توزیع پرسشواژه در جملات پرسشی تک‌پرسشواژه‌ای در فارسی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

این پژوهش، از روشی کیفی پیروی می­کند تا توزیع پرسش­واژه را در جمله ­های پرسشی تک­ پرسش­واژه‌ای فارسی، در چارچوب رویکرد اشتقاقی و نحو فاقد ­مشخصه مورد بررسی قرار دهد. همچنین مقالة حاضر، در پی بررسی آن است که چرا در بعضی ساخت‌ها پرسشواژه ضرورتاً به‌ صورت درجا ظاهر می­ گردد، در حالی ­که در برخی دیگر درجا بودن یا نبودن آن، کاملاً اختیاری است. در این پژوهش، زبان‌ها باتوجه به تنوع توزیع پرسش­واژه، به دو دستة زبان‌های دارای پرسش­واژة ثابت و پرسش­واژة غیر ثابت تقسیم شدند که زبان فارسی در دستة دوم قرار دارد. سپس، با تکیه بر این تقسیم‌بندی و با بهره‌گیری از دامنه‌ نمایی و بازادغام نشان دادیم که پرسش­واژه در تمامی زبان‌ها به‌صورت اجباری در دو جایگاه ادغام می‌شود. آن­گاه استدلال کردیم که تلفظ یکی از دو پرسش­واژة ادغام­ شده حاصل تعاملی است که میان نظام‌های خوانشی و بیرونی‌ساز برقرار می‌شود. در همین راستا، با بازنگری عملکرد پیش‌آوری­ کانون نشان دادیم که نمی‌توان پیش­ آوری­ کانون را عامل بازادغام (یا همان حرکت) پرسش‌واژه به‌حساب آورد، بلکه صرفاً عاملی است در جهت تلفظ بالاترین پرسش‌واژه. در نهایت، با بررسی ساخت‌های دارای افعال­ ربطی نشان دادیم که وجود/عدم وجود فعل ­ربطی در کنار پرسش‌واژه می ­تواند عامل موثری در تلفظ بالاترین پرسش‌واژه به‌ تنهایی باشد. بر این اساس، اصلی با عنوان « اصل تلفظ بالاترین پرسش‌واژه» صورت‌بندی شد. بر پایة این اصل نشان داده شد که بر خلاف رویکردهای موجود دربارة پرسش‌واژه در فارسی، می­توان اختیاری یا اجباری بودن حرکت پرسش‌واژه را به ‌صورتی کاملاً یک­پارچه تحلیل کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Distribution of Wh-word in Single Wh-Questions in Persian

نویسندگان [English]

  • ahmadreza sharifipur shirazi
  • Jalal Rahimian
shiraz university
چکیده [English]

By investigating the distribution of wh-word insingle Wh-questions in Persian through a qualitative method in terms of the theory of Derivational Approach (Epstein et al., 1998) and Feature-Free Syntax (Boeckx, 2015) we intend to explain why wh-word is necessarily in situ. in some sentences and why its movement is optional in others. In this study, based on the distribution of wh-words, we put languages into two different categories: fixed wh-word and non-fixed wh-word. Languages like English and Japanese in which wh-word appears in just one place (either in situ. or non-in situ.) are put in the first category, and languages like Persian in which wh-word appears in a variety of positions are put in the second category. By combining this classification with Scope-Marking (Pesetsky, 1987) (in which it is believed that each quantifier (such as wh-word) must have a scope) and Remerge (Zhang, 2004) (in which it is believed that the movement of α is not the process of “copy+ merge+ delete”, but a simple remerge of α), we suggest that converting a statement into a wh-question is related to conceptual-intentional systems and we can achieve it by resorting to merge, remerge and the related interpretation in conceptual-intentional systems without resorting to morphological features. Besides, we show that forming a wh-question is not the matter of being a wh-in situ. language or a non-wh-in situ. language, but is the matter of scope marking. By accepting the compulsory merger of wh-word in two positions in Persian, we naturally admit that the movement of wh-word is compulsory as well. Since if no remerge process happens, wh-word cannot extend its scope over the whole sentence, and as a result, no wh-question will be formed. Accordingly, we show that merger of wh-word in two positions is compulsory, just one of which must be pronounced, however: A. an in situ. position and B. the position in which the wh-word can scope mark the whole sentence.
We, also discuss the factors which determine the pronunciation of one of those merged wh-words. By taking a look at Persian related data, we understand that each merged wh-word enjoys the same chance of being pronounced and if we just resort to articulatory-perceptual systems, then, we must make some arguments in favor of those wh-words which can be pronounced in both in-situ. and non-in-situ. positions. Meanwhile, if we put all these issues into discourse, the problem we face is those wh-words which are only pronounced in the in-situ. position. Accordingly, we resort to a mixed solution in which both articulator-perceptual systems and discourse related issues are observed. As a result, by reinterpreting the focus fronting as a triggering factor for pronunciation of the higher merged wh-word, we hold that, according to discourse, if an element which is not the already established “matter of current concern”, becomes “the matter of current concern” or becomes more relevant to the already established “matter of current concern”; then, the interpretation systems detect wh-word as a structure which is susceptible to focus fronting. This detection and interpretation sends instructions to externalization systems, and they accordingly, pronounce the highest remerged wh-word. As a result, we cannot take focus fronting as a triggering factor for remerge (or movement). This shows that the pronunciation of the highest merged wh-word is the result of the interaction between interpretation systems and externalization systems. Accordingly, we formalize “the principle of pronouncing the highest wh-word” as follows:
The principle of pronouncing the highest wh-word:
In a language the Externalization Systems pronounce the highest wh-word, if;
A)    The language is a non-fixed wh-word,
B)    The interpretation systems detect the wh-word as a structure which is susceptible to focus fronting.
** In case B does not happen, wh-in situ. will be pronounced
We also investigate into the structures with copulas in which a wh-word is adjacent to a copula and indicates that presence or absence of the copula with a wh-word can be a significant factor in pronouncing the highest merged wh-word. Accordingly, we formalize “the revised principle of pronouncing the highest wh-word” as follows:
The principle of pronouncing the highest wh-word alone:
In a language the Externalization Systems pronounce the highest wh-word alone, if;
A)    The language is a non-fixed wh-word,
B)    The interpretation systems detect the wh-word as a structure which is susceptible to focus fronting,
C)    Wh-word is not the sister of copula.
** In case B or C does not happen, wh-in situ. will be pronounced.
By resorting to the above-mentioned approach that is, by utilizing merge, remerge, the interpretation of the conceptual-intentional systems and the interaction between these systems and the externalization systems (articulatory-perceptual system), and without referring to morphological features, we can analyze the movement of wh-word as both optional and obligatory in a unified manner.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • wh-word distribution
  • remerge
  • scope-marking
  • focus fronting
  • Copula

حق‌بین، فریده (1385). «ظرفیت در ساخت‌های اسنادی در زبان فارسی». زبان و زبانشناسی. دورة 2. شمارة . صص 21-38.

خرمایی، علیرضا و مرضیه عباسی (1393). «بررسی رابطه‌ی میان مبتدا، مبتداسازی و پیش‌انگاره‌ی موضوعیت در زبان فارسی». پژوهش‌های زبانشناسی تطبیقی. سال 4. شمارة 7. صص 1- 17.

دبیرمقدم، محمد و راحله کلانتری (1395). «بررسی ساخت اطلاع جملات پرسشی در فارسی نو با تاکید بر متن». متن‌ پژوهی ادبی. سال 20. شمارة 67. صص 51- 83.

راسخ‌مهند، محمد (1382). «جملات پرسشی در زبان فارسی». مجموعه مقاله‌ های پنجمین کنفرانس زبان‌شناسی نظری و کاربردی. به کوشش محمد دبیر مقدم و ابراهیم کاظمی. تهران: شرکت آرویج ایرانیان. صص. 331- 344.

شریفی‌پورشیرازی، احمدرضا و جلال رحیمیان (1396). «رویکردی پادتقارنی به ضمیراندازی در زبان فارسی». زبان‌پژوهی. دورة 9. شمارة 25. صص 113- 136.

صادقی، علی اشرف و غلامرضا ارژنگ (1358). دستور سال دوم آموزش متوسطه‌ی عمومی، فرهنگ و ادب. وزارت آموزش و پرورش، تهران.

طبیب‌زاده، امید (1385). «ساخت‌های اسنادی و سببی در زبان فارسی». نامة فرهنگستان. دورة 8. شمارة 4 (پیاپی 32). صص 61- 68.

واعظی، هنگامه (1392). «ساخت­ه ای پرسشواژه­ای در زبان فارسی (رویکردی کمینه ­گرا)». زبان‌پژوهی. دورة 5. شمارة 901. صص 199-221.

 

 

References

Adli, A. (2010). Constraint cumulatively and Gradient: Wh- Scrambling in Persian. Lingua, 120, 2259-2294.

Boeckx, C. (2015). Elementary syntactic structures: prospects of a feature-free syntax. Cambridge: University Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries. In R. Martin et al. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.

DabirMoghaddam. M., & Kalantari R. (2016). An investigation of the information structure of wh-questions in modern Persian based on text. Literary Text Research, 20(67), 51-83[In Persian].

Epstein, S. D., Groat, E. M., Kawashima, R., & Kitahara, H. (1998). A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, S. D., & Seely, T. D. (2006). Derivations in minimalism. Cambridge University Press.

Haghbin. F. (2006). Valency in attributive constructions in Persian language. Language & Linguistics, 2(4), 21-38 [In Persian].

Kahnemuyipour, A. (2001). On Wh-Questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46(1-2), 41-61.

Kahnemuyipour, A. (2006). When wh-movement isn’t wh-movement. In Proceedings of the 2006 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, York University, Toronto, Canada.

Karimi, S., & Taleghani, A. (2007). Wh-movement, interpretation, and optionality in Persian. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, & W. K. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (pp. 167-187). Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Khormaee, A. R., & Abbasi, M. (2014). A Survey on the Relationship between Topic, Topicalization and Topicality Presupposition in Persian. A Journal of Comparative Linguistic researches, 4(7), 1-17 [In Persian].

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lotfi, A. R. (2003). Persian wh-riddles. Multiple Wh-Fronting, 64, 161-186.

Martin, J. (1993). Wh-movement in Spanish: structural analysis & theoretical implications. Anuario del Seminario de Filologia Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”, 27(3), 777-784.

Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic antisymmetry (No. 38). Cambridge, MIT press.

Pesetsky, D. M. (1987). Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. Ter Meulen (Eds.), The Rrepresentation of (in) Difiniteness. Cambridge, MIT press.

Rasekhmahand, M. (2003). Interrogative sentences in Persian. In M. Dabir Moghadam & E. Kazemi. (Eds.), Proceeding of 5th Conference on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics(pp. 331-344). Tehran: Arvije-e- Iranian Co [In Persian].

Richards, N. (2016). Contiguity theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: MIT Press.

Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2011). The intonation patterns of interrogatives in Persian. Linguistic Discovery Journal, 9(1), 105-136.

Sadeghi, A. A. & Arzhang, Gh. (1979). Grammar for students of 2nd. level of general secondary school. Culture & Literature. Tehran: Ministry of Education [In Persian].

Sharifipur Shirazi, A.R. & Rahimian, J. (under press). A dynamic antisymmetry approach to pro-drop in Persian. Zabanpazhuhi [In Persian].

Tabibzadeh, O. (2006). Attributive and causative constructions in Persian. Persian Academy, 8, 4(32), 61-68 [In Persian].

Vaezi, H. (2014). Interrogative constructions in Persian (a minimalist approach). Quarterly Journal of Language Research, 5(901), 199-221 [In Persian].

Zhang, N. (2004). Move is remerge. Language & Linguistics, 2(1), 189-209.