تحلیلی بین زبانی از ساختار ارتقایی خودایستا

نویسنده
استادیار گروه زبان‌شناسی دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
چکیده
وجود ساخت ارتقایی در بیشتر زبان­هایی که گروه متمم­نمای ناخودایستا برمی­گزینند به اثبات رسیده است، چراکه اعتقاد بر این است که در بند ناخودایستا به‌سبب ناقص بودن هستۀ زمانی جملۀ پیرو، این هسته قادر به بازبینی حالت فاعلی نیست و فاعل جملۀ پیرو برای بازبینی مشخصۀ حالت خود مجبور به حرکت به جایگاه فاعلی بند بالاتر است. براساس این دیدگاه ارتقا از درون بند خودایستا به‌دلیل امکان­پذیر بودن بازبینی حالت مجاز نیست. در پژوهش حاضر با به­کارگیری داده­های زبان­های مختلف نشان داده می­شود برخلاف این تصور، ارتقای فاعل به فاعل در برخی زبان­ها از درون بند خودایستا نیز امکان­پذیر است. البته ساخت­های ارتقایی در زبان­های دارای متمم خودایستا نیز کاملاً یکسان نیستند و با هم تفاوت­هایی آشکار دارند. در پژوهش حاضر چهار نوع مختلف ساخت ارتقایی خودایستا اعم از فراارتقا، فوق‌ارتقا، بیش‌ارتقا و ارتقای کپی در زبان­های مختلف و فرضیه­های متفاوت دربارۀ آن‌ها مورد مطالعه قرار می­گیرد و درنهایت سعی می­شود با توجه به شواهد موجود مبنی‌بر وجود ساخت ارتقایی در زبان فارسی، جایگاه زبان فارسی در این تحلیل بین‌زبانی از ساخت ارتقایی مشخص شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


• Abney, S. (1987). Extraction and pseudo-objects. In Berber. In M. Guersel & K. Hale, ed., Studies in Berber Syntax: Lexicon project working papers 14, 21-23. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL.
• Adesola, O. (2005). Pronouns and null operators-A bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The State University of New Jersey.
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Micheal & J.Uriagereka ,eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of H.Lasnik (89-155). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1995). The theory of principles and parameters. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Chomsky,N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in linguistics1.
• Chomsky,N. (1994). Bare phrase structure. In Gert Webelhuth, ed., Government and Binding and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Collins, C. (1995). Serial verb constructions and the theory of multiple feature checking. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
• Coopmans, H. (1994). Comments on the Paper by Ouhalla, In D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein ,eds., Verb Movement, 73−85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1990). On "ra" in Persain. Linguistics, 1, 2-60. [In Persian]
• Darzi, A. (1993). Raising in Persian. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference (81-92). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
• Darzi, A. (1993). Raising in Persian. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference (81-92). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
• Darzi, A. (2009). Case and agreement in raising structure within the Finite sentences. Journal of Archaeological Studies 60 (189), 73-109. [In Persain]
• Darzi, A. (2010). Syntactic Argumaentation.2nd edition.Tehran: SAMT . [In Persian]
• Déprez, V. (1992). Raising construction in Haitian Creole. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 191-231.
• Epstein, S., & Seely, D. (2002). Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In S. Epstein & D. Seely (eds.) Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (65–89). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Fernández-Salgueiro, G. (2005). Agree, the EPP-F and further-raising in Spanish. In Gess, Randall and Edward J. Rubin ,eds., Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt Lake City.
• Fernández-Salgueiro, G. (2008). The case-F valuation parameter in Romance. In Theresa Biberauer ,ed., The limits of syntactic variation (Linguistics Today 132), (295-310). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Fernández-Salgueiro, G.(2011). Against “Pure” EPP checking : Evidence from further-raising. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics: 9(1), 123-131.
• Ferreira, M. (2004). Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47, 57–85.
• Frantz, D. (1978). Coping from complements in Blackfoot. In E.-D. Cook& J. Kaye,eds., Linguistic Studies Native Canada (89-109). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
• Fujita, K. (1995). Generalized attract and economy of derivation. Ms., Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
• Ghomeshi, J. (2001). Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46, 9-40.
• Grosu, A., & Horvath, J. (1984). The GB theory and raising in Rumanian. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 348-353.
• Hashemipour, P. (1989). Pronominalization and control in modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
• Karimi, S. (1999) Is scrambling as strange as we think it is?’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 159-190.
• Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: evidence from Persian. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ladusaw, W., & England, N. (1987). Control and complementation in Kusal. In Current Approaches to African Linguistics 4, 239-246. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Lappin, S. (1984). Predication and raising. Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS) 14, 236-352.
• Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1992). Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Moore, J. (1998). Turkish copy-raising and a chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 149-189.
• Motavallian, R. (2017a). Syntactic representation of modal verbs “Bayestæn, Šodæn” in Persian, Language Related Research, 7 (2017), 125-150. [In Persian]
• Motavallian, R. (2017b). Furthur raising in Persian, Journal of Researches in Linguistics , 8 (2017), 1-20. [In Persian]
• Ouhalla, J. (1994). Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In Verb Movement, ed. D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein, 41-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Perez, C. (1985). Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. Unpublished PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• Perlmutter, D. M. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Postal, P. (1974). On raising: One rule of English and Its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Rodrigues, C.A.N. (2004). Impoverished morphology and a-movement out of case domains. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
• Soames, S., & Perlmutter, D.M. (1979). Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
• Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, aspect and negation in Persian. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Uchibori, A. (2001). Raising out of CP and C-T relations. In M. C. Cuervo, D. Harbour,K. Hiraiwa & S. Ishihara eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3(FAJL3): MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (41, 145-162). Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
• Ura, H. (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
• Ura, H. (1998) Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo, Linguistic Analysis, 28, 67−88.
• Ura, H. (1994). Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics #7, Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
• Zeller, J. (2006a). Raising out of finite clauses in Nguni: The case of Fanele Southern. African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24(3), 255-275.
• Zeller, J. (2006b). Raising out of finite clauses and expletive constructions in Zulu. Unpublished manuscript, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.
• Zwart, C.J. (1997). Morphosyntax of verb movement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.