پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 911 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,492 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,131,368 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,581,349 |
تبیین اختیاریبودن حرکت فعل در جملات پرسشی آری ـ نه در زبان فارسی: رویکردی کمینهگرا | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 9، شماره 25، بهمن 1396، صفحه 191-216 اصل مقاله (680.95 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2016.2443 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حسین مغانی* 1؛ شجاع تفکری رضایی2 | ||
| 1پژوهشگر مستقل | ||
| 2دانشگاه رازی | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مقالة حاضر میکوشد تا در چارچوب برنامة کمینهگرا (Chomsky, 1995, 2000, 2001a-b)، اختیاریبودن فرایندی را در فارسی تبیین نماید که بهموجب آن، فعل در جملات پرسشی آری ـ نه، ضمن ابقا در جای اصلی خود، قادراست به جایگاه آغازین جمله نیز جابهجا شود تا تعبیر پرسشی جمله را فراهم سازد. در این راستا، نخست تصریح میشود که اختیاری بودن پیشگذاری فعل در جملات پرسشی آری ـ نه در زبان فارسی متضمن نوعی تناقض در زمینة قدرت دو ارزشی مشخصهها در برنامة کمینهگرا است. در ادامه، با ارائة یک راهکار جایگزین، انگیزة پیشگذاری فعل در ساختهای مذکور را بازبینی مشخصة [- تأکید] و نیز مشخصة قوی [اصل فرافکنی گسترده](Chomsky, 2000, 2001a-b) در جایگاه هستة گروه تأکید قلمداد میکنیم.در تحلیل اخیر، پیشگذاری فعل در جملات مورد بحث از یک طرف و ابقای آن درجایخود، ازطرفدیگر، بهترتیب حاصل گزینش و عدم گزینش مشخصة [اصل فرافکنی گسترده] از واژگان توسط هستة گروه تأکید است. بدین ترتیب، در ساختهای گروه نخست، پس از بازبینی مشخصة قوی [اصل فرافکنی گسترده] در جایگاه هستة گروه تأکید، بهدلیل عدم امکان حرکت فعل به هستة گروه متممنما جهت بازبینی مشخصة [- پرسشی] بهعلت حضور متممنمای «که» در این جایگاه، مشخصة [- پرسشی] هستة گروه متممنما و مشخصة [+ پرسشی] فعل در جایگاه هستة گروه تأکید از طریق سازوکار مطابقه همدیگر را بازبینی میکنند. در مقابل، در ساختهای گروه دوم، این مطابقه و بازبینی میان مشخصة [- پرسشی] هستة گروه متممنما و مشخصة [+ پرسشی] فعل در جای خود در هستة گروه فعلی انجام میشود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| جملات پرسشی آری ـ نه؛ پیشگذاری فعل؛ اختیاری بودن؛ کمینهگرا؛ مشخصة [اصل فرافکنی گسترده] | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| On the Optionality of Verb-Preposing in Yes-No Questions in Persian: A Minimalist Approach | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hossein Moghani1؛ Shoja Tafakkori Rezayi2 | ||
| 1Independent Researcher | ||
| 2Razi University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The present paper examines a phenomenon by means of which the main verb in yes-no questions in the spoken form of Persian can either optionally move to the front of the sentence or remain in-situ, intending to yield an interrogative interpretation. However, as the latest approaches to the study of the linguistic systems do not opt for optionality, the issue of the optionality of verb movement in such structures, which seems to be an unfortunate drawback, should be settled down in some way or another. More specifically, considering the theoretical framework of the paper, which is the feature checking mechanism within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1981; 1982; 1993; 1995; 2000; 2001a-b), the optionality of verb-preposing in yes-no questions entails a contradiction in terms of the two-valued feature strength in the feature checking theory. A feature should be either [+ value] or [- value], and there is no in-between feature value. That is, a syntactic feature is either strong or weak, making the constituent it is associated with either move or remain in situ. Consequently, the optional movement of an element in syntax cannot be analyzed as having a strong and a weak feature simultaneously. To do away with this inconsistency regarding verb-preposing in yes-no questions in Persian, this paper proposes an alternative approach relying on the notion of Extended Projection Principle ([EPP]) feature. The EPP is considered by Chomsky (2000, 2000a) as a feature optionally assigned to the head of a syntactic phrase, providing the necessary impetus for the overt movement of such a projection or the constituent thereof. In fact, the EPP feature is taken to be a syntactic mechanism or a strong syntactic feature which induces the overt movement of a constituent to satisfy certain semantic and functional requirements. Turning to the Persian data, the adopted approach in this article considers checking the strong EPP-feature on the head of the focus phrase (FocP) as the trigger for verb-preposing in such constructions. In this approach, the difference between the verb fronting in yes-no questions, on the one hand, and its remaining in-situ, on the other hand, reduces to the optional selection of the EPP-feature from the lexicon by the head of the FocP. In the former case, after the verb has checked the strong EPP-feature on the head of FocP through movement to the Foco, it fails to move on to the head of CP due to the presence of the complementizer “ke” (that) on the Co. Subsequently, the [-Q] feature on the Co is matched with the [+Q] feature of the verb through agree, hence checking the [-Q] feature of the Co. In the latter case, on the contrary, the [-Q] feature on the Co is checked against the [+Q] feature on the verb through agree only, with no movement involved. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Yes-No Questions, Verb-Preposing, Optionality, Minimalist Program, EPP-Feature | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
انوشه، مزدک (1389). «رویکردی مشخصهبنیاد به فرایندهای مبتداسازی و تأکید در زبان فارسی». پژوهشهای زبانی. دورة اول. شمارة اول. صص 28-1. درزی، علی و مزدک انوشه (1389). «حرکت فعل اصلی در فارسی: رویکردی کمینهگرا». زبانپژوهی. سال دوم. شمارة سوم. صص 55-21. راسخمهند، محمد (1385). «ارتباط قلب نحوی و تأکید در زبان فارسی». دستور. شماره دوم. صص 33-20. Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1998). "Parametrizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement and EPP Checking". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 16 (3). pp. 491-539. Anousheh, M. (2010). "A Feature-based Approach to Topicalization and Focalization in Persian". Journal of Language Researches. 1 (1). pp. 1-28. [In Persian]
Beninca, P. (2006). "A Detailed Map of the Left Periphery of Medieval Romance". Cross-Linguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture. R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E, Herburger & P. Portner (eds.). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. pp. 53–86.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theoryof Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993). "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory". The Views from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). "Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework". Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.). Cambridge/London: MIT Press. pp. 89-155.
Chomsky, N. (2001a). "Beyond Explanatory Adequacy". MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.
Chomsky, N. (2001b). "Derivation by Phase". Ken Hale: A Life in Language. M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press. pp. 1-52.
Cognola, F. (2013). Syntactic Variation and Verb Second: A German Dialect in Northern Italy. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
Darzi, A. & M. Anousheh (2010). "The Movement of the Main Verb in Persian: A Minimalist Approach". Language Research. 2 (3). pp. 21-55. [In Persian]
Giurgea, I. & E. M. Remberger (2012). "Verum Focus and Polar Questions". Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XIV, 2. pp. 21-40.
Hornstein, N., J. Nunes & K. K. Grohmann (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karimi, S. & A. Taleghani (2007). "Wh-Movement, Interpretation, and Optionality in Persian". Clausal and Phrasal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. S. Karimi, V. Samiian, & W. Wilkins (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 167-187.
Karimi, S. (1994). "Word Order Variations in Modern Contemporary Persian". Persian Studies in North America: A festschrift for Professor M.A. Jazayery, Iranbooks. M. Marashi (ed.). pp. 43-73.
Karimi, S. (2001). "Persian Complex DPs: How Mysterious Are They?". Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 46 (1-2). pp. 63-96.
Karimi, S. (2003). "Focus Movement and the Nature of Uninterpretable Features". Formal Approach to Functional Focus. A. Carnie, H. Harley & M. Willie (eds.). John Benjamins. pp. 297-306.
Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kidwai, A. (2004). "The Topic Interpretation in Universal Grammar". Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. V. Dayal & A. Mahajan (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 253-290.
Lasnik, H. (1999). "On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement". Linguistic Inquiry. 30 (1). pp. 197-218.
Lasnik, H. (2001). "A Note on the EPP". Linguistic Inquiry. 32(2). pp. 356-362.
Lasnik, H. (2002). "The Minimalist Program in Syntax". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. pp. 432-437.
Miyagawa, S. (2003). "A-Movement, Scrambling and Options without Optionality". Word Order and Scrambling. S. Karimi (ed.). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 177-200.
Miyagawa, S. (2005). "On the EPP". Perspectives on Phases. M. McGinnis & N. Richards (eds.). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridgem MA: MITWPL. pp. 201-236.
Miyagawa, S. (2011)." Optionality". The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. C. Boeckx (ed.). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 354-376.
Mohr, S. (2005). Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions: Impersonal Constructions in the Germanic Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego (2001). "T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences". Ken Hale: A Life in Language. M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 355-426.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raghibdoust, S. (1993). Interrogative Constructions in Persian. M.A Thesis. Canada: University of Ottawa.
Rasekh Mahand, M. (2006). "The Relationship between Scrambling and Focus in Persian". Grammar. 2. pp. 20-33. [In Persian]
Rezai, V. & M. Hooshmand (2012). "Focus Structure in Persian Interrogative Sentences: An RRG Analysis". English Language Teaching. 5(8). pp. 130-145.
Rizzi, L. (1997). "The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery". Elements of Grammar. L. Haegeman (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp.281-337.
Seuren, P.A.M. (2004). Chomsky’s Minimalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sheehan, M. (2010). "Free Inversion in Romance and the Null Subject Parameter". Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (eds.). Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 231-262.
Taleghani, A. (2008). The Interaction of Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Westergaard, M. & K. Bentzen (2007). "The (Non-)effect of Input Frequency on the Acquisition of Word Order in Norwegian Embedded Clauses". Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition: Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept. I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina (eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 271-306.
Zeijlstra, H. H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Ph.D. Diss. University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT Publications. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,258 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 465 |
||
