نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زبان انگلیسی و زبان شناسی ، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد رشت

2 بلوار پاسداران، دانشگاه کردستان، دانشکده ادبیات و زبانهای خارجی، گروه زبان شناسی و زبان انگلیسی

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر به تبیین ابعاد رده‌شناختی پیوند و همپایگیِ انواع پرسشواژه‌ها در زبان‌فارسی اختصاص‌‌دارد. دراین نوع همپایگی‌، همسانی که شرط لازم در این فرآیند نحوی است، رعایت نمی‌شود وپرسشواژه‌هایی از دو گروه متمایز موضوع و افزوده نیز با حرف ربط((و)) پیوند می‌خورند. مطالعه سوابق ‌نشان‌می‌دهد که چنین بحثی در زبان‌فارسی مورد پژوهش‌نبوده است. در این بررسی قصد داریم بدانیم که چه انواعی از پرسشواژه‌ها با یکدیگر همپایه می‌شوند و زبان‌فارسی در کدام رده زبانی قرار‌دارد. پس از ارزیابی رده‌ای زبان‌فارسی، چنین حالت‌هایی در شرایط حذف‌بندی نیز مورد مطالعه قرار می‌گیرند. بررسی داده‌ها نشان‌می‌دهد که پیوند دو پرسشواژه افزوده، یک پرسشواژه موضوعی ( اجباری یا اختیاری) و یک افزوده در این زبان مجاز است. اما پیوند دو پرسشواژه موضوعی در داده‌ها مشاهده نشد. بنابراین زبان‌فارسی در هیچ یک از رده‌های زبانی آزاد، آمیخته و افزوده‌ایِ مطرح در زبان‌های دنیا قرار‌نمی‌گیرد. پیوند پرسشواژه‌‌ها دو نوع را نشان‌می‌دهد؛ متوالی و گسسته. نوع متوالی پرسشواژه‌ها در جملات مرکب با حذف‌بندی نیز به‌کار می‌روند. در فرآیند حذف‌بندی دو نوعِ با مرجع و بدون مرجع وجود دارد. در جملات با حذف بندی با مرجع، حضور پرسشواژه‌های پیوندی مجاز نیست. پیوند متوالی دو پرسشواژه تنها در نوعِ بدون مرجع مشاهده‌شد و حرکت هر یک از پرسشواژه‌ها به تنهایی در هر بند مجاز است. در این زبان، در هر بند تنها یک سازه کانونی وجود‌دارد و حرکتِ همزمان بیش از یک پرسشواژه مجاز نیست. بنابراین چنین حالتی، فرض دو بندی بودن چنین جملاتی را در زبان فارسی قوت می‌بخشد .

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Conjoined Multiple WH-Questions in Persian: Typo-syntactic analysis

نویسندگان [English]

  • hengameh vaezi 1
  • Yadgar Karimi 2

1 Rasht. Islamic Azad University

2 University of Kurdistan

چکیده [English]

Conjoined Multiple WH-Questions in Persian: A Typo-syntactic analysis
This paper examines the typological aspects of coordinated WH-Questions in Persian language. Coordination is one of the syntactic operations to make a compound or complex phrase or sentence. It is widely assumed that two conjuncts have to be alike in their grammatical and semantic functions. Williams (1981) proposed the Law of Coordination of Likes; that is, the coordinated constituents must be the same in terms of their syntactic category;
1) a. John ate the apple and the orange.
b.* John ate the apple and yesterday.
In example (1b) the constituents the apple (NP) and yesterday (ADVP) differ in their syntactic categories. So it violates the Law of Coordination of Likes. Despite the above description, the coordination of WH- words with different functions is possible in languages such as;
2) a. Ki es mikor latta Marit? (pre verbal coordination in Hungarian)
who-nom and when saw-3Sg Mary-acc
‘Who saw Mary and when?’
b. Mikor es hol lattad Marit?
when and where saw-2Sg Mary-Acc
‘When and where did you see Mary?’


3) a. Ki latta Marit es mikor? (post verbal coordination)
who-Nom saw-3Sg Mary-Acc and when
‘Who saw Mary and when?’
b. Mikor lattad Marit es hol?
when saw-2Sg Mary-Acc and where
‘When and where did you see Mary?’


(Lipták, 2003:143)
In these coordinated WHs (e.g.2a&3a), an argument WH-word and an adjunct WH- word are coordinated; where the Law of coordination of Likes does not seem to be held and the sentences are, yet, grammatical. She classified the strategies of WH- coordination into 4 types. Adjunct CMWQ, only adjuncts can be coordinated like Dutch; Free CMWQ, any type of constituents can be coordinated like Hungarian; Mixed CMWQ, only optional materials can be coordinated like German and NO CMWQ, the coordination of WH- words is not permitted like Chinese(Lipták, 2011).These cases have not been afforded due consideration in the previous studies in Persian language. Thus this paper attempts to find out what types of WH- words can be coordinated; Whether Persian type is Mixed, Free or Adjunct type of languages and finally which coordinated WH- words are permitted in sluicing.
In Persian two adjunct- WH- words; one argument WH- word (obligatory or optional) and one adjunct WH- word are coordinated. However, the coordination of two argument WH- words has not been observed in the data gathered for this research. So this language has its own properties which are different from the types( Adjunct, Mixed and Free) proposed by Lipták(2011). Its properties are given in table(1). Furthermore, The Persian coordinated WH-words are used in two types: sequential and split.
4) a. key va kojâ be donyâ âmadi? (sequential)
When & where were born.Sg.3.
“When and where were you born?”
b. Če kasâni va čerâ dar Tehrân be xiâbân âmadand?
Who & why in Tehran to street came.Pl.
“ ??Who and why did they come to the street? ”
c. * Ki va či xarid?
Who & what buy.Sg.Past.
“Who and what did she buy ?”
5) a. key be donyâ âmadi va kojâ ? (split)
When were born.Sg.3. & where
“When and where were you born?”
b. Če kasâni dar Tehrân be xiâbân âmadand va čerâ?
Who in Tehran to street came.Pl. & why
“ ??Who and why did they come to the street? ”
c. * Ki xarid va či?
Who buy.Sg.Past. & what
“Who and what did she buy ?”
Table-1-Characteristics of Persian coordinated WH- questions
Persian coordinated WH-questions Adjunct
+
Adjunct
Obligatory argument
+
Adjunct
Arbitrary argument
+
Adjunct
argument
+
argument
yes yes yes No

In this language, one WH-fronting is permitted; that is Persian does not have multiple WH-fronting like Bolgarian language. It was supposed if a language does not have wh-fronting, it cannot have CMWQ. The movement of one WH-word is permitted in Persian, so it has the coordination of WH- questions in Persian. Each clause only has one focus constituent (Rizzi, 2004). Eventually, It has been hypothesized that the coordinated constructions are probably bi-clausal, because it was supposed that if a language does not have multiple WH-fronting, it can have bi-clausal CMWQs only.
As mentioned above, Persian has two types of sequential and Split types of WH- coordination. In sluicing constructions, the sequential type of coordinated WH-words has just been observed. All these sentences showed the sluicing without any antecedent for WH-words.
6)Šenidim tasâdof karde amâ nemidunim bâ ki va key. (without antecedent)
Heard accident but not- know with who & when
“ I heard she had an accident but I don’t know with whom and when.”

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Persian language
  • Conjoined Multiple WH-questions
  • language type
  • Coordination
  • sluicing