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 رده­ شناختی هم‌پایگی انواع پرسش‌واژه­ ها در زبان‌ فارسی می‌پردازد. در این نوع هم‌پایگی­، همسانی که شرط لازم در این فرآیند نحوی است، رعایت نمی‌شود. همچنین، پرسش‌واژه­هایی از دو گروه متمایزِ موضوع و افزوده، با حرف ربط «و» پیوند زده می‌شوند. بررسی پژوهش‌های پیشین ‌نشان‌ می­دهد که چنین بحثی در زبان فارسی مورد توجه قرار نگرفته‌است. در این پژهش، برآنیم تا بدانیم که چه نوع پرسش‌واژه­هایی با یک‌دیگر همپایه می­شوند و زبان ‌فارسی در کدام رده زبانی قرار‌ دارد. پس از ارزیابی ویژگی‌های رده‌شناختی زبان­ فارسی، هم‌پایگی پرسش‌واژه­ها در شرایط حذف‌‌بندی نیز مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. بررسی داده­ ها نشان ‌داد که پیوند دو پرسش‌واژه افزوده، یک پرسش‌واژه موضوعی ( اجباری یا اختیاری) و یک افزوده در این زبان مجاز است. هر چند پیوند دو پرسش‌واژه موضوعی در داده ها مشاهده نشد. بنابراین زبان‌ فارسی به صورت خاص، ویژگی­های هیچ یک از رده­ های زبانی آزاد، آمیخته و افزوده­ایِ مطرح در زبان­های دنیا را نشان نمی­دهد و نمی‌توان آن را به طور قطعی در یکی از آن رده ­ها قرار داد. پیوند پرسش‌واژه­­ها دو نوع را نشان‌می­دهد؛ متوالی و گسسته. نوع متوالی پرسش‌واژه­ها در جمله‌های مرکب با حذف‌بندی نیز به ­کار می­رود. در فرآیند حذف‌‌بندی دو نوعِ با مرجع و بدون مرجع وجود دارد. در جمله‌های با حذف‌بندی با مرجع، حضور پرسش‌واژه­ های همپایه مجاز نیست. پیوند متوالی دو پرسش‌واژه فقط در نوعِ بدون مرجع مشاهده  شد و حرکت هر یک از پرسش‌واژه ­ها به تنهایی در هر بند مجاز است. در این زبان، در هر بند فقط یک سازه کانونی وجود‌ دارد و حرکتِ همزمان بیش از یک پرسش‌واژه مجاز نیست. بنابراین چنین حالتی، فرض دو بندی بودن چنین جمله‌هایی 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]

This paper examines the typological aspects of coordinated WH-Questions in Persian language. Coordination is one of the syntactic operations that makes 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, this 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 Hungarian:
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, p. 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 four 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 to 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 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
      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 either. 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
  • Conjoined Multiple WH-questions
  • language type
  • Coordination
  • sluicing

غلام‌علی زاده، خسرو (1372). فرایندهای حرکتی در زبان ‌فارسی. رساله دکتری. دانشگاه تهران.

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

References

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: MIT Press.

Citko, B., & Gracanin-Yuksek, M. (2013). Towards a new typology of coordinated wh-Questions. Linguistics, 49, 1-32.

Gholamalizadeh, Kh. (1993). The movement processes in Persian (PhD dissertation), Tehran University, Tehran, Iran [in Persian].

Gracanin-Yuksek, M. (2017). Conjoined wh-questions. In M. Everaert & H. Van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Companion to Syntax (2nd edition, pp. 1127-1161). Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gribanova, V. (2009). Structural adjacency and the typology of interrogatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 133-154.

Haida, A., & Repp, S. (2011). Mono-clausal question word coordinations across languages. The North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 39(1), 361-374.

Karimi, S., & Taleghani, A. (2007). Wh-Movement, interpretation, and optionality in Persian. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, & W. Wilkins (Eds.), Clausal and phrasal architecture: syntactic derivation and interpretation (pp. 167-187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kasaie, H. (2016). Coordinated wh-questions in Japanese. Lingua, 183, 126-148.

Kazenin, K. (2002). On coordination of wh-phrases in Russian (Master’s thesis). Tübingen University, Tubigen, Germany and Moscow State University, Moskva, Russia.

Lipták, A. (2003). Conjoined questions in Hungarian. In C. Boeckx & K. Grohmann (Eds.), Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistik Aktuel/Linguistics Today 64 (pp. 141-160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lipták, A. (2011). Strategies of wh-coordination. Linguistic Variation, 1(2), 149-188.

Lotfi, A. R. (2003). Persian wh-riddles. In C. Boeckx & K. Grohmann (Eds.) Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistik Aktuel/Linguistics Today 64 (pp. 160-186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Merchant, J. (2008). Spurious coordination in Vlach multiple wh-fronting. Mid-America Linguistics Conference, 26-28 October 2008, University of Kansas, Kansas, USA. [Online]: <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.585.4764&rep=rep1&type=pdf >

Mirsa'idi. A., & Mansouri, S. (2012). Wh-movement in multiple-questions in Persian. In F. Tag (Ed.), International Conference on Language, Medias and Culture, 33, 1-4. China: IACSIT Press.

Paperno, D. (2012). Comitative coordination in Q’anjob’al. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Papers in Semantics, 16, 111-130.

Raghibdoust, Sh. (1994). Multiple wh-Fronting in Persian. Cahiers de Languistique, 21, 27-58.

Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and left Periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and Beyond: the cartography of syntactic structure (pp. 223-251), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stassen, L. (2000). AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguistic Typology, 4, 1-54.

Vaezi, H. (2013). WH-constructions in Persian: a minimalist approach. Zabanpazhouhi, 5(901), 199-221 [in Persian].

Whitman, N. (2004). Semantics and pragmatics of English verbal dependent coordination. Language, 80(3), 403-434.

 Whitman, N. (2007). Cross linguistic semantics of coordinated-wh interrogatives. Conference of the Ohio University Linguistics Department (COULD). [Online]: <http://literalmindedlinguistics.com/Coord_Wh/home.html.>

Williams, E. (1981). Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(4), 645-653.