exclamatory’, each of which can be converted into other forms. The possibility of converting these forms into one another form implies that the speaker feels free to express a story with three different constructions according to the situation: Main clause in the form of a declarative sentence: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)• ‘I am ignoble if I go with a complain to a stranger’ Main clause in the form of an exclamatory sentence: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)• ‘If I have been contaminated by the wine so far, may God’s lawful be unlawful to me!’ Main clause in the form of an imperative sentence: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)
• ‘If this deed of mine is not true, make me die a Jew God’ Although the expression of an oath through the conditional construction is possible in all three grammatical persons, i.e. first, second and third person, in both ‘singular’ and ‘plural’ forms, it is widely used in the first person (singular and plural) and its meaning is clearer in this form. This type of oath is rarely used in the second or third persons, and its meaning is not very clear: First person singular: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)• ‘My house may be ruined if I have said such a thing’ First person plural: *(To view this part of the text, refer to the end of the pdf file in the main article)• ‘We are not human if we relinquish our right’   

The present paper illustrated that oath in Persian is not limited to the major common construction rather it has long been encoded through conditionals on special occasions. The conditional construction of swearing in Persian is used for any subject in all three tenses of the past, present, and future, with slight differences in the first-, second- and third-person forms. The main clause in this type of oath expression is always in negative form and can be expressed in declarative, imperative, or exclamatory forms. Rhetorically, this type of oath is used widely in situations where the speaker emphasizes the subject in question and tends to reassure the audience about the subject by removing any doubts. Uncommon abbreviations: SUBJ = subjunctive; DECL = declarative; EXCL = exclamatory; IMPE = imperative; PRS = present; PST = past; FUT = future; PL = plural; SG = single.   

There are conditional sentences in all languages. A conditional sentence consists of two main and subordinate clauses that are apodosis and protasis clauses respectively. In this study, due to the importance of conditional constructions and the lack of typological classification of these structures in Persian language, we have studied the typology of conditional constructions in New Persian language. Theoretical concepts In this study, we will examine conditional sentences of New Persian language, based on the theoretical framework of Declerck and Reed (2001). In this semantic theoretical framework, conditional sentences can be classified in different types according to the possible worlds of protasis clause. In this typology possible world of protasis clause can be factual or theoretical. If the possible world is theoretical, it can be neutral or non-neutral, and if it is non-neutral, it can be one of the four types of closed, open, tentative, and counterfactual. In diagram 1, this typology is shown:  Diagram 1: Typology of possible worlds In factual protasis conditional the situation of protasis clause is interpreted as a fact, which forms part of the real world that can be occurred truly (Declerck & Reed, 2001, p. 65-66). The following sentence is a factual one:  1. If I had a problem, I always went to my grandmother.       In a conditional sentence that refers to the theoretical world, if there is no relation with the real world, it will be neutral. The speaker who uses the neutral conditional has no presupposition or assumption about the likelihood of a theoretical world and the real world. The following sentence is a neutral one: 2. If a woman has a history of cancer in her family, she should be examined each year.  On the other hand, if the speaker uses the non-neutral theoretical protasis, there is a presupposition about the likelihood of theoretical and real world. Given the degree of this probability, there are four types of non-neutral theoretical conditionals. In these types the presupposition of protasis clause with real world can be one of the true, probably true, unlikely, and false ones. These are called closed, open, tentative, and counterfactual respectively (ibid, p. 67-72).      In the closed conditional the speaker assumes that the situation of the protasis clause in the real world is true. The following sentence is a closed one: 3.  If you know something about this, tell me.  If there is not a certain correspondence between protasis’s possible world and the real world, then the possible world would be open. In this type of conditional sentences there is no certainty, no probability or doubt about corresponding between real world and possible world. The following sentence is an open conditional sentence (Ibid, p. 91-93): 4. If the train is late, we will miss our appointment.        In the tentative possible world, the accommodation of the protais’s possible world and real world is impossible but it is not improbable. In fact, in this conditional sentence, it is more likely that the situation of the protasis clause in the real world is false (ibid.,p. 93-98). The following sentence is a tentative one:   5. If he resigned, I would be happy.  Finally, the conditional sentence in which there is an assumption that the protasis’s theoretical world is contrary with factuality and which is completely different from the real world is the counterfactual conditional (Declerck & Reed, 2001, p. 99). The following sentence is a counterfactual one: 6. I would never have gone with them if I were you. According to the research objectives, the authors have selected the data needed for the research from the written texts of New Persian language produced from the 4th to the 14th century AH. In each of these centuries, ten books from different authors were selected. Then, from each of the selected books, randomly an approximate number of 5000 words was examined and conditional constructions were collected in the aforementioned corpus of each book. Therefore, 110 books from 11 centuries and approximately 50,000 words from each century were examined. Finally, it can be said that the present study consists of an approximate number of 556072 words and 3045 pages. In other words, 50552 words and 277 pages have been examined from each century. Then we examined all the 3648 conditional sentences that were extracted from the corpus and then, we determined the type of conditional construction of each conditional sentence based on the theoretical framework. We indicated that the conditional construction of the New Persian language can be adapted to the typology of Declerck and Reed (2001). Therefore, there are factual, neutral, closed, open, tentative, and counterfactual conditional types in New Persian language. By examining the frequency of occurrence of conditional sentences in the 4th to 11th century AH, we concluded that the use of conditional constructions in the early centuries was much higher than the later centuries, and there was a steady decline down to the 10th century. By examining the frequency of possible worlds in conditional sentences in the 4th to 14th centuries, we concluded that the highest frequency of occurrence of possible worlds belongs to the open possible world and subsequently the neutral, closed and factual possible worlds have a high frequency. The reason for the higher frequency of open possible world is the higher iconicity of this conditional construction. In this construction the speaker considers the hypothetical position that is likely to occur. This situation by constructing the concept of a conditional term that expresses a hypothetical position has the highest degree of similarity and therefore has the highest iconicity. By increasing the iconicity of a construction that can be a criterion in the rising of the frequency of a construction, the frequency of the conditional sentence with the open possible world is increased, and this result is due to the ease in the processing of such sentences.

The purpose of this paper is investigating the conditional connective words in New Persian language based on the Declerck and Reed typology (2001). According to this semantic typology, different types of conditional sentences based on possible worlds of protasis are factual, neutral, closed, open, tentative and counterfactual. In the canonical conditional sentence there is one connective word in the beginning of the sentence that is used to mark conditionality. In the present study, we try to examine these types with respect to the corpus of 3648 conditional sentences extracted from 110 books of 4th to 14th AH centuries. In New Persian various connective words have been used as conditional words like: “agar, agarche, agarna, ta, ke, valo, farzan, haminke, darsuratike, vaella, hargah, chon, …”. Statistical calculations on conditional words with a frequency above fifty show that there are certain tendencies between different conditional possible worlds and types of conditional words.

Conditional construction is a linguistic universal that occurs systematically across natural languages, potentially true for all of them. The conditional sentence is a compound statement composed of two main and subordinate clauses namely apodosis and protasis respectively. Most languages use conditional connective words to mark this construction. In Persian, “agar” has the most frequency among the conditional connective words. Except this word, there are some other connective words that can be used as a conditional connective word such as “tâ, čonanče, vaGti, hargâh, be šarte inke, hattâ agar,…”. Regarding the importance of conditional construction, this study examines verb’s tense of the protasis and apodosis clauses of the conditional sentences in the contemporary Persian language based on the theoretical framework of Declerck and Reed (2001). Declerck and Reed (2001: 65-66) have proposed a kind of typology for the different types of possible worlds cross-linguistically. Possible world is a situation in which things and incidents exist or could exist. Whereas a real possible world is a situation in which things really exist, an unreal possible world is a situation in which they could exist.   Based on this typology, the   possible world of a  protasis clause can be factual or theoretical. In the case  the possible world is theoretical, it can be neutral or non-neutral. The non-neutral possible world itself is divided into closed, open, tentative and counterfactual worlds. The canonical pattern of tense system in languages of the world portrays a distinction between past and non-past or future and non-future tenses.  English and Persian use a dual distinction between past and non-past tenses. In this research, we aim to examine the  tense of the protasis and apodosis clauses based on the type of the possible worlds of  protasis clauses. In order to investigate the tense of the protasis and apodosis clauses in the conditional sentences of Modern Persian, we selected 10 fiction books of the most famous contemporary Persian authors. Selecting approximately 5000 words and 25 pages of each book randomly, we extracted conditional sentences   through the sample. The corpus involving 50622 words and 254 pages, showed 286 conditional sentences. To derive the tense of the possible worlds, the type of the conditional construction of each conditional sentence was determined based on the theoretical framework of Declerck and Reed (2001) and the tense of the protasis and apodosis clauses was analyzed using the statistical calculations. Finally, we examined the relationship between the type of the conditional construction and the tense of the protasis and apodosis clauses. The present contribution presented an attempt to investigate the probability of occurrence of past and non-past tenses of the protasis and apodosis clauses separately with regard to the data and the use of computations and statistical analysis methods. The study identified that  the tense variation of protasis and apodosis clauses in Persian is fewer than the English cognates . It was also argued that Persian represents a strong tendency in applying clauses that the tense of protasis and apodosis is non-past to be of the “open” division. On the other hand, we demonstrated that there is a strong tendency for the tense of protasis and apodosis being in the past to be of  factual characteristics. The study concluded that as for the open conditionals, the speaker often uses conditional construction to portray a situation which, as yet, has not occurred or could later occurr. Therefore, the tense is often non-past. On the other hand, exploiting factual conditional, the speaker represents a situation believed in the truth of its occurrence. Therefore the past tense will serve to express the factive situation.  Examining the corpus of the present research, we concluded that Persian conditional sentences can be classified according to Declerck and Reed’s typology. It was further indicated that in Modern Persian, the types of conditional constructions address   factual, neutral, closed, open, tentative and counterfactual divisions. We also showed that the past and the non-past tense of the protasis clause were almost equal-with the non-past to be slightly more than the past- while in the apodosis clause, non-past tense was more than the past form. Furthermore, the study exhibited that there is a tendency between the tense of the protasis and apodosis clauses and the conditional type in Modern Persian; however, the tendencies are not absolute and it is not possible to guess the type of conditional construction certainly based on the tense of the verbs. Investigating the relationship between the modal meanings of protasis and apodosis clauses and the type of conditional constructions will be performed in further studies.