نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

در این مقاله به تبیین دو مشخصة بارز زبان­های ضمیرانداز یعنی فقدان فاعل واژگانی و جابه­جایی آزادانةفاعل و فعل در زبان فارسی بر اساس پادتقارن پویا می­پردازیم.این دو ویژگی محصول جانبی نقطة تقارن هستند. ضمیر فاعلی پنهان ضمیری ضعیف و یک گروه حرف تعریف است که پس از ادغام با گروه فعلی و تشکیل نقطةتقارن در صورت آوایی حذف می­گردد. این امر توجیه­گر ضمیراندازی است. جایگاه اصلی فاعل در ساخت­های متعدی و غیرکنایی در مشخصگر فعل سبک و در ساخت­های غیرمفعولی مشخصگر فعل واژگانی است. در تمامی این جایگاه­ها شاهد نقطة تقارنی خواهیم بود که می­تواند به دو صورت شکسته شود؛ یا با جابه­جایی فعل و یا با جابه­جایی فاعل. همین امر، جابه­جایی آزادانة فاعل و فعل را توجیه می­کند. در فاعل پیش­فعلی حرف تعریف در جایگاه مشخصگر گروه زمان و در صورت تکیه­بر بودن در جایگاه مشخصگر گروه کانون می­نشیند. در فاعل پس­فعلی در ساختارهای غیرمفعولی، فعل از درون فعل واژگانی تیره به صورت افزوده با فعل سبک ادغام می­شود و در ساختارهای غیرکنایی و متعدی فعل از درون گروه فعل واژگانی به درون هستة زمان حرکت می­کند.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Dynamic Antisymmetry Approach to pro-drop in Persian

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ahmadreza Sharifipur shirazi
  • Jalal Rahimian

Shiraz University

چکیده [English]

In the present study two significant characteristics of pro-drop languages, i.e. the absence of lexical subject and subject-verb free inversion will be investigated in light of Dynamic Anti-Symmetry (hence, DAS) framework (Moro, 2000) in Persian:

[pro ketab ra peyda kardam]

 pro book OM    found

[Qaza xord Arash]

        ate     Arash
These two characteristics are assumed to be the byproduct of the point of symmetry and the attempt to break this symmetry. According to DAS, we took movement as a symmetry breaking process and not a process through which uninterpretable features can be checked. By extending Merge operation, Moro (2004) argues that it is possible to have an unspecified structure in which none of the element participated in merge can be projected. He calls this unspecified structure bare small clause. Bare small clause is a kind of clause which is the complement of copulas and by virtue of having no position for functional heads; it can include a point of symmetry. Thid small cluse is the product of merging of two maximal projections none of which is projected in the resulting structure. By definition, this small clause is nothing more than a point of symmetry which must be broken in line with linear correspondent axiom (hence, LCA) (kanye, 1994). Accordingly, any merger of DP and VP leads to a point of symmetry; provided that, that DP plays the role of the subject of the whole phrase. This point of symmetry will be broken at PF in line with LCA.
According to Cardinaletti & Starke (1999), Holmberg (2005) & Roberts (2007) pro is no longer a null category but a weak pronoun. This assumption is accepted through the current article. Therefore, Pro is assumed to be a weak pronoun and hence a DP which undergoes deletion at PF after being merged with VP and constructing a point of symmetry. It should be mentioned that in this article it is accepted that either moving or deleting of one of the symmetry makers can break the point of symmetry. This justifies the absence of lexical subject.
Spec,vP and Spec,VP are suggested to be the main position for subject in transitive/ unergative and unaccusative structures respectively, according to UTAH. In all of these positions a point of symmetry is observed which can be broken in two ways: by verb movement or by subject movement; this justifies subject-verb free inversion in pro-drop languages. The landing site for pre-verbal subject is assumed to be Spec,TP and Spec,FocP in case the subject gets stress. The landing site for post-verbal subject in unaccusative structures is little v and in transitive/unergative structures is head T.
In conclusion, we can say that in this study by assuming pro as a weak pronoun and hence a DP, we showed that omitting subject in a pro-drop language is a byproduct of observing LCA at PF. Meanwhile, we argued that in Persian according to UTAH, the main position for subject in sentences with transitive/ unergative predicators is Spec,vP and in sentences with unaccusative predicators is Spec,VP. All of these positions bear the point of symmetry which can be broken in two ways: by movement of either the verb or the subject. These ways of breaking points of symmetry can justify the subject-verb free inversion in pro-drop languages.   

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • pro-drop language
  • subject-verb free inversion
  • PRO
  • pre-verbal subject
  • post verbal subject
  • LCA
  • UTAH

متولیان‌نایینی، رضوان (1395). «تحلیلی بین‌زبانی از پارامتر ضمیراندازی در زبان فارسی». مجلة زبان‌پژوهی. س.8. ش. 21. زمستان 1395. صص 133-116.

 Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press.

Adragão, M. & J. Costa (2004). "On the Status of Preverbal Subjects in Null Subject Languages: Evidence from Acquisition". LOT Occasional Series. 3. pp. 69-80.

Barbosa, P. (2001). "Two Kinds of Subject pro". Studia Linguistica. 63(1). pp. 2-58.

Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims.Oxford University Press.

Cardinaletti, A. (2004). "Towards a Cartography of Subject Positions". The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. vol 2. L. Rizzi (ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 115-116.

Cardinaletti, A. & M. Starke (1999). "The Typology of Structural Deficiency on Three Grammatical Classes". Clitics in the languages of Europe, Empirical approachesto language typology. H. van Riemsdijk (ed.). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 20–25.

Chomsky, N. (1995). Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Giorgi, A. (2009). "About pro". Ms. Ca’Foscari University, Venice.

Holmberg, A. (2005). "Is There a Little pro? Evidence from Finnish". Linguistic Inquiry. 36. pp. 533- 564.

Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 38. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Moro, A. (2004). "Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement". Triggers. Anne Breitbarth & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.). Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 387-430.

Motevallian Naeini, R. (2017). "A Cross Linguistic Analysis of Pro-drop Parameter in Persian". Journal of Language Researches. 8. 21. Winter 2017. pp. 116-133. [In Persian]

Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.

Radford, A. (2009). Analysing English Sentences.A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Roberts, I. (2006). "Two Ways to Lose Null Subjects". Talk Given at the Encontro Lingua Falada e Escrita V, Federal University of Maceió

Roberts, I. (2007). A Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects: French as a Case Study. Downing College, University of Cambridge.