Humorous Grammatical Innovations in Contemporary Persian Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 M.A in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

This paper attempts to examine humorous grammatical innovations in contemporary Persian press in recent years within the framework of Bybee’s language change theory (2015) in accordance with the usage-based approach to grammer. In this regard, by collecting data from satirical press, this research endeavored to understand how and by which process these innovations have been produced, in which constructions they have been used and what characteristics they have. To this end, the humorous grammatical innovations have been classified in three categories consisting of derivatives constructions, fabricated verbs and constructions with “al-“. In this research, we demonstrate that a high number of innovations have been created on the basis of analogical processes. Furthermore the findings suggest that seemingly most of the innovations have the potentiality to enter the formal language but evidently  the language enclines to absorb the innovations which have been coined by virtue of the language exigency or the deficits of applicable grammatical constructions.
 
1. Introduction
When linguistic innovations take place in one language, they may seem humorous to many speakers at first because they are unprecedented. Nevertheless, over a short period of time, some of these humorous innovations enter the standard language due to the linguistic and communication needs, so that it may seem difficult to imagine that at one time these innovations were merely used to create humor and jokes. This study, by examining a number of humorous grammatical innovations used in the press, tries to find out why and through what mechanisms these innovations have been made in contemporary Persian.It also attempts to explore the characteristics of these innovations.
 
2. Theoretical framework
Bybee’s work greatly inspired the creation of usage-based models of language. Bybee’s model makes predictions about and explains synchronic, diachronic and typological patterns within languages, such as: which variants will occur in which contexts? what forms they will take, and what would be their diachronic consequences. Bybee proves that even irreducibly irregular word-forms are seen to be non-arbitrary when the context it occurs in is taken into consideration in the very representation of morphology. Simultaneously, she shows that even seemingly regular allomorphy is context-sensitive. Splits also aligns with the idea that linguistic forms cannot be studied as isolated entities, but rather in relation to the strength of their attachment to other entities.
 
3. Methodology
This research is a data based study attempting to select, classify and analyze data from various sources in the field of grammatical innovations of stire in Persian language. The main newspaper used in this research is the humorous pages of "Qanoon" newspaper. In addition, Gol Agha is another source that has been used to collect data. In addition to these two publications, other publications such as "Humor and Cartoon", "Isfahan Nimroz" and "Chelchelragh" have also been used to collect data. After collecting the data, they were first classified into three sections, including innovations related to derivative constructions, innovations related to fabricated verbs, and innovations related to Al- construction. In the next step, an attempt has been made to address the linguistic and non-linguistic needs based on the presented analysis of each data set, which have played a role in the creation and emergence of each of these innovations, and finally the reasons for consolidation and the lack of consolidation of these grammatical innovations in language is examined.
 
4. Results and discussion
In this research, we indicated that a high number of innovations have been created in the basis of analogy. Furthermore, the findings suggest that seemingly most of the innovations have the potentiality to enter the formal language but evidently the language enclines to absorb the innovations which have been coined by virtue of the language exigency or the deficits of applicable grammatical constructions. In fact, in this article, it was shown that humorous grammatical constructions in many cases indicate the need of the Persian language for the mentioned constructions. This brings to mind the common saying that any joke may express a serious fact.
 
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
In this study, it was found that innovations in derivative constructions have been created in most cases in comparison with existing constructions in Persian language, which in some cases has been accompanied by borrowing from Arabic and European loanwords. But in the meantime, innovations invented solely to create humor do not seem to enter the official language, even if they are of high-frequency. In addition, in the case of fabricated verbs, it was found that in some cases these verbs were created due to the principle of linguistic economics. In this case, speakers tend to use the simple form of the verb instead of its compound form. But in most cases, fabricated verbs are created due to the lack of the present tense to express some concepts or processes. Regarding the humorous innovations in Al- constructions, it was also revealed that apparently due to the long-term contact of Persian speakers with the Arabic language, some constructions of the Arabic language have entered the Persian language. But in the meantime, the use of Persian words in grammatical constructions of the Arabic language based on the theory of heterogeneity due to being humorous has been widely observed as a tool to create humor by satirists.
 
Select Bibliography
Ahmadi-Givi H.and Anvari, H. 2006. Persian Grammar, 2nd ed. Tehran: Fatemi Pubication. [In Persian]
Attardo, S. 2008a. Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor. Blackwell: Language and Linguistics Compass.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, p. 1975. Personal Identity. Berkely: University of California Press.
Matthews, P.H. 1991. Morphology.2nd Edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller,R.M. 2015. Trask's historical linguistics.3rd Edition. .London: Newyork: Routledge.
Naghzhuy Kohan, M and Davari, S. 2013. Psudo-affixation. Researchs in comparative Linguistics. 2(1), 65-85. [In Persian]
Raskin,V. 1985. Semantics mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D.Reidel.
Sadeghi, A. 1993. On fabricated verbs in Persian. Proceedings of the scientific Persian Seminar.Tehran:Iran University Press. [In Persian]
 
 

Keywords

Main Subjects


احمدی گیوی، ح. و ح. انوری. 1384. دستور زبان فارسی، تهران: فاطمی.
باطنی، م. 1368. «فارسی زبانی عقیم»، آدینه. (33): 66 -71.
باطنی، م. 1372. « استفاده از اشتقاق در واژه­سازی علمی». مجموعه مقالات سمینار زبان فارسی و زبان علم. زیر نظر ع. کافی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. 221-235.
جمالی، ف. 1392. «بررسی نوآوری­های دستوری در متون مطبوعات ورزشی فارسی معاصر»، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد. رشتة زبان­شناسی همگانی. دانشگاه اصفهان.
حق­شناس، ع. 1375. «اشتقاق فعل و تصریف آن در فارسی». مجلة دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران، 34 (1و2):  45 -66.
سلیمی‌نژاد، م. 1391. بومی‌سازی وام­واژه­های فرانسه در زبان فارسی براساس نظریۀ بهینگی، اصفهان: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی.
سیاوشی، س. 1395. آشتی با تنوین، تناقض تاریخی و ملاحظات شناختی. وبگاه میدان www.meidaan.com
شریفی، ش. و س. کرامتی یزدی. 1388. «بررسی طنز منثور در برخی از مطبوعات رسمی طنز کشور براساس نظریۀ عمومی طنز کلامی»، زبان و ادب فارسی، (42): 109- 131.
شفیعی کدکنی، م. 1368. موسیقی شعر. تهران: آگاه.
شقاقی، و. 1380. «قیاس و واژه­سازی»، مجموعه مقالات نخستین هم­اندیشی مسائل واژه­گزینی و اصطلاح شناسی. مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. 283-295.
صادقی، ع. 1353. «دربارۀ ترکیبات ال­دار عربی در فارسی». مجلة دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، 21 (2و3): 129- 136.
صادقی، ع. 1372. «دربارۀ فعل­های جعلی در زبان فارسی»، مجموعه مقالات سمینار زبان فارسی و زبان علم. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی،  236-246.
صراحی، م. و ز. غیوری. 1396. «نقش نقض اصول همکاری گرایس در ساخت کاریکلماتور». ادبیات پارسی معاصر. پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی. 7(2): 35 -50.
صفایی، ع. و ل. درویشعلی پورآستانه. 1391. «بررسی شیوه‎های پرداخت طنز و مطایبه در کتاب فرهنگ جبهه (شوخ‌طبعی‌ها)». ادبیات پایداری. 4(7): 121- 137.
صمصامی، م. 1346. پیشوندها و پسوندهای زبان فارسی، تهران: مشعل.
طباطبایی، ع. 1381. فعل مرکب و بسیط در زبان فارسی، تهران: نشر دانش.
طباطبایی، ع. 1376. فعل بسیط و واژهسازی، تهران: نشر دانشگاهی.
فرشیدورد، خ. 1386. فرهنگ پیشوندها و پسوندهای زبان فارسی، تهران: زوار.
فروغی، م. 1315. پیام من به فرهنگستان، تهران: پیام.
کشانی، خ. 1371. اشتقاق پسوندی در زبان فارسی امروز، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
کلباسی، ا. 1388. ساخت اشتقاقی واژه در فارسی امروز. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
گلفام، ا. و ا. ملکی مقدم و ف. ابراهیم­پور نیک. 1397. «محدودیت­های ناظر بر زایایی فعل­های برگرفته از اسم و صفت در فارسی معیار». مطالعات زبانها و گویشهای غرب ایران، 6 (20):  109-132.
محتشمی، ب. 1370. دستورکامل زبان فارسی، تهران: اشراقی.
محمودی بختیاری، ب. 1394. پیجین در خدمت ایجاد طنز کلامی. جشن­نامۀ کورش صفوی. تهران: سیاهرود.
خانلری، پ. 1372. دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، تهران: توس.
نغزگوی کهن، م. و ش. داوری. 1391. «شبه­وندشدگی»، پژوهشهای زبانشناسی تطبیقی، 2(1): 65-85.
نغزگوی کهن، م. 1393. فرهنگ توصیفی زبانشناسی تاریخی، تهران: فاطمی.
Anderson, S. R. 1991. Syntactically arbitrary inflectional morphology.Yearbook of Morphology .4. PP.5-19.
Attardo, S. 2008. Semantics and Pragmatics of Humor.Blackwell:Language and Linguistics Compass.
Bauer, L. 1986. Notes on New Zealand English Phonetics and Phonology.English world-wide,7(2).PP. 225-258.
Burridge, K. and Bergs, A. 2017. Understanding  Language Change.London and Newyork: Routledge.
Bybee,J. 2005. From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to  Repetition .  Linguistics. 82.PP.711-733.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language,usage and cognition.Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language change. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusets :MIT Press.
De Saussure, F. 1916. Course in general linguistics.Eds.Bally,Ch & Sechehaye, A.New York: The Philosophical Society.
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: A Functional Typological Introduction. Vol II. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grice,p. 1975. Personal Identity.Berkely: University of California Press
Jakonson, R. 1939. Signe zero.In roman Jakonson,selected writings. Mouton :The Hague.pp. 211-219.
Kiparsky, P. 1965. Phonological change. Massachusette Institute of Technology.
Kurylowicz, J. 1947. La nature des procs dits analogiques.Acta Linguistica. 5. pp.17-34.
Matthews, P.H. 1991. Morphology.2nd Edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, R.M. 2015. Trask's historical linguistics.3rd Edition. .London: Newyork: Routledge.
Raskin, V. 1985. Semantics mechanisms of humor.Dordrecht,The Netherlands: D.Reidel.
Perek, F. 2015. Argument Structure in usage- based construction grammar. Experimental and corpus- based Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Spencer, A. 1992. Nominal inflection and the nature of functional categories.Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. pp.331-341.
Sperber, D; Wilson. D. 1995. Relevance.communication, 2nd edition. London: Blackwell.
Trask, R, L. 1996. Historical Linguistics.Sussex:Arnold.
Van Valin, R. D. 2005. Exploring The Syntax- Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.