تحلیل نحوی حالت دهی کنائی در منتخبی از زبانهای ایرانی: رویکردی کمینه گرا

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی

2 دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

بررسی حاضر، به صورت­ بندی حالت‌دهیِ کنائی در زبان­های تاتی، تالشی و وفسی بر پایة چارچوبی کمینه‌گرا می‌پردازد. انطباق در زبان­های مورد اشاره دوگانه است. به این مفهوم که در بندهای لازم و بندِ متعدیِ زمانِ حال، فاعل در حالت مستقیم بوده و فعل با فاعل مطابقه می‌کند. این در حالی است که در بندهای متعدی زمان گذشته، فاعل در حالت غیرفاعلی بوده و فعل با فاعل مطابقه وندی ندارد. در عوض، واژه بست، وظیفة ارجاع به فاعل متعدی را بر عهده دارد. در این راستا، پس از معرفی دیدگاه ­های مطرح در پیوند با حالت‌دهی کنائی نشان خواهیم داد که این نوع حالت‌دهی در زبان­های ایرانی نوعی حالت‌دهی ساختاری است و در قالب حالت‌دهی ذاتی، قابل صورت­ بندی نیست. در این راستا، مبانی نظری مارک بیکر (Baker, 2015) که با تکیه بر مفاهیم نحوی، نسخه جدیدی از نظام حالت‌دهی وابسته (Marantz, 1991) را ارائه می‌دهد، به کار گرفته شده­ است. این رویکرد، قادر است بر پایه نظریه فازها به نحو کمینه‌ای، حالت‌دهی کنائی در بندهای متعدی زمان گذشته را صورت­ بندی کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Syntactic Analysis of Ergative Case Marking in some Iranian Languages: A minimalist View

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ifa Shafai 1
  • Mohammad Dabirmoghaddam 2
1 Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
چکیده [English]

Tatic-type languages are among west Iranian languages divided into four main groups: northern Tatic, central Tatic, southern Tatic and Taleshi group (Stilo, 1981, p. 139). Among these languages, we focused on three southern Tatic languages namely Chali, Taleshi (Anbarani) and Vafsi. Theses Tatic languages present the most complex kind of split alignments and this phenomenon follows the universal tendency seen in tense/aspectual split ergative alignments in which the ergative alignment only appears in a specific tense/aspect generally past/perfect tense. In these Tatic languages, the oblique subject only appears in past transitive clauses where in there is no verbal agreement, but in other environments, the subject is direct and the verb agrees with direct subjects: In present tense sentences, the subject is direct and the verb shows full agreement with the subject. In contrast, in past tense sentences the subject of intransitive clause is direct and the verb shows full agreement with the direct subject. In transitive clauses, the subject bears marked case oblique and the agreement in the verb would be default 3s. In all three languages, a pronominal mobile clitic optionally cross-references the subject. The split ergative alignment of these Tatic languages is of potential theoretical interest mainly for two reasons. First: In one of the most influential views in the current literature on ergativity, ergative case is an inherent case (Nash, 1996, 2015; Woolford, 1997, 2006; Aldrige, 2004, 2008, 2012; Laka, 2006; Anand & Nevins, 2006; Legate, 2006, 2008, 2012; and Massam, 2006). On this view, ergative case is attributed to the lexical properties of the agentive v head and theta marks the subject, not to the subject’s surface structural position or to the agreement with non-theta marking heads (Baker 2015, p. 54). In other words, the main assumption for considering ergative as a kind of inherent case is the relationship between agent theta role and ergative case and in languages that ergative is inherent case, we should see a close correspondence between agent theta role and ergative subjects and also the presence of active alignment. However, it does not seem right for Tatic languages since what thematic roles an NP has is not a primary determinant of its case in these languages; all past transitive subjects are marked oblique regardless of their theta roles and no active alignment can be seen in these languages. Additionally, the restrictedness of the appearance of ergative/oblique case in past transitive sentences suggests that it is a kind of structural case and should be accounted for by an structural case mechanism. Secondly, the split ergative alignment in these Tatic languages is different from other aspectual split alignments in spite of the fact that the restriction of ergative to past transitive clauses conforms to the well-known universal tendency in this regard. But in these languages, it is not aspect that conditions splitness. So generally, it can be argued that these Tatic languages cannot be classified as aspectual based ergative languages and none of the analytical studies (Laka, 2006; Coon & Preminger, 2014; Nash, 2015; Ura, 2006; Baker, 2015) which derive their analyses based on aspect can account for these Tatic languages. As it can be seen, none of the analyses proposed so far can be readily used for explaining split ergative alignment in these Tatic languages. Thus, the following questions and hypotheses are addressed here:  
1-      What is the source of Ergative case on past transitive subjects?
2-      What is the source of direct case on present transitive subjects and intransitive ones?
In an alternative view (Baker, 2015), ergative case is a structural case. Baker (2010, 2015) believes that the inherent view of ergative case has advantages for non-strict ergative languages like Hindi and Georgian and he tentatively accepts it for those languages; however, he argues that in stricter ergative languages, ergative is a structural case not an inherent one (see Baker 2015, p. 54 for more discussion). In this regard, he invokes the idea that in addition to the agreement-based theory of case (Agree), case can be assigned by a rule of dependent case assignment in the sense of Marantz (1991). He also invokes the possibility that one language may use a combination of case assigning mechanisms; that is to say, both Agree and Marantzian ones.
We have adopted Baker’s (2014) argument regarding the conditioning factor in splitness in Kurmanji and claim that the fundamental difference between clauses with past and present verb stems, which drives the split ergative pattern in these Tatic languages, is in the phrasal status of the v node. We claim that subject direct case is related to agreement on T in the familiar way, but oblique case on past transitive subjects is not related to agreement with a functional head and instead, we claim that the rule for oblique case assignment can be formalized in terms of a dependent rule.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Split alignment
  • Ergative case
  • Inherent case
  • Structural case
  • Dependent case

دبیرمقدم، محمد (1392). رده ­شناسی زبان­های ایرانی. تهران: سمت.     

کریمی دوستان و نقشبندی (1390). «ساخت­ های کنائی در گویش اورامی». پژوهش­ های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی. شمارة 2 (پیاپی 6 ). صص 73-99.

کریمی، یادگار (1391). «مطابقه در نظام کنائی (ارگتیو) زبانهای ایرانی: رقابت واژه بست و وند». پژوهش ­های زبان‌شناسی. سال 4. شمارة 2. صص 1-18.

کریمی، یادگار (1383) ساخت کُنایی: منشاء و ماهیت آن. رسالة دکتری. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

نجفی پازوکی، معصومه (1390). تاثیر نمود فعل بر تظاهر (را) در جمله. زبان­پژوهی. سال3. شمارة 5.  صص 217- 235.

 

Aldridge, E. (2012). Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua, 122, 192-203.
Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2006). The locus of Ergative case assignment: evidence from scope. In A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: emerging issues (pp. 3-25). Dordrecht: Springer.

Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, S. R. (1976). On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 1-23). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Baker, M., & Atlamaz, Ü. (2014). On the relationship of case and agreement in split ergative Kurmanji and Beyond.(Unpublished Manuscript), Rutgers University,  New Jersey, USA. [Online]:

Baker, M., & Nadya, V. (2010).  Two modalities of case assignment: case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 593-642.

Baker, M. (2015). Case: its principles and parameters.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Where’s Phi? agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In D. Harbour, D. Adger and S. Béjar (Eds), Phi Theory (pp. 295-328). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boeckx, C. (2008). Aspects of the syntax of agreement. New York. London: Routledge.

Butt, M. (2006). Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N.  (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In H. Lasnik, R. A. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz & K. Hale (Eds.), A Life in Language (pp. 1-54). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2013). Typology of Iranian languages. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian]

Dixon, R. M. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haig, G. L. (2008). Alignment change in Iranian languages: a construction grammar approachBerlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Karimi, Y. (2010). Ergativity: its origin and nature (PhD dissertation). Allame Tabatabaei University, Tehran [In Persian].

Karimi, Y. (2010). Unaccusative transitives and the person-case constraint effects in Kurdish. Lingua120(3), 693-716.

Karimi, Y. (2012). Agreement in Iranian ergative languages: the competition of affixes and clitics. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, 2(7), 1-18 [In Persian].

Karimi, Y. (2013). Extending defective intervention effects. The Linguistic Review30(1), 51-78 [In Persian].

Karimidoostan, Gh. & Naghshbandi, Z. (2011). Ergative construction in Hawrami. Language Related Research,2(6), 73-99 [In Persian].

Legate, J. A. (2012). Types of ergativity, Lingua, 122, 181-191

Mahajan, A. (2012). Ergatives, antipassives and the overt light v in Hindi, Lingua, 122, 204-214.

Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In G. F. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R. Chao (Eds.), ESCOL '91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 234-253). Baltımore: Ohio State University, University of Maryland.

Massam, Dian. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 153-197.

Massam, D. (2006). Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: emerging issues (pp. 27-46). Dordrecht: Springer.

Najafi Pazooki, M. (2011). The impact of aspect on manifestation of (ra) in sentence. Zabanpazhuhi, 5, 217-235. [In Persian].  

Nash, L. (2017) On the structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian. In J. Coon, D. Massam & L. Travis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 175-205), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, F. R. (1994). Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Paul, D. (2011). A comparative dialectal description of Iranian Taleshi (PhD dissertation). University of Manchester, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rosen, C. G. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In D. M Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 38-77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stilo, D. (2008). Case in Iranian: from reduction and loss to innovation and renewal. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case (pp. 700-715). Oxford: OUP.

Ura, H. (2000). Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ura, H. (2006). A parametric syntax of aspectually conditioned split-ergativity. In A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: emerging issues (pp. 111-141). Dordrecht: Springer.

Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry37(1), 111-130.