حروف ربط

"Conjunction and disjunction" is considered one of the most sensitive subjects of the science of semantics, which is important in understanding the syntactic and rhetorical details of literary works, and has always had a special place among traditional and modern rhetoricians. The story of Bijan and Manijeh from Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and Asadi Tusi's Garshaspnameh can be considered the most important epic works in Persian literature which will provide researchers with many capacities in the comparative analysis of syntactic rhetoric in reflecting the grammatical and rhetorical features of the two works. In this research, in order to understand the intentions and rhetorical meanings hidden in two works, the type of construction of semantic units at different levels such as clause, sentence, verse and even verses with related and interdependent meaning (enjambment) and the combination of each of these levels have been investigated. In this regard, we have studied the coherence of the text through the continuity or discontinuity of the rhetorical meanings in each of the mentioned levels, and by specifying the distribution of conjunctions and knowing their types, we have examined and compared their rhetorical functions in two works. The results of the research indicate that Ferdowsi and Asadi Tusi, by creating a kind of temporal and spatial connection and cause-and-effect link between the sentences and by benefiting from all kinds of subordinating and dependent connections (conjunctions) in conjunctions as well as observing the temporal and logical order between the sentences in the disjunctions, have created a strong and logical link in the text and a special semantic coherence in the chain of narration of events.

This work, in the opinion of Mauri (2008), Mauri & Ramat (2011), and Mauri & van der Auwera (2012), while maintaining a deep broader perspective, investigates coding of the coordination relations under the labels ‘conjunction’, ‘adversativity’, and ‘disjunction’ in addition to adverbial connectives, which represent the essence of coordination being the conceptual juxtaposition of co-equal structures, namely ‘conditional’, ‘temporal’, ‘causal’, and ‘purposive’ in Târikh-e Bal’ami (11th century BC). Moreover, the present contribution will analyze complementation markers and the less studied coordinating markers, to be specific, conclusives, correlatives and similatives (in line with Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998)). The data revealed that coordination relations in Târikh-e Bal’ami, belonging to 10 centuries before, portray deep similarities with the coordination concepts and markers of Today New Persian. However, the causative coordination markers namely irâ and be suy-e ân ke and adversative markers namely pas and va showed certain differences.

In the present study, we have studied and compared the subordinate relative clauses in complex sentences in Persian and Russian. A relative clause is the same adjective but, unlike adjective, it appears as a dependent clause in the complex sentence. In this paper, we examine the types of Persian subordinate relative clauses and their comparison with the Russian subordinate relative clauses, the subordinate conjunctions in these two languages, the position and movement of these clauses in Russian and Persian sentences. The purpose of this study is to study, analyze and descriptive accurate comparison of the subordinate relative clauses in Persian and Russian and to extract and analyze their similarities and differences in these two languages, in order to facilitate the teaching of Russian complex sentences to Persian language students. The positions of the subordinate relative clauses are identical in the Russian and Persian complex sentences, but unlike in the Persian language, these clauses do not have the ability to move from near the reference word to the end of the sentence. Their classification, punctuation, and the subordinate conjunctions in the subordinate relative clauses in these two languages are different.

The present research aims at investigating the polysemy of the conjunctions "Ɂæma" and "væli" in persian language based on principled – polysemy approach (Evans & Green, 2006).The methodology used in this qualitative research is descriptive -analytic, and its type is corpus-based. the selected corpus has been obtained from interviewing with Persian speakers, newspapers and Persian grammarians books, analyzed by using cognitive approach, and their originality have been approved completely. It's worth mentioning that the authors have limited only a few samples of each meaning for distinct meanings of these two conjunctions, and each one has been drawn into a semantic network separately. This study has been done to explore and determine the distinct meanings of the conjunctions "Ɂæma" and "væli" in Persian language within principled-polysemy approach. Thus, the author has represented them in a semantic network separately. In this regard, the research results showed that the prototypical meaning of the conjunction /Ɂæma/ coming to the speaker's mind immediately /væli/ has fourteen distinct meanings and two semantic clusters in its own semantic network. Also, the prototypical meaning of the conjunction /vali/ is /Ɂæma/ having eight distinct meanings and two semantic clusters in its own semantic network.

Some linguistic forms may become polysemous through language changes and lose their core meaning. Sometimes these forms may stay as relics in different constructions and their core meaning is not understandable without historical studies. In Persian language, “var / bar” means “side, beside”. “var / bar” has been varah- in Avestan language, and "war" in Middle Persian, which used to mean "chest". In Dari Persian (prose and poetry in the Islamic era), meaning of "bar" has changed to "embrace, side, beside, in somebody’s presence" and also "front" through broadening and metonymy. Today, “var / bar” is used to construct words such as “barobazu” (shoulders and arm), baroru (face)" and phrases such “dar bar dâštan” (include), and although it is morphologically distinguishable for Persian speakers, it is semantically opaque. These compounds and syntactic structures are in primary stages of lexicalization in Persian. In “vare dele kasi nešastan” (being with someone), “var” is a preposition and its grammaticalization process is in intermediate stage.

This research aims at analyzing and comparing the development of grammatical cohesive devices (reference, conjunction, ellipsis and substitution) in Persian-speaking students’ written discourse at primary level (9 to 12 years old) according to logical meta-function introduced in Halliday and Matthiessen’s systemic functional grammar (2004), by using a descriptive analytical method. 45 students (boys) studying at primary school (4th, 5th and 6th grades) in 2014-15 were selected through random-sampling. Two written tests in the form of picture stories were administered for gathering data from their writings. Frequency, percentage and pattern of development of using grammatical cohesive devices were compared in seeking the answer to the question of how age affects the frequency and the variety of grammatical cohesive devices. The frequency of grammatical cohesive devices among the 4th, 5th and 6th grade students was 1285, 1866, 2198 respectively. So the use of grammatical cohesive devices proved to increase in higher grades. Based on the Kruskal–Wallis test, the differences were significant (p≤ 0/05). The distribution of different cohesive devices showed some changes as the grades moved higher. In addition, more sophisticated devices were noticed . Personal references were the most and comparative references were the least frequent devices in the category of reference. In conjunction, additive, adversative, spatio- temporal and causal- conditional conjunction were the most and the least frequent ones. In ellipsis and substitution, nominal phrase deletion was the most, and verb phrase deletion was the least frequent one. The percentage of different devices were as follows: reference (62%), conjunction (22%), ellipsis and substitution (16%).

In the present study, monolingual Persian-speaking children's mastery of conjunctives and pronominalization as two cohesive devices are investigated within the theoretical framework of cohesion by Halliday and Hassan (1976). To this aim, 80 children in four age groups of 3, 5, 7, 9 were selected from 2 kindergartens and 4 elementary schools in Tehran and were compared with a group of 20 adults as a control group. To investigate the performance of children in the use of these cohesive devices, two narrative production tests in the form of picture story books were administered. The findings of the present study indicated showed that three year old children used a nominal strategy and used temporal conjunctions to create cohesion in stories. Five year old children used a large amount of temporal conjunctions. Their stories were organized properly with the use of thematic-subject strategy. From seven years old onwards, children's narratives became more complex and the variety of connectives increases significantly. Children make use of differential linguistic markers (full anaphoric strategy) to structure their narratives as linguistic whole. They use pronouns to maintain referent and at the same time, they tried to provide clear and unambiguous reference to characters in the story by using nominal form to switch referents.

This study investigated the implicature stemming from æmma (‘but’). To this end, two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, participants were presented with 24 short stories including “p æmma q” constructions. The p and q arguments were either sensible or absurd. The participants were asked to indicate the appropriate conclusion introduced by by pæs (‘so’/’then’) and ba-in-hal (‘nevertheless’). In the second experiment, the same 24 stories were used as in the first experiment, however after each construction, participants did not have to give the appropriate ‘pæs’ or ‘ba-in-ha’l conclusion but simply had to tick yes or no and justify their answer. The results of the first experiment, showed that in general, the inference of the participants were mainly based on the existence of ‘æmma’ however the content of p and q arguments played an important role. In the second experiment, the justifications provided by the participants showed that whenever the p-argument was not pertinent and an inference based on ‘æmma’ would result in an absurd conclusion, they referred to the content of the arguments and selected the implication from the p-argument.

A sentence is the most complete syntactic unit of a language. The construction of a sentence is the most comprehensive, controversial and fascinating syntactic issue in the language grammar. The message or intention is usually conveyed through a sentence. In fact, the communicative function of a language is carried out via a sentence. A sentence can be classified in to different categories from different perspectives: semantically, constructively or performatively either with a verb or without a verb and also with regard to the construction.
With regard to the construction, a sentence is either simple or compound. A simple sentence is the one with a complete meaning which only has one verb. It must be born in mind that a sentence is a complete unit whit meaning and there can be a hesitation after that. There for units of speech that have a verb without a complete meaning and there can be no silence or hesitation after them cannot be regarded as a sentence. Since they are dependent upon another sentence to be completed. They are called phrases. Such phrases can be incorporated in compound sentences make main and subordinate clauses. Compound sentences are widely discussed whit in grammatical constructions, but their types and that how have been built their various constructions are less adequately discussed.
With regard to the manner of construction of compound sentences, the widest linguistic amenities can be observed in the sentences. There is not such complexity or disagreement over simple sentences but compound sentences have been less adequately investigated and there is room for more discussion and debate. Because, in some grammars, without considering the construction criteria, all sentences that are connected to one another, whit connectives are called compound sentences. This paper has precisely investigated compound sentences and has elaborated on the construction criteria of compound sentences.
The study has also pointed to the mistakes of some of the grammars. This research project has for the first time introduced constructive models of compound sentences in a comprehensive research taking in to account the tense of the verbs. The primary question in this research project is which kind of sentences can be considered as compound and what is the constructive of such a sentence? When defining a compound sentences, grammarians either shave the same beliefs or differ in their ideas. But all grammarians agree to the fact that a compound sentences has more than one verb. Different definitions are due to different criteria adapted in constructing a compound sentences. To construct a noun, and adjective, a verb and a sentence we should take similar and precise criteria to our consideration. In the grammatical units of noun, adjectives, and verbs construction means connecting two or more parts that can convey one similar meaning and its parts are dependent upon one another.
In the construction of compound sentences there must be the same criteria so that its applications can be truly recognized and identified just like the previously mentioned grammatical units. The first step to arrive at a criterion in defining and identifying compound sentences, is to separate this discussion from connective sentences that are relate to each other with connectives are called connective sentences. But sentences which are constructed with dependent making connectives and their parts are dependent upon one another are called compound sentences. Therefore the signs of compound sentences with regard to constructions and the meaning of criterion are as follows:1) They have more than one verb.
2) The consistence of two or more dependent phrases.
3) Phrases construct a complete sentences all together and convey one similar message.
4) One of the phrases is the main clause and the other one is the subordinate one.
5) The phrases or subordinate clauses can be related to one of the major parts and they can take a syntactic role as for the subordinate clause.
6) In compound sentences there are dependent connectives sentences, such as until, however, if, that.
7) The sign of dependence or being subordinate clauses is the existence of connectives.
8) Phrases or clauses in the compound sentences have no authority or independence and there is a pause at the end of the sentence. Therefore, a compound sentences consist of two or more dependent clauses and conveys one similar meaning or message. Compound sentences are so wide and various in Persian. What we mean by wide is their multiplicity and what is meant by various is that there are too many variants construction of different verbs. That’s why they are called dangling. Contrary to the construction model of simple sentences that is few than 30. Construction models of compound sentences are too many.
This paper has investigated the constructions of modern Persia sentences and some sentences from ancient text that’s are similar to todays’ sentences. 193 models for the construction of compound sentences are extracted and introduced. They has been called floating because of their multiplicity and variety of the construction of models and verb tense use. The results indicate that there are different kinds of verb in the construction of compound sentences and the construction model for compound sentences is so fluid and flouting. These construction can be used according to purpose, use, message, semantic value variety and the tonality. In some compound sentences and the variety in the construction of such sentences indicated that Persian language enjoys great. Capacity and capability in the construction sentences. Such sentences are indicative of the flexibility, volatility, and wide amenity of Persian language in sentences construction.