@article { author = {صفوی, کورش}, title = {Spatial Interpretation of the Left-Right and Front-Back Axes in Persian}, journal = {Language Science}, volume = {1}, number = {1}, pages = {11-40}, year = {2014}, publisher = {Allameh Tabataba’i University}, issn = {2423-7728}, eissn = {2538-2551}, doi = {10.22054/ls.2014.25}, abstract = {This article studies the spatial interpretation of the left-right and front-back axes in Persian in the theoretical framework of Levinson (2003) and Danziger (2010). On the horizontal plane, there are three main Frames of Reference. Of these three, the Absolute FoR is not used routinely in Persian. The other two, the Relative and Intrinsic FoRs, can potentially be the interpretation of the two main axes of the horizontal plane. In order to obtain real data from the native speakers, the “Ball & Chair” game (Bohnemeyer, 2008) was used. Data analysis shows that in all the cases where the speaker’s description caused misunderstanding for the listener, the speaker’s intended interpretation has been relative, while the listener has understood them intrinsically. For the left-right axis, whenever the speaker has considered “[az negah-e] ma” redundant and has had it decreased from the sentence and used phrases such as “chap/rast-e sandali”, there has been a possibility of misunderstanding for the listener. However, when they have used it even in its decreased form of “chap/rast-e ma” the listener has well understood the intended relative meaning. According to the data, in Persian the absolute dominant usage of left and right is relative and only in special cases are they used intrinsically. The front-back axis is also used in the relative sense but with small dominance over intrinsic.}, keywords = {left-right axis,front-back axis,relative frame of reference,intrinsic frame of reference,Persian language}, title_fa = {کدام معنی؟}, abstract_fa = {در نوشتۀ حاضر به‌دنبال طرح مسأله‌‏ای هستم که سال‏هاست مرا درگیر خود کرده و هنوز در هیچ مقاله یا کتابی ندیده‏‌ام که کسی به آن پرداخته باشد. مسأله بر سر این است که اگر قرار باشد، مطالعۀ «معنی» پیچیده‏‌ترین بخش زبان‏‌شناسی را به خود اختصاص دهد، در هریک از شاخه‏‌های مطالعۀ زبان، کدام «معنی» باید مدّ نظر قرار گیرد. برای دستیابی به پاسخی مقبول برای این پرسش، ابتدا به معرفی عمده‌‏ترین نظریه‌‏هایی خواهم پرداخت که ادعای مطالعۀ «معنی» را داشته و دارند. سپس نارسایی‌‏های هریک از این دیدگاه‏‌ها را برخواهم شمرد، و در نهایت معلوم خواهم کرد که دست‌کم به باور من، در مطالعۀ بخش‌‏ها و سطوح مطالعۀ زبان، ما نیازمند کدام «معنی» هستیم.}, keywords_fa = {معنی,معنی‏‌شناسی واژگانی,معنی ثابت,معنی منعطف}, url = {https://ls.atu.ac.ir/article_25.html}, eprint = {https://ls.atu.ac.ir/article_25_5300ba8850b4a14d83a43dbd9ba600ee.pdf} }