نشریه زبان پژوهی
پیاپی 30 (بهار 1398)

In the past two centuries, the connection between languages has attracted the attention of researchers. Linguists have classified most world languages as large language families. Among these families, we can mention the Semitic, Indo-European, Dravidian, Uralic, and Altaic languages. In most cases, the kinship and relations between the languages in a language family has been proven, but in some cases, there is only talk about a language family theory. The Altaic languages are among large language groups where there are disagreements about the connection between its members. There are two completely different standpoints about the Altaic languages. The first standpoint considers these two languages to be of the same root and language family in the framework of the Altaic languages. The second standpoint is based on the view that these two languages do not belong to a single language family and each language is a language independent from the other, this standpoint puts forward the argument of an interlanguage contact. The proponents of the first standpoint have expressed their views in the format of the theory of Altaic languages. According to this theory, the Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic-Manchu, and Korean languages, and in the opinion of some linguists the Japanese language as well, are all branches of a single common root language. Therefore, according to this theory, both Turkic and Mongolian languages are members of the same family of languages. These linguists believe that the Turkic and Mongolian languages were branched in a distant past from a single language and over time have gradually turned into two independent languages. Researchers do not have precise information on the history of the differentiation of these two languages, but the history of the split of the presumed Altaic languages is believed to date back to some time between three and four thousand BC. The most important evidence offered by this group of linguists for their claim that the Turkic and Mongolian languages belong to the same language family is the equivalency of “Z~R” and “SH (Š)~L” consonants in these languages. This means that in some words the equivalent of the consonant /Z/ in Turkic languages is the consonant /R/ in the Mongolian language, and also the consonant /Sh/ in Turkic is equivalent with /L/ in the Mongolian language. But the linguists in the second group, that is the opponents of the theory of Altaic languages, believe that the two Turkic and Mongolian languages were not related, but have been in a deep linguistic relationship. These linguists believe that the Turkic and Mongolian languages do not belong to a language family, but in the past, they have been in a close relationship due to geographical proximity as well as the coexistence of the Turks and Mongols in particular period of history. One of the most important reasons presented by this group of linguists, as an evidence for their claim that Turkic and Mongolian languages are not related is that basic words in the two Turkic and Mongolian languages are not equivalent. Based on the opinion of these linguists, changing or borrowing basic words like human body parts and numbers between these two groups of languages is rarely seen. By reviewing 16 basic words related to human body parts, the German linguist Gerhard Doerfer found that none of the 16 basic words are common among the Altaic languages, whereas among the members of large family languages such as Semitic, Indo-European, Dravidian and Uralic languages a percentage of these words are common. Therefore, it can be said that although there are common words between Turkic and Mongolian languages, the presence of common words is not an evidence of these languages having the same root. These similar common features have been formed as a result of linguistic contacts. Many words have entered the Persian language from Turkic and Mongolian languages. Especially with the occupation of Iran by the Mongols, many words have entered the Persian and Turkic from Mongolian. By reviewing different Persian language sources, especially the dictionaries, we realize that Iranian scholars and lexicographers have made some mistakes in recognizing Turkic and Mongolian words. Such that there is no consensus among the lexicographers in recognizing Turkic and Mongolian words from each other. The lexicographers have sometimes used the compound term “Mongolian-Turkic” in identifying the origin of some words. According to the explanations given above, the use of such compound terms for clarifying the origin and root of a word is not etymologically correct. For example, in Persian dictionaries, the origins of words such as Jolo (front), Qarāvol (warden), Keshik (sentinel), Jeiran (gazelle), Maral (deer), Sheltaq (conflict), and Yasavol (mounted macebearer) have been mentioned as Turkic. However, all these words have Mongolian roots. Errors in identifying Turkic and Mongolian words is not limited to Persian dictionaries. This situation can be seen in many Persian works written in the field of literature. In this paper, the goal is to study the relationship between the Turkic and Mongolian languages in general and show the extent of the difference between these two languages from different aspects. In the end, to discover the extent of the difference between the two Turkic and Mongolian languages, some sample Mongolian sentences with their Turkic (Turkish and Azerbaijani) as well as Persian translations have been included.

This study has been conducted to analyze how Self (Iranian) and the Other (non Iranian) have been represented in the Persian novels written between the years 1961 and 1978. The main question of the present research is "how Iranians and non-Iranians are represented in the novels of two different periods of fiction writing in Iran?" By answering this question, it would be possible to show if there is an overlap between the Self/the Other confrontation and culture/nonculture in these Persian novels or not, in other words, if Self has been represented as culture and the Other as non-culture or not. The study of this overlap is important because some nations construe themselves as nature and chaos while others as culture, “Peter the Great and other Russians trying to modernize Russia held this . . . view . . .” (Sonsson, 2000: 540). In order to achieve the aims of the research, three novels of the greatest ones written in the era called ‘the era of resistance’ have been selected and studied, including Tangsir by S. Chubak (1963), Savushun by S. Daneshvar (1969) and The Neighbors by A. Mahmoud (1973). Cultural semiotics and Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) have developed the framework of this paper. Cultural semiotics which has been used since Ernst Cassirer (1923-29) suggested describing certain kinds of sign systems as symbolic forms and claimed that the symbolic forms of a society constitute its culture, offers no method for analyzing data and it is why it’s integrated into Discourse Historical Approach, in this research. Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) accentuates historicity in discourse production and comprehension and attempts to incorporate various levels of historical analysis in the contextualization and explication of linguistic analysis (KhosraviNik, 2015: 107). The DHA is three-dimensional: after (1) having identified the specific contents or topics of a specific discourse, (2) discursive strategies are investigated; then (3), linguistic means (as types) and the specific, context-dependent linguistic realizations (as tokens) are examined (Reisigel and Vodak, 2009: 93). The DHA focuses on the following main research agenda: Referential Strategies, Predicational Strategies, Argumentation Strategies, Perspectivization and Intensification, mitigation. Referral strategies are tools for naming and categorizing actors, objects, processes, etc., and include referenced names, specific names, metaphor, and verbs and nouns which are used to refer to the process and actions. Predicational strategies determines the discursive quality of actors, objects, phenomena, events, processes, and actions by means of stereotypical evaluative descriptions of negative or positive attributes in the form of attributes, appositions, prepositional phrases, relative clauses, infinitive clauses, collocations, similes, metaphors, metonymies, exaggerations, euphemisms, allusions, implications and so on. Argumentative Strategies justify or raise doubt about the beliefs through Topoi. The results of this research show that in Tangsir, Savushun and the Neighbors, the Other (Non-Iranian), through referential strategies and by naming based on his nationality, is distinguished from the Self (Iranian). Also there is no reference to represent the Other as nonculture. Even when he is called alien and foreigner, it is only his foreignness which is topicalized, and there is no sign of regarding him as nonculture. In these novels, the most important linguistic strategy to distinguish the Self from the Other is the predicational strategy through which the Other is described by similes and metaphors and represented negatively. This study showed that the Other have such a prominent position in the semiosphere of Iran in 1961-1978, that it has led to an opposition between people and the establishment. One of the most important features of Tangsir, Savushun and the Neighbors is representing the contradictions between Iranian themselves and the confrontation between people and the establishment is the most important of them. This opposition is one the most important aspects of the representations of Self in the selected novels. From the peoples’ perspective the Other is an enemy who is constructed, for instance, as colonial power and pirate but from the perspective of the establishment the Other is represented as a power which the Self’s economy is heavily dependent on it. It should be mentioned that the Self does not consider the Other to be totally culture or nonculture, the Self sometimes goes to the Other’s land to gain culture, but when the Other invades Self’s country, he is a colonist and infidel, maybe nonculture, and he should be expelled from the country. Believing in the Other, the fear of the Other and obedience to the Other form the topoi of government, while nationalism and the struggling form the topoi of people. Although people – as well as government - believe in the Other’s land - not in an invader Other - and they look for culture there. Finally, based on the results of this study, in the selected novels, Self is represented through negative predications, especially by perspectivization and expressing what the Other thinks about the Self, therefore there is no overlap between the two mentioned oppositions, Self/Other and culture/non-culture, and Self is not represented as culture and vice versa.

In the early years of the twentieth century, theattention was focused ondescribtion of different languages based on scientific and even-handed criteria introductingnew areas of the science of linguistics, little by little. In the middle of this century, two Canadians named John Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet began to describing the methods used by translators in translating texts in French and English to one another based on linguistic patternsand their methods have been the theoretical basis of various studies in the field of translation studiesfrom that time until the present. This paper has tried to extract comparative examples from the translation of the book "Ashhhaz"written by najib mahfuz translated by Mohammad dehghani with title "Geda", under consideration the techniques have been proposedIn Vinay and Darbelnet method, and finallypresented a summing up from techniques employed in this translation. The study results shows that the translator often used indirect translation methods providing an eloquent translation in Persian and also chosed equalisation between the different techniques of this method and presented a successful translation using this method.

1- INTRODUCTION This article is aimed at investigating different representations of “Love” in Persian Lyrics of Pop songs through identifying, classifying, and analyzing the conceptual metaphors of LOVE. LOVE as an abstract concept has always been an interesting subject in anthropological, sociological, and psychological studies mostly focusing on defining “love” in the best way. Protasi (2008) believes that Love can be considered as Eros which is defined as passionate love for someone. In Moein Encyclopedic Dictionary, “Love” is determined as “loving someone passionately, great attraction, and pleasure. “Platonic Love” is another term mentioned under the same entry which is considered “loving someone without any physical attraction”. From a linguistic point of view, different ways of conceptualizing “Love” has been paid attention in the domain of emotions and human relations in recent ways. According to Kövecses (2007: 2-9) basic emotions category includes love, joy, sadness, anger, and fear in most languages and cultures although there may be some slight differences among them. Conceptual metaphors and their roles in the category of concepts of emotions can be culture specific. Therefore, it is important to find out whether these conceptual metaphors form social models of emotions, or social models are just represented through these metaphors. Kövecses believes that both happen in languages. 2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In this research corpus-based critical metaphor analysis has been applied as the theoretical framework. The theory of conceptual metaphor which has received so much attention in recent years is used to identify the metaphors. Cognitive linguistics which is focused on human neural system and how it affects language and cognition has not paid that much attention to the role of socio-cultural factors and how they are related to discourse until recent years. Lee (2016) believes that by critical metaphor analysis the speaker’s implicit intentions and the hidden power relations can be revealed. On the other hand, critical discourse analysis deals with social problems, and aims at discovering the ideologies in the discourse. In this research the corpus-based critical metaphor analysis is based on the methodology introduced by Charteris-Black (2004). Metaphor analysis typically proceeds by collecting linguistic metaphors, generalizing from them to the conceptual metaphors and then using the results to suggest understandings or thought patterns which construct or constrain people’s beliefs and actions (Cameron & Low, 1999: 80). These stages are a lot similar to three phases introduced in Fairclough (1995:6) including identification, interpretation and explanation. Charteris-Black (2004) introduced three terms: conceptual key is a statement which resolves the semantic tension of a set of conceptual metaphors by showing their relationships, conceptual metaphor is a statement that resolves the semantic tension of a set of metaphors by showing their relationships, and metaphor which is a linguistic representation resulted from a change in the usage of a word or phrase from an expected context or domain to another unexpected domain or context, a change that creates semantic tension. Those instances that have metaphoric usage according to this framework are searched as keywords in the corpus and analyzed quantitatively. In the second phase which is qualitative, the context of the keywords is checked in the corpus to find out whether the keywords have a metaphoric or literal usage. In the next phase, it is tried to connect metaphors to the cognitive and pragmatic factors related to their usage. 3- MTHODOLOGY This research is a corpus-based discourse study, and aims at the critical analysis of love metaphor in the corpus of Persian lyrics in love and social Pop songs according to “Corpus Approach to Critical Metaphor” (Charteris-Black, 2004) in order to find out the significant differences between the metaphoric representations of love in these two genres. So, the method is a descriptive-analytic one. The analysis is based on the conceptual metaphors which were classified as structural, ontological and orientational metaphors. The research hypotheses are as follows: Conceptual metaphors of love in both genres can be classified in to structural, ontological and orientational categories. The ways of conceptualization of love in structural, ontological and orientational metaphors show quantitative and qualitative significant differences in love and social lyrics. 4- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The sample consists of 150 lyrics (75 lyrics in each genre) which have been selected using corpus and computational methods from the corpus of contemporary Persian pop Lyrics consisted of 1000 lyrics (177377 words) (Amiri, 1395). 219 metaphors were analyzed. Findings show that ontological (N: 119), structural (N: 98) and orientational (N: 2) had the most and the least frequencies. Two conceptual keys, LOVE IS UNITY, and LOVE IS FORCE were identified. The occurrence of all metaphors of LOVE IS UNITY in love lyrics is higher than social lyrics and in LOVE IS FORCE conceptual key LOVE IS MOTIVE / HEALER / TORTURE is higher than in love lyrics. Statistical analysis shows that the difference between two genres in the LOVE IS UNITY conceptual key and LOVE IS BURNING / CAUSE / JUERNEY / PLANT conceptual metaphors are significant (P

Antonymy is a unique semantic relation between two lexical forms that are opposite while at the same time they share some basic similarities. Antonyms have attracted attention of linguists interested in lexical semantics. A number of linguists such as Lyons (1977), Cruse (1986) and Murphey (2003) have examined lexical and semantic characteristics of antonyms. Some other scholars have paid attention to discourse functions of antonymy among whom Jones (2002) have provided the most clear-cut theoretical framework. Jones used a test set of 56 word pairs that were well-known, conventional antonyms. They were not balanced across word class, morphological complexity, word length or frequency ranking, but were selected to be representative of the antonym relation. He extracted all instances of these antonyms co-occurring in sentences from a British newspaper corpus of 280 million words. Jones limited the analysis to a sample of 3000 sentences. Approximately every 30th sentence was extracted from the corpus. He then adjusted it so that no more than 60% of the sentences involved adjectival antonymous pairs, in order to ensure that there were sufficient noun, verb, and adverb pairs within the sample. Next, the discourse function of each antonymous pair was identified. One of the categories introduced in Jones (2002) was ancillary function in which an antonym pair is used to create or highlight a secondary contrast within sentence/discourse. The second major antonym function is coordinated antonymy, in which the distinction between the two opposite is neutralized. Comparative antonymy involves measuring one antonym against the other. The distinguished function calls attention to the inherent distinction between the members of the antonym pair. Transitional antonymy expresses a movement or change from one location, activity or state to another. The negated antonymy function emphasizes one member of the antonym pair by using it with the negation of the other member. Jones's last category is idiomatic category, in which any instance of antonym co-occurrence would be recognized as a familiar idiom.     The previous studies conducted on some languages including Persian revealed that in spite of some differences across languages, almost all of them follow quite the same patterns in implementing different discourse functions. The present study enjoys theoretical as well as methodological concepts from syntax, semantics and discourse analysis to recognize Persian antonyms and identify their discourse function and then the relevant syntactic framework. Here, we attempt to answer the following four questions;
1. What is the share of each discourse function in Persian antonyms?
2. What is the relationship between grammatical framework and discourse function of antonyms?
3. What are the most frequent antonyms in Persian (non)virtual texts?
4. What is the semantic nature of antonyms as far as the kind of genre is concerned?
To shed light on the questions, a corpus of 4000 Persian sentences which contained antonyms was selected. They were extracted from written, verbal and virtual genres. The criterion was that each antonym whether noun, verb, adjective, adverb or pronoun had to occur in a single sentence. Next, the part of speech, discourse function and grammatical framework of each antonym were identified.     The findings indicate that in Persian the coordinated discourse function is the most frequent function and other functions, i.e. negated, transitional, idioms, ancillary, and comparative follow that. It is also revealed that there is a significant relationship between some syntactic frameworks and discourse functions. For example, the syntactic framework of "X and Y" is significantly frequent in coordinated discourse function. Likewise, it is shown that there exists a relationship between the semantic nature of some antonymous pairs and their frequency in some genres. For instance, the antonymous pair 'real-virtual' is used just in virtual corpus. These kinds of findings help corpus linguistics researchers predict the type of corpus with an eye to some antonymous pairs.     To be specific, it should be mentioned that out of 4000 antonyms, 1432 antonyms are nouns, 926 items are verbs, 800 ones are adjectives, 501 cases are adverbs, 89 antonyms are pronouns and finally, 252 antonyms form idiomatic expressions. As far as the discourse function is concerned, 1843 antonyms are coordinated, 533 items are labelled 'extra', 313 cases transitional, 253 antonyms are idiomatic, 226 items are ancillary and 87 ones are comparatives. Hence, the coordinated discourse function ranks the highest one and the negated, transitional, idiomatic, ancillary and comparatives are followed respectively.  It is also shown that there is some relationship between specific discourse functions and grammatical frameworks. For example, the syntactic framework X and Y is frequent in coordinated discourse function. Likewise, it is revealed that there is a connection between some antonyms and the genre they appear. As one example, we may refer to the antonyms 'vaaqe'i (real) against 'majaazi' (virtual) which appear just in Persian virtual genre. Studies like this would help corpus linguists predict the genre of texts based on the existing antonyms.

The subject of this research is: "The Analysis of the Lak Students' Language transfer in Learning and Using Persian". This subject expresses the subjects under study, variables, description of the situation; that is the the descriptive analysis of the data. In this research the variables are: language transfer, Laki language as the first language (L1), Persian language as the second language (L2), learning and the use of Persian language. In the present study the researcher is looking for causes and types of language transfer from L1 into L2 and vice versa.The researcher has observed the use of Persian by educated and common Lak speakers in different situations, and has decided to investigate this subject. The general purpose of the present study is to analyze interlanguage of Lak learners in acquiring and using Persian. The researcher intends to discover the elements that these learners transfer from their L1 into the L2 in the course of making their interlanguage. Interlanguage refers to the middle phases between L1 and L2. Learner language is oral or written language that is produced by leaners. The role of interlanguage is providing data to study L2 learning. The purpose of this research is to describe and explain language learners' competence and development, and its growth over time. Competence can be analyzed only through a kind of performance. Transfer is a term used in applied linguistics to refer to a process in foreign language learning whereby learners carry over what they already know about their first language to their performance in their new language. Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) or - the influence of a person’s knowledge of one language on that person’s knowledge or use of another language-is a phenomenon that has been of interest to laypeople and scholars alike since antiquity and most likely ever since language evolved. Transfer phenomena often came to signify sloppiness, narrow-mindedness, and lack of mental clarity and sound thinking. (Jarvis and Pavlenko, 2008:1-2). These views were challenged in the 1940s and 1950s (Fries1940, Weinreich1953, Lado1957). Discussions of language transfer moved to a scholarly footing, legitimizing it as an unavoidable feature of language learning and use and exploring it as a linguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic phenomenon. Since the 1950s, a number of additional books have dealt extensively with transfer, including, in chronological order, Vildomec (1963), Gass and Selinker (1983), Kellerman and Sharwood Smith (1986), Ringbom (1987), Dechert and Raupach (1989), Gass and Selinker (1992), Sjoholm (1995), Jarvis (1998), Hufeisen, and Jessner (2001, 2003), Alonso (2002), Cenoz, Hufeisen, and Jessner (2003), Cook (2003), Arabski (2006), and Ringbom (2007). Language transfer affects all linguistic subsystems including pragmatics and rhetoric, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and orthography. Research on transfer, has had a discovery nature, and researchers have tended to follow a concatenative approach. According to Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008:4-8), the new era of research characterizes four features about language transfer: Jarvis and Pavlenko (2002) are among those who introduced bidirectional transfer. In the oral and written production of a user of L2, crosslinguistic influence can function in both directions simoltaniously, fromL1 to L2 and from L2 to L1. Bidirectionality refers to a two-way interaction between two linguistic systems of an L2 user. Bidirectional transfer enjoys a multicompetence framework that is a specific speaker-hearer with a unique linguistic system. Within this framework bidirectional crosslinguistic can be discussed and understood as a complex process which may affect not only additionally learned languages but also L1 competence. Conceptual transfer can be characterized as the hypothesis that certain instances of crosslinguistic influence in a person’s use of one language originate from the conceptual knowledge and patterns of thought that the person has acquired as a speaker of another language. Different researchers consider different causes for language transfer. Researchers like Corder (1983) are trying to explain transfer on the basis of communication. From this view point, transfer is either a performative phenomenon or a product of it. Ringbom (1992) also claimed that there is a relationship between transfer and learning. Transfer can occur as a result of differences and similarities between two languages. Major and Kim(1996) showed that Korean English learners lerned /z/ sound better than the similar sound /ʤ/.Some others believe that transfer works along with other causes. Sociolinguistics, markedness, prototypes, language distance, and factors of language development affect language transfer. In their revised position on transfer, Gass and Selinker (1993) state that it is not incompatible to think of L2 acquisition as being affected by two interrelated processes: first, the learner's build-up of a body of knowledge in which he or she tests hypotheses formed on the basis of the available L2 data and second, the learner's utilization of the knowledge of L1 and other languages known to him or her (Johnson and Johnson, 1999: 355). Learners, consciously or not, do not look for differences; they look for similarities wherever they can find them. In their search for ways of facilitating their learning task they make use of intralingual similarities, which are perceived from what they have already learned of the TL. He has shown that Swedish speakers learn many aspects of English vaster than those of Finish learners of English. He attributes these differences to the fact that Swedish and English are typologically closer. Speakers of Roman and Germanic languages have better understanding of English vocabulary than speakers of non-Indo-European languages.

The structure of stress patterns is comprised of two horizontal (compaction) and vertical (expansion) axes. Each axis is also has an outward level and an inward one. The two qualitative (compaction) and quantitative (expansion) ultra-values construct the outward level of axes, and values are put within those axes. Correlations between axes causes the production of meanings. Since an expansion and pressure relationship governs the frequency discourse of Surat al-Naba, it can be investigated via stress semiotics. We can face a live discourse in this Surat which has interpretable and fluid meanings according to receivers of the meanings. In the present study, schemas of the stress relationship in the discourse of Surat al-Naba’ is probed with the aim of identifying the discourse value of the surat. Since the direction of expansion and compaction in the discourse process of Surat al-Naba’ was changeable, we faced with three stress patterns rising, ascending and descending pitches of compaction and expansion interconnectedness types types which are explained in the stress patterns of Surat al-Naba’.

The aim of this research is to study conceptual metaphors of “sadness” and “happiness” as well as to compare them in the songs of Parvin Etesami (1906-1941) as an Iranian contemporary poet. In so doing, a number of 329 verses including at least one type of metaphor belonging to the domains of sadness and happiness were extracted and then analyzed in terms of types and frequency. It was found that metaphors of sadness are of higher frequency and of various types compared with those of happiness (63 vs. 32 cases). Analyzing the types of metaphors, the two domains showed similarities in the use of ontological and orientational metaphors as well as the use of source domains of time, space and healthiness. Moreover, the types of metaphors used in the corpus corresponds to a great extend to the universal list. The use of less abstract concrete concepts for source domain in order to better understanding of abstract target domain is the basic principle of cognitive linguistics.

This study is an attempt to explore the association between one major social class and part of its verbal behavior. This research focuses on analysis of the move structure of the abstracts of articles published in journals. The present study investigated 60 article abstracts written by Iranian university faculty members from humanities, hard science, and medical science faculties. In order to identify the kind and frequency of the moves in article abstracts, the study followed Dudley-Evans’ (1989) model. The collected corpus was initially coded by two coders, then the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was employed to estimate move differences. The results revealed that there were not any significant differences in moves one to five, however there were some significant differences concerning the existence and frequency of the sixth move and its sub-moves in the chosen abstracts written in these three disciplines. The findings of this study can be useful for improvement of writing abstracts by researchers.     In general terms, discourse analysis accounts for global features of text and the organization of ideas in writing. Global features of L2 written discourse, such as discourse moves, organization, and structuring, as well as attendant issues of clarity, explicitness, fluidity, and contents of writing represent broader and more abstract constructs than those commonly examined in analyses of text (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996; Kaplan, 2000). One important concept to be considered in this regard is genre. The aim of genre analysis is to recognize the moves and how these moves are recognized in a given genre. So, the move analysis should be on the functional rather than on the formal characteristics of linguistic data and it is a reliable indicator of discourse values in a majority of discourse contexts (Bhatia, 1993). Move distinguishing is an operational question and there is not always a one to one cprrespondence between formal and functional aspect of language use. It has been seen that a particular formal feature to serve one or more discourse values in different context may be served by two different formal realizations (Dudley-Evans, 1994).
Connor and Mauranen (1999) pointed out that “the identification of moves in a text depends on both the rhetorical purpose of the texts and the division of the text into meaningful units on the basis of linguistic clues, which included discourse markers (connectors and other metatextual signals), marked themes, tense and modality changes, and introduction of new lexical references” (Connor & Mauranen, 1999, p. 52). Explicit text divisions in the personal statement, namely, the use of section boundaries, paragraph divisions, and subheadings, may serve as textual marks for move recognition. As moves serve rhetorical purposes, the introduction of new themes and lexical references can usually imply the start of a new move. In addition, the identification and counting of T units, main clause and any subordinate clause or non-clausal structure attached to or embedded in a sentence, can help to break down the text into moves because this examination can help to locate places for change of topics and themes. The analysis of lexical devices also can help to analyze the moves (Connor & Mauranen, 1999).
Academic research papers consist of different parts such as the abstract, introduction, and literature review. Abstracts are one of the most important parts in research articles because they are the gates to the article, based on which the reader decides to get involved with the article or not. As many scholars have pointed out, article abstracts have become one of the most important genres in academic discourse (Staheli, 1986; Swales, 1990; Salager- Mayer, 1990; Salager-Mayer, 1992). Considering its importance, the study of the structure of the abstracts in research articles written by members of the academic community can be fruitful. Move analysis, as a branch of genre analysis, provides the means for the analysis of the moves of abstracts. Dudley-Evans (1989), by looking at move-structure in introduction to Master of Science dissertations, discovered a six-move structure. According to Porush (1995), although abstracts take up the major part of professional and scientific papers, their study or methodology are not sufficient.
To this end and through a descriptive analytic approach, the researchers in this study aimed to explore the association between one major social class and part of its verbal behavior. This research focused on analysis of the move structure of the abstracts of articles published in journals. The present study investigated 60 article abstracts written by university faculty members from humanities, hard science, and medical science faculties.
The participants in this study consisted of sixty faculty members form Islamic Azad University, who had published articles in academic journals. They were chosen on availability basis. They were all male, except two. The material analyzed in this study was sixty abstracts published in academic journals. Furthermore, the researcher employed Dudley-Evans’ Move analysis model (1989). This model consists of six moves, some of which are made up of some sub-moves. The collected corpus was initially coded by two coders, then the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was employed to estimate move differences. The results revealed that there were not any significant differences in moves one to five, however there were some significant differences concerning the existence and frequency of the sixth move and its sub-moves in the chosen abstracts.
The general findings of this study reveal that the abstracts written by the scholars of the mentioned faculties followed the recommendations found in the two standards of  ISO 214:1976 (en) Documentation and ANSI/NISO Z39.14-1997 (R2009), rather than Dudley-Evans’ (1989) or Swales’ (1990) models. In other words, the authors usually start their abstracts with a reference to the aim of their articles; they leave out the introduction of the general and specific topic; i.e. finding about the field of study and the general and specific field of research is considered as a responsibility of the readers. Therefore, in this regard, the abstracts follow a more reader-responsible model rather than a writer-responsible model. Furthermore, the niche of research is not among the moves with high frequency in the abstracts. However, there is a tendency to stating the aim of research and briefly describing the procedure carried out. Finally it should be noticed that the procedure is mentioned more clearly in the abstracts written by hard science, and medical science faculty members, rather than by the humanities ones.

A Cross-Linguistic Study of Near Synonymy of Visual Verbs in Persian, English, German and French Based on Frame Semantics Abstract Linguistic typology tries to investigate the linguistic universals and linguistic variation simultaneously. Lexical typology is significant since it shows how lexical varieties are shaped. Accordingly, the present paper aims at showing how Persian, English, French and German languages categorize words within the Perception-Visual subframe and uncover what similarities and differences exist between equivalent words in each of the mentioned languages. In order to find perception-visual lexical units, monolingual dictionaries are used; while for comparing words cross-linguistically, bilingual dictionaries and corpora are used. It is concluded that frame semantics is a suitable approach for explaining cross-linguistic variation and similarity since it simultaneously considers varieties and similarities. Results indicate that ‘see’ and its equivalents in German and French as well as Persian are the most unmarked word because it is almost used to express verities of visual concepts. The more marked the words are, the more variant the words are for a special feature. For the feature ‘looking stupidly’ or ‘viewing secretly’ as more marked domains compared to passive seeing, lexical variation is more considerable. 1. Introduction Linguistic typology tries to consider linguistic similarities and differences simultaneously. Lexical typology tries to compare lexical variety within languages (Croft, 2003). Although linguistic typology compares a large number of languages from different language families, the present paper used its critical tools for comparing languages from the same language family, i.e. Persian, English, French and German. This paper aims at uncovering how similar and different these languages are regarding the verbs related to the visual sense. For this purpose, frame semantics is used since it focuses on both language similarities (via frames) and linguistic differences (via Lexical Units). Based on frame semantics and lexical typology, the following questions are posed: (i) For each of these languages, how are near synonymous lexemes classified? (ii) Within the perception frame, do languages’ tendency are towards the universals or differences? (iii) What is the most unmarked word within the Perception Frame? How is linguistic variety connected to markedness? 2. Frame Semantics Frame semantics is a cognitive approach that searches for speakers’ background knowledge and experiences to define lexemes. In fact, this theory shows that linguistic elements invoke a frame (schema) in speakers’ mind based on their experiences and background knowledge. Within frame semantics, each word is defined within a particular frame. For instance, the radius is not comprehensible without referring back to the concept, circle (Fillmore, 1977a, b, c; 1986a, b; 1969; 2007; Fillmore & Atkins, 1992; 1994). Fillmore borrowed the concept frame from Minsky (1975). He (Fillmore, 1986a) mentions that frame semantics controls word and phrasal rules. Therefore, senses depend on frames (Fillmore, 1977c) and frames are the abstract perception, memory, experience and action (Fillmore, 1977a). This paper focuses on the perception frame that is borrowed from the English FrameNet. 3. Methodology For comparing purposes, firstly, the perception, perception-passive and perception-active frames are defined. Secondly, different words within the perception frame are extracted from the following monolingual dictionaries: - Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Hornby et al., 2000) - Oxford Duden German Dictionary (Duden et al. 1980) - Grand Dictionaire universal du XIXe siècle (Larousse, 1867) - Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary (Anvari, 2002) Thirdly, for a more accurate comparison, some simple words are selected from the English language. Then, their equivalents are searched within both the following bilingual dictionaries and thesaurus: Bilingual dictionaries: - Millenium English Persian Dictionary (Haghshenas et al., 2005) - The Concise Oxford-Duden German Dictionary (Clark & Thyen, 1998) - The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary (Corréard et al., 2001). Thesaurus: - Oxford Concise Thesaurus (Haweker & Waite, 2007) - The Cambridge French-English Thesaurus (Lamy, 1998) - Swann’s way (Webster’s German Thesaurus Edition) (Proust, 2006) - Persian Thesaurus (Fararuy, 2008) Fourthly, examples of different words are extracted from corpora to indicate what a word carries but is not mentioned in dictionaries. For this aim, the following corpora are used: - British National Corpus (2007) - Huge German Corpus (HGC) (Schmid, 1994) - Français Lexique (2001) - Bijan Khan Corpus (2011) Lastly, the words are compared about markedness to obtain a typological position of the mentioned languages, i.e. Persian, French and German. Note that the English language is omitted from our typological views since it is considered as constant. 4. Conclusion This paper concluded that, firstly, frame semantics is appropriate for cross-linguistic comparisons since it considers both similarities and differences. Secondly, via frame semantics, it is possible to redefine typological concepts such as markedness and economy which are simpler than the available definitions. Languages are not only internally and cross-linguistically different, but they are sometimes extra-linguistically different. Fourthly, languages have not defined language concepts based on other languages, but some concepts are culturally various than others. Lastly, from grammatical point of view, Persian tends to make more complex verbs than French and German.