The Role of Time Reference in Explaining the Present Subjunctive Functions in Contemporary Farsi

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University

2 M.A. in Persian Language Teaching to Non-Persian Speakers, Allameh Tabataba’i University

Abstract

In this research, in order to find a consistent explanation for all the uses of present subjunctive in Farsi, by relying on a corpus of 3000 sentences, we managed to extract and classify all the functions of present subjunctive. We concluded that present subjunctive is used both in the simple and (relative, adverbial and complementary clauses in) compound sentences. In the simple sentences as well as the relative clauses subjunctive making elements are usually considered to be semantic. The subjunctive making elements in complementary and adverbial clauses are the main clause verb and linking word respectively. The paper also employs Comrie (1985) and Reichenbach’s (1947) tripartite distinction between speech time, event time, and reference time to show that present subjunctive has relative time. And also by choosing Darzi and Kwak (2015) approach in explaining the present subjunctive functions in complimentary clauses, we discussed its function in simple, relative and adverbial clauses in compound sentences. We concluded that reference time in simple and relative clauses is simultaneous with the speech time; such that these kinds of verbs necessarily refer to present or future. In the complementary clauses the main clause verb is considered to be the reference time of the present subjunctive verb. Reference time in the adverbial clauses, depending on the linking word, may be simultaneous with the speech time or main verb time. Whether the reference time is simultaneous with the speech time or main verb time, the subjunctive verb has got a “relative non-past time”. In the other words, compared to the reference time it refers to the future or present.
 
1. Introduction
In linguistics, Modality is a phenomenon through which grammar allows talking about situations that are not essentially real. In other words, modality is a grammatical and semantic category which explains the speaker’s attitude regarding the proposition and generally shows realis/irrealis distinction. The right way to discover modality is to begin with some of the features of language which most obviously involve modality. In all typological studies, there is a considerable variation in the ways in which languages deal with this category. Verbal mood is one of these ways which appears in the structure of the verb. Mood is an aspect of linguistic form which indicates how a proposition is used in the expression of a modal meaning. Modal forms are divided into three categories: sentential modality, sub-sentential modality and discourse modality. Verbal mood is included within sub-sentential modality. Sub-sentential modality operates below the level of proposition expressed by a complete sentence. It includes modal adjectives, modal nouns, propositional attitude verbs (verbs which take an argument which expresses a proposition), verbal mood, and infinitives among other types. Root and subordinate clauses with different verbal moods can be used to help represent various cognitive states and mental events, such as beliefs, desires, and dreams (Portner, 2009). Among the three distinctions of declarative, subjunctive and imperative verbal mood, the current study reviews the present subjunctive uses in positive sentences.
 
 2. Theoretical Framework
Reichenbach (1947) refers to three points of “speech time”, “event time” and “reference time” to determine time implications. Time has a deictic nature, and speech time is its reference point. In other words, relying on speech time, in all languages the time is divided into past, present and future. As Comrie has mentioned (1985), absolute time is a time that to determine we just need speech time and event time (as for absolute time, reference time and speech time are the same). However, this is not the case in all situations and if reference time point is defined by context or another element, we would have a Relative Time. In this study, relying on the threefold division suggested by Reichenbach and the difference between Absolute and Relative Time put by Comrie (1985), and also following the approach of Darzi and Kwak (2015) in determining subjunctive uses relying on the time implications, we review the uses of this mood in simple sentences and relative clauses and adverbial clauses of compound sentences.
 
3. Methodology
The first step in this study was to extract and categorize all the applications of subjunctive mood in the contemporary Persian language. Thus, initially a corpus including 6 screenplays and volumes 326, 345 and 346 of Movafaghiat magazine were selected. Then, about 3,000 sentences were extracted in which present subjunctive was used. After that, based on the aforementioned theoretical framework, the data about the subjunctive mood were analyzed.
 
4. Results & Discussion
The results indicate that subjunctive present is used both in simple sentences and in relative clauses, complement clauses and adverbial clauses of compound sentences; however, the frequency of using subjunctive present in complement and adverbial clauses is much more than relative clauses and simple sentences. Simple sentences with subjunctive mood could be divided into three semantic groups: wishful, advising, and interrogative. In these sentences, “subjunctive making element” is necessarily semantic. However, in complement and adverbial clauses, respectively, the main verb and the conjunctive are subjunctive elements. Moreover, the adverbial clauses in which subjunctive verb is used, based on the semantic features of their conjunctives are divided into various groups, including adverbial clauses of time, purpose, negation, substitution, condition, etc.
 
 5. Conclusions & Suggestions
In this research, in order to find a consistent explanation for all the uses of present subjunctive in Persian, by relying on a corpus of 3000 sentences, while considering the difference between relative time and absolute time, it was concluded that reference time in simple and relative clauses is simultaneous with the speech time; such that these kinds of verbs necessarily refer to present or future. The subjunctive making elements in complement and adverbial clauses are the main clause verb and conjunction respectively. However, the reference time in adverbial clauses, depending on the conjunction, may be equal to the speech time or time of the main verb. Whether the reference time is simultaneous with the speech time or main verb time, the subjunctive verb has got a “relative non-past time”. In other words, compared to the reference time, it refers to the future or present (non-past).
 
Select Bibliography
Akhlaghi, F. 2010. “A Typological Study of Complementation in Persian”, Grammar, 6: 100-149. [in Persian]
Comrie, B. 1985. Tense, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darzi, A. & S. Kwak. 2015. "Syntax and Semantics of Subjunctive Clauses in Persian", Lingua, 153, 1-13.
Lazard, G. 2005. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian, Translated by M. Bahraini, Tehran: Hermes. [in Persian]
Portner, P. 2009. Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tabibzadeh, O. 2006. Verb Valency and Basic Sentences Structures in Modern Persian, Tehran: Markaz. [in Persian]
Tavangar, M. & M. Amouzadeh. 2009. “Subjective Modality and Tense in Persian”, Language Sciences, 31: 853–873. [in Persian]

Keywords


ابراهیمی، ح. 1388.  نگارش پیشرفته (ویژه زبان‌آموزان غیرایرانی)، بی‌جا: حمید ابراهیمی.
احمدی گیوی، ح. و ح. انوری. 1379.  دستور زبان فارسی۱، تهران: فاطمی.
اخلاقی، ف. 1386. «بایستن،‌ شدن و توانستن: سه فعل وجهی در فارسی امروز»، دستور، (۳):۸۲ -۱۳۲.
اخلاقی، ف.  1389. «بررسی رده‌شناختی متمم‌افزایی در فارسی امروز»، دستور، (۶): ۱۰۰ -۱۴۹.
ارژنگ، غ. 1387. دستور زبان فارسی امروز، تهران: قطره.
اکبری، م. و م. ولی‌پور. 1395. «نقد و تحلیل انواع وجه فعلی در فارسی»، ادب فارسی، ۶(۱): ۱- ۱۵.
انوشه، م. 1393. «ضمیر پوچ‌واژه‌ای پنهان در زبان فارسی: رویکردی کمینه‌گرا»، زبانشناسی و گویش‌های خراسان، (11): ۲۹- ۵۳.
ایلخانی‌پور، ن. 1394. صفات وجهی در زبان فارسی، تهران: مرکز.
باطنی، م. 1348. توصیف ساختمان دستوری زبان فارسی، تهران: امیرکبیر.
بیضایی، ب. 1373. مسافران، تهران: روشنگران.
بیضایی، ب. 1392. سگ‌کشی، تهران: روشنگران و مطالعات زنان.
ثقفی، س. 1395 و 1396. موفقیت، ش۳۲۶، ۳۴۵ و 346.
جعفری، ف. 1390. دستور کاربردی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران، مؤسسۀ لغتنامۀ دهخدا و مرکز بین‌المللی آموزش زبان فارسی. 
حبیب اصفهانی، م. 1289ق. دستور سخن، استانبول.
حق‌شناس، ع. و همکاران. 1387. دستور زبان فارسی ویژۀ دوره کاردانی و کارشناسی زبان و ادبیات فارسی تربیت معلم، تهران: مدرسه.
خانلری، پ. 1377. دستورزبان فارسی، تهران: توس.  
خیامپور، ع. 1347. دستور زبان فارسی، تبریز: کتابفروشی تهران.
دایی‌جواد، ر. 1340. دستور زبان فارسی و راهنمای تجزیه و ترکیب، اصفهان: کتابفروشی تأیید.
دبیرسیاقی، م. 1345. دستور زبان فارسی، تهران: علمی.
درخشنده، پ. و م. بهرامی. 1393. هیس! دخترها فریاد نمی‌زنند، تهران: روشنگران و مطالعات زنان.
درزی، ع. و ش. تفکر رضایی. 1389. «پوچ‌واژه در زبان فارسی»، پژوهش‌های زبان­شناسی، ۲(2): ۵۷ -۷۳.
ذوالنور، ر. 1348. دستور پارسی، تهران: ارغنون.
راسخ‌مهند، م. و همکاران. 1393. فرهنگ توصیفی نحو، تهران: علمی. 
رحیمیان، ج. 1390. «جنبه­های صوری و معنایی عناصر وجهی در جمله­های فارسی»، زبان و زبان­شناسی، (۱۳): ۳۳- ۵۰.
رحیمیان، ج. و ع. خرمائی. 1398. «راه­های بیان التزام و کاربردهای صورت­های التزامی در زبان فارسی»، پژوهش­های زبان­شناسی تطبیقی، 9(17): 47- 57.
رحیمیان، ج. و م. عموزاده. 1392. «افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی و بیان وجهیت»، پژوهش‌های زبانی، ۴(1): ۲۱-۴۰.
شفائی، ا. 1363. مبانی علمی دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، نوین.
صادقی، ع. و غ. ارژنگ. 1358. دستور سال دوم (آموزش متوسطه عمومی فرهنگ و ادب)، تهران: سازمان کتاب‌های درسی.
طالقانی، ک. 1352. اصول دستور زبان فارسی، تهران: امیرکبیر.
طبیب‌زاده، ا. 1385. ظرفیت فعل و ساخت‌های بنیادی جمله در فارسی امروز، تهران: مرکز.
طبیب‌زاده، ا. 1391. دستور زبان فارسی براساس نظریۀ گروه‌های خودگردان در دستور وابستگی، تهران: مرکز.
عابدی، م. و م. ولی‌پور. 1397. «نگاهی تازه به طبقه‌بندی جملات شرطی از منظر آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان»، مجموعه مقالات دومین همایش ملی دوسالانۀ آزفا، به کوشش رضامراد صحرایی و مهین‌ناز میردهقان، تهران: خاموش: ۳۴۹-۳۷۶. 
عموزاده، م. و ح. رضایی. 1391. «بررسی مفاهیم وجهی زمان دستوری در زبان فارسی»، پژوهش‌های زبانی، 3(1): 52 -76.
فرشیدورد، خ. 1382. دستور مفصل امروز، تهران: سخن.
قریب، ع. 1338. دستور زبان فارسی به اسلوب السنۀ مغرب زمین، تهران: کتابفروشی علمیۀ اسلامیه.
قریب، ع.  1355. دستور زبان فارسی، تهران: کتابفروشی مرکزی.
کیارستمی، ع. 1368. خانۀ دوست کجاست، تهران: کانون پرورش فکری کودکان و نوجوانان.
لازار، ژ. 1384. دستور زبان معاصر فارسی، ترجمۀ مهستی بحرینی، توضیحات و حواشی هرمز میلانیان، تهران: هرمس.
متولیان، ر. 1395. «بازنمایی نحوی افعال وجهی ʼبایستنʽ و ʼشدنʽ در زبان فارسی»، جستارهای زبانی، ۷(7): ۱۲۵ -۱۵۰.
مجیدی، م. 1389.  آواز گنجشک‌ها، تهران: نیستان.
مشکور، م. 1353. دستورنامه، تهران: مؤسسه مطبوعاتی شرق.
ملاقلی‌پور، ر. 1379. نسل سوخته، تهران: نقش و نگار.
وحیدیان، ت.، و غ. عمرانی. 1387. دستور زبان فارسی۱، تهران: سمت.
Comrie, B. 1985. Tense, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser. 1996. “Conditionals, distancing and alternative spaces”, in Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Edited by Adele E. Goldberg; Stanford: Center for The Study of Language and Information, Pp: 109-136.
Darzi, A.and S. Kwak. 2015. "Syntax and semantics of subjunctive clauses in Persian", Lingua, 153, 1-13.
Giannakidou, A. 2013. “(Non) veridicality, evaluation, and event actualization: evidence from the subjunctive in relative clauses” in Nonveridicality, Perspective, and Discourse Coherence, M. Taboada and R. Tvranc (eds.), Leiden: Brill, Studies in Pragmatics Series.
Givon, T. 2001. Syntax, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hiraiwa, K. 2001. “Multiple agree and defective intervention constraint in Japanese”, MIT Working Papers Linguist. 40, 67-80.
Landau, I., 2004. “The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22: 811–877.
Noonan, M. 1985. “complementation”, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, V2: Complex Constructions, Edited by: T. Shopen, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42-140. 
Portner, P. 2009. Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Reichenbach, H., 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Taleghani, A. H. 2008. Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tavangar, M. and M. Amouzadeh. 2009. “Subjective modality and tense in Persian”, Language Sciences, 31: 853–873.