رده ‌شناسي نظام آغازگر در دو زبان فارسي و تركي آذري

Typology of Theme System in Persian and Azeri Turkish

اين مقاله در چارچوب «رده شناسي نقش گراي نظام مند» و با تكيه بر تعميم هاي رده شناختي متيسن (2004) كوشيده است، رفتارهاي رده شناختي نظام آغازگر دو زبان فارسي و تركي آذري را كه به لحاظ نَسبي به دو خانواده زباني متفاوت متعلق اند، توصيف و مقايسه كند. به بياني مشخص تر، اين پژوهش تلاش كرده است به اين پرسش اساسي پاسخ دهد كه با توجه به تعميم هاي رده شناختي متيسن، نظام آغازگر و مشخصاً سه زيرنظام «نشان داري آغازگر»، «گزينش آغازگر»، و «نوع آغازگر» در زبان فارسي چه تفاوت ها و شباهت هايي با آن نظام ها در زبان تركي آذري دارند.مطالعه حاضر نشان داد كه دو زبان فارسي و تركي آذري 1) داراي ساخت آغازگري پايان بخشي تقريباً همانند هستند، 2) با آغازگرهاي بي نشان و نشان دار به يك شكل برخورد مي كنند، 3) افزون بر آغازگر ساده، داراي آغازگر چندگانه نيز هستند، 4) با عناصر سازنده آغازگر چندگانه به يك شكل برخورد مي كنند و 5) داراي نظام آغازگر وجه آزاد هستند. اين يافته ها نشان مي دهد كه دو زبان فارسي و تركي آذري كه به لحاظ نَسبي كاملاً متفاوت هستند، داراي نظام آغازگر و مشخصاً سه زيرنظام «نشان داري آغازگر»، «گزينش آغازگر»، و «نوع آغازگر» مشابهي هستند. اين نتيجه با «اصل سازگاري محوري» هم سو است. بر اساس اين اصل، زبان ها با توجه به محور جانشيني/ نظام و نه محور هم نشيني/ ساخت، گرايش به سازگاري بيشتر با يكديگر دارند.

In systemic functional typology, which studies the systems of languages rather than the whole languages, linguists strive towards empirical generalizations that in principle apply to all languages around the world. In line with the above-mentioned goal of systemic functional typology and having examined the ideational (logical and experiential), interpersonal, and textual systems of the ‘clause grammar’ of different and various languages, Matthiessen (2004) has achieved a series of typological generalizations/universals. In connection with his proposed typological generalizations, Matthiessen (2004) has argued that they can be applied in the description of any language and in the attempt to expand the typological explanations in the framework of systemic functional grammar as well. However, he has immediately stated that “It is not yet possible to propose a generalized map; but we have to move in that direction.” In line with Matthiessen’s claim mentioned above, the present paper has attempted to describe the THEME system of Azeri Turkish on the one hand and compare it with the THEME system of Persian language on the other hand. This research has been conducted in terms of the following three typological parameters concerning the THEME system: (1) The treatment of unmarked and marked THEME (related to the subsystem of THEME MARKEDNESS), (2) The relationship between THEME and MOOD (related to the subsystem of THEME SELECTION), and (3) The relationship between experiential (topical) THEME and interpersonal and textual THEME (related to the subsystems of THEME TYPE, INTERPERSONAL THEME, and TEXTUAL THEME). Studying typological behaviors of the Azeri Turkish THEME system in the framework of Matthiessen (2004)’s typological generalizations and comparing those behaviors with the typological behaviors of the Persian THEME system show that the two languages of Persian and Azeri Turkish (1) have an almost identical thematic structure, (2) treat both unmarked and marked Themes similarly, (3) have multiple types of Themes beside simple ones, (4) treat the elements of a multiple Theme similarly, and (5) have a MOOD-free THEME system. These findings show that both languages, which are genealogically different, have a similar THEME system and specifically the three subsystems of THEME MRKEDNESS, THEME SELECTION, and THEME TYPE. This result is consistent with ‘axial principle of congruence’. According to this principle, languages tend to be more congruent with one another in terms of paradigmatic axis/system than in terms of syntagmatic axis/structure. In the end, it is suggested that the typological behaviors of the THEME system of other languages spoken in Iran be identified and introduced in the aforementioned framework.