| 520 |
|
|
|a إن من أهم المشكلات التي تواجه بحاث اللغات المقارنة هي مشكلة "المسميات" ولعل ذلك يعود إلى أن كل لغة طبيعتها الخاصة. ومصطلحاتها الخاصة وإطارها النظري الخاص الأمر الذي قد لا يكون مرضيا في وصف غيرها من اللغات. وقد ينجم عن ذلك الخلاف على المسميات بين اللغات والذي بدوره يؤدي إلى جدل لا يفيد المجالات المنشودة للبحث. وهذه الورقة تناقش ظاهرة "التوافق في اللغة". واستخدامنا هنا لمصطلح التوافق قد لا يكون استخداما دقيقا لأن التوافق هو نوع من أنواع هذه الظاهرة Linguistic agreement. والتوافق ظاهرة موجودة في جميع اللغات ولكن مع هذا فإن تحديد هويتها بالضبط ليس بالأمر السهل وذلك بسبب الاهتمام الذي تحظي به في مجالات دراسة اللغة مثل؛ علمي النحو والصرف وعلم الدلالة وأيضا في مجال فروع العلوم التطبيقية التي تخص اللغة مثل تعليم اللغة، والترجمة، وغيرها، فأصبح كل مجال يشير إلى هذه الظاهرة باستعمال مسمياته الخاصة ولكي نتجاوز هذه العقبة (عقبة المسميات) فان هذه الورقة تنظر إلى ظاهر التوافق في اللغة العربية من منظور دراسة علم اللغة النوعي linguistic typology الذي ينظر إلى هذه الظاهرة في لغات عدة ذات أصول مختلفة لمعرفة العناصر التي تشكل هذه ظاهرة.
|b The notion of agreement is one that has been notoriously difficult to define. At least two factors have contributed to this difficulty. First, there is the problem of separating agreement from other allied but different phenomenon, mainly concord, and co-reference and to a lesser extent government. These terms have led to considerable confusion which "goes back to the Medieval Latin grammars" (Mel'čuk, 1993:308) and which has transpired in contemporary literature since Bloomfield (1933). Secondly, the interest that agreement has attracted not just from core linguistic areas of enquiry (morphology, syntax and semantics), but also from applied disciplines such as language acquisition / learning, computational linguistics and translation has complicated the matter even further (Corbett, 2003). As a result, researchers from different backgrounds could look at the same instance of the phenomenon and see different facets as the essential ones, and often end up confusing their colleagues by using terminology which embodies particular traditions. Because of these two factors, the term "agreement" has come to mean different things to different groups of researchers with different sets of research interests; both in terms of the phenomena that it covers, and in terms of the theoretical frames and the terminology they use to refer to it. For those of us who are working in the area of comparative / contrastive English/Arabic studies, whether it be in a purely theoretical linguistic context or in an applied context such as language acquisition/learning or translation, disagreement on what agreement is, what phenomena it covers and on the terminology used to describe it is unfortunately common place. Given our different academic backgrounds and research interests and the differences in the grammatical tradition of the two languages (English and Arabic), disagreement of this sort is inevitable. However, if there is to be any meaningful cross-linguistic and/or inter-disciplinary research exchange, we must first agree on what it is that we are disagreeing about. To this effect, this paper aims to guide us towards a consensus on what agreement is by proposing a working definition and framework of terms bases on typological work carried out by Barlow and Ferguson (1988) and Corbett (1979, 2001, 2003, 2006).
|
