[Texto del Resumen de la tesis, p. iii]

Este estudio pretende comparar los refranes equivalentes en inglés, persa y español basándose en la https://www.google.com/search?q=Gram%C3%... target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gramática sistémico-funcional (SFG, por sus siglas en ingles) de Halliday (1994). La motivación para utilizar la SFG en este estudio es doble. En primer lugar, si bien existen algunos estudios comparativos que utilizan la SFG, no se ha encontrado ningún estudio sobre el análisis de refranes que aborde los tres idiomas: español, inglés y persa. En segundo lugar, el uso de la SFG para analizar cláusulas es una herramienta eficiente para investigar cuán similares pueden ser los idiomas. La hipótesis básica que se prueba aquí se basa en la premisa de que los refranes equivalentes deberían ser similares sintáctica, semántica y pragmáticamente, aunque es obvio que pueden tener una mayor similitud en relación con sus propiedades semánticas, debido a las diferencias estructurales que muestran las tres lenguas y a los distintos condicionantes culturales que las rodean.

El corpus de este estudio consta de 774 refranes equivalentes en los tres idiomas: 258 refranes en inglés, 258 refranes en persa y 258 refranes en español. Los refranes se seleccionan de diccionarios monolingües de refranes. El análisis se realizó sobre las https://www.google.com/search?q=metafunc... target="_blank" rel="noopener">tres metafunciones de Halliday (1994): la ideacional, la interpersonal y la textual.

Aunque los tres corpus muestran un resultado similar en relación con las tres metafunciones, el análisis ideacional muestra una mayor similitud semántica entre el inglés y el persa con respecto a los tipos de participantes. El análisis interpersonal muestra unos resultados similares en los tres idiomas, lo que implica que los tres idiomas están orientados a transmitir información o a afirmar un enunciado, más que a solicitar información o a expresar mandatos, debido al mayor uso de cláusulas declarativas, lo que significa que los tres corpus son pragmáticamente equivalentes. El análisis textual muestra una mayor proximidad entre los corpus en inglés y persa en relación con los tipos de tema, el participante como tema y la circunstancia como rema, lo que significa que el inglés y el persa son más similares sintácticamente.

En general, los resultados confirman que, aunque se sigue una tendencia similar en los tres corpus pragmáticamente, el inglés y el persa resultan ser más similares sintácticamente y semánticamente.

https://repositorio.uam.es/entities/publ... target="_blank" rel="noopener">Más información

---------------------------

[Texto from the Doctoral Thesis Abstract, p. v]

This study seeks to compare the equivalent proverbs in English, Persian, and Spanish based on https://www.google.com/search?q=Systemic... target="_blank" rel="noopener">Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) of Halliday (1994). The motivation for using SFG in this study is two-fold. First of all, while there exist a few comparative studies using SFG, no study was found on the proverb analysis dealing with the three languages of English, Persian and Spanish. Secondly, using SFG to analyse clauses is an efficient tool to investigate how similar languages might be. The basic hypothesis tested here rests on the premise that equivalent proverbs should be syntactically, semantically and pragmatically similar, although it is evident that they may exhibit greater similarity in terms of their semantic properties, owing to the structural differences among the three languages as well as the various cultural constraints surrounding them. 

The corpus for this study consists of 774 equivalent proverbs across the three languages: 258 English proverbs, 258 Persian proverbs and 258 Spanish proverbs. The proverbs are selected from monolingual proverb dictionaries. The analysis was carried out on the https://www.google.com/search?q=metafunc... target="_blank" rel="noopener">three metafunctions of Halliday (1994): the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual.

Although the three corpora show a similar result regarding the three metafunctions, the ideational analysis shows more semantic similarity between English and Persian with respect to participant types. The interpersonal analysis shows similar results across the three languages construing that the three languages are informationally oriented, in the sense that they tend to convey information or assert a statement rather than to request information or issue commands, due to higher use of declarative clauses, which means the three corpora are pragmatically equivalent. Textual analysis shows more proximity between English and Persian corpora in terms of Theme types, participant as Theme and circumstance as Rheme, which means English and Persian are more similar syntactically.

Overall, the results confirm that although a similar trend is followed across the three corpora pragmatically, English and Persian prove to be more similar syntactically and semantically. 

https://repositorio.uam.es/entities/publ... target="_blank" rel="noopener">More information

Resumen

Summary

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Abbreviations

Introduction
1.1. Research Topic
1.2. State of the Art
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. Hypotheses
1.3.2. Research Questions
1.4. Typological Description of Persian, English, and Spanish
1.5. Organization of the Dissertation

2. Literature Review
2.1. Studies on the Defining Properties of Proverbs
2.1.1. Characteristics of English Proverbs
2.1.2. Characteristics of Spanish Proverbs
2.1.3. Characteristics of Persian Proverbs
2.2. Studies on the Structure of Proverbs
2.2.1. The Structure of English Proverbs
2.2.2. The Structure of Spanish Proverbs
2.2.3. The Structure of Persian Proverbs
2.3. Studies on the Analysis of the Metafunctions of the Systemic Functional Grammar

3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)
3.1.1. The Conception of Language
3.1.2. Three-phased Stages for the Development of Systemic Functional Grammar
3.1.3. The Essence of Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG)
3.2. A Comparative Analysis of the Two Versions of the Systemic Functional Grammar
3.2.1. Differences Related to the Functions of Language
3.2.2. Differences Regarding the Structure of the System
3.3. Reasons for Choosing the Hallidayan Systemic Functional Grammar

4. Methodology
4.1. Materials
4.2. Data Collection Method
4.3. Unit of Analysis
4.4. Data Analysis
4.5. Challenges of Data Collection and Data Analysis

5. Analysis and Discussion
5.1. Analysis of TRANSITIVITY
5.1.1. Processes
5.1.2. Participants
5.1.3. Circumstances
5.1.4. Summary of the Results of the Analysis of the TRANSITIVITY System in the Proverbs and Comparison with the Results of Previous Studies
5.2. Analysis of MOOD
5.2.1. Mood Types
5.2.2. Summary of the Results of the Analysis of the MOOD System in the Proverbs and Comparison with the Results of Previous Studies
5.3. Analysis of THEME
5.3.1. Theme Types
5.3.2. Summary of the Results of the Analysis of the THEME System in the Proverbs and Comparison with the Results of Previous Studies
5.3.3. Process in Theme and Rheme
5.3.4. Participant in Theme and Rheme
5.3.5. Circumstance in Theme and Rheme
5.3.6. Summary of the Results of the Analysis of the Elements of the TRANSITIVITY System in the Theme and Rheme of the Proverbs and Comparison with the Results of Previous Studies
5.4. Discussion
5.4.1. Discussion of Process Types
5.4.2. Discussion of Participant Types
5.4.3. Discussion of Circumstance Types
5.4.4. Discussion of Mood Types
5.4.5. Discussion of Theme Types
5.4.6. Discussion of the Distribution of Process Types in Theme and Rheme
5.4.7. Discussion of the Distribution of Participant Types in Theme and Rheme
5.4.8. Discussion of the Distribution of Circumstance Types in the Theme and Rheme
5.4.9. Discussion of the Grammatical Properties of the Proverbs
5.4.10. Discussion of the Correlation between the Linguistic and Sociocultural Characteristics

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Limitations of the Present Study

6.2. The Contribution of this Study

6.3. Implications for Future Work

7. Conclusiones

7.1. Las Limitaciones del Presente Estudio

7.2. La Contribución de este Estudio

7.3. Implicaciones para Trabajos Futuros

References

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C