برچسب دهی نحوی خرده جمله متممی در زبان فارسی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مقاله پیش رو درصدد است تا با نقد و بررسی رویکردهای مختلف پیرامون مقوله ساخت خرده جمله تحلیلی کمینه گرا از این ساخت در زبان فارسی به دست دهد. با ظهور نظریه حاکمیت و مرجع گزینی از سال 1981 تا کنون بررسی مقوله نحوی ساخت خرده جمله به عنوان یکی از موضوعات بحث برانگیز مورد توجه بسیاری از زبان شناسان واقع شده و نظرات متفاوتی از سوی آنان مطرح گردیده است. در این راستا، در پژوهش حاضر ابتدا نظرات مختلف پیرامون ماهیت مقوله ساخت خرده جمله مورد نقد و بررسی قرار گرفته است. پس از آن براساس نظریه برچسب دهی برون مرکزی از ساختار گروهی چامسکی (2013, 2015) تلاش شده است تا تحلیلی کمینه گرا از ماهیت مقوله خرده جمله متممی در زبان فارسی، ساختار درونی و طریقه بازبینی حالت آن ارائه شود. در نهایت، بر پایه چارچوب مذکور نشان دادیم از آنجا که فاعل ساخت خرده جمله متممی برای بازبینی حالت خود مجبور به حرکت به جایگاه بالاتر از درون سازه خود است و مشخصه های رونوشت برجامانده آن برای الگوریتم برچسب دهی غیر قابل رؤیت است، تنها گروه نحوی درجامانده که قابل رؤیت است به عنوان برچسب نحوی انتخاب می گردد. بنابراین، مشخصه های نحوی محمول خرده جمله در زبان فارسی تعیین کننده برچسب نحوی این سازه است.Syntactic labeling of complement small clauses in Persian
This study presents a minimalist analysis of complement small clauses in Persian by reviewing different approaches to their categorial status. By the emergence of Chomsky’s Government and Binding Theory (GB) (Chomsky, 1981), small clauses have garnered the attention of linguists and, led to diverse opinions about their category. In this research, firstly, we shall investigate various opinions on the nature of the category of small clauses. Then, based on the exocentric labeling theory of phrase structure (Chomsky 2013, 2015), we shall attempt to provide a minimalist analysis of their categorial status, internal structure, and case assignment in Persian. Finally, grounded upon the above framework, we showed that since the subject of the small clause will have to move to an upper position to check its case and its remaining copy feature is invisible, the Labeling Algorithm can only see the label of the remaining SO (syntactic object); the small clause’s node is labeled as the phrase that remained in situ. Therefore, the syntactic properties of the predicate in Persian determines the syntactic label of small clauses.
Keywords: Complement Small Clause; Labeling Algorithm; Syntactic Movement, Exocentric Theory, Syntactic Label
Introduction
Small clause construction is considered to be a very controversial issue in linguistics. Linguists (e.g. Stowell 1981, Aarts 1992, Contreras 1987, Bowers 1993, Haegeman 1994, Starke 1995, Asada 2012…) who accept small clauses as constituents have very different opinions about their categorial status and internal structure. Therefore, there has been only scant, if not any, unified analysis of small clauses. This article employs the Labeling Algorithm (LA) of Chomsky (2013, 2015) to analyze small clauses in Persian. Insofar as an exocentric labeling theory of phrase structure require Syntactic Objects (SOs) to have labels of Full-Interpretation to be interpreted on CI, it is important to ask what label a SC has. We assume that a label is required for interpretation at the interfaces, and that labels are assigned by a minimal search in LA applying to an SO (like other operations, at the phase level). Chomsky's Labeling Algorithm proves to be a powerful tool for analyzing the structure of small clauses across different languages.
Materials and Methods
This article adopts a descriptive-analytic approach to analyze the data. It also, employs the Minimalist Program framework. We utilize Chomsky's Labeling Algorithm to determine the category of small clauses in Persian, includes prepositional phrases, adjective phrases, or noun phrases depending on the predicate.
Discussion and Conclusions
This literature will examine the most significant proposals regarding the categorical status of SCs. Some linguists consider small clauses as projections of the predicate (Stowell, 1981; Contreras, 1987). The first major proposal in connection with the categorial status and the internal structure of small clauses within the Small Clause Theory was first developed by Stowell (1981). Stowell (1981) suggests that small clauses are maximal projections of the form XP, with the head being the predicate X. However, there are objections to this endocentric analysis the most serious of them refers to the fronting of a small clause predicate. This view maintains that the predicate is a maximal projection. There is another group of linguists who assume that small clauses are the projections of a functional category (Bailyn, 1995; Bailyn and Citko, 1999; Bowers, 1993; Hornstein and Lightfoot, 1987; Chomsky, 1995; Gueron and Hoekstra, 1995; Kitagawa, 1985). However, these proposals also face challenges. Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987) analysed small clauses as including INLF0, which is an I node distinct from the ‘ordinary’ one introduced by them. Aarts (1992) criticizes Hornstein and Lightfoot (1987) for complicating the theoretical framework by introducing a new ‘kind’ of INFL. Kitagawa (1985) and Starke (1995) suggested that small clauses could be CPs.
This view too is not without certain problems. Haegeman (1994) assumed that small clauses are AgrPs. Obviously, SCs do not contain an AGRS-node because there is no person agreement between NP2 and XP, similar to the case that exists between the subject and verb of a finite clause. Bowers (1993, 2001) proposed that small clauses are PredP. However, the inclusion of a null functional head in small clauses is not theoretically necessary in the current state of the minimalist syntax. Moreover, from a semantic perspective, it lacks motivation, and empirically, equating Pred0 with any overt element does not appear to yield accurate predictions. Considering the limitations of previous perspectives, we adopt Chomsky's exocentric labeling theory. In Chomsky (2013, 2015), the labels of syntactic objects (SOs) are determined by the Labeling Algorithm (LA), which involves a minimal search process separate from Merge.
Chomsky (2013, 2015) provides insights into how LA is applied, as illustrated in (1).
(1) a. {α H, XP}
{α XP, YP}
(2) a. {YP, Z {α XP, tYP}} α = XP
{α XP<F>, YP<F>} α = <F, F>
In (1a), the syntactic object (SO) consists of a head H and the maximal projection XP. The Labeling Algorithm (LA) selects H as the label in this case. On the other hand, in (1b), the SO contains two maximal projections, XP and YP, neither of which is a head. In such instances, the label is determined in one of two ways. Firstly, one of the SOs, YP, may "move," causing the remaining copy of YP to become invisible to LA. Consequently, XP becomes the label, as illustrated in (2a). Alternatively, the label can be determined through feature sharing (FS) by selecting the most prominent feature F that both XP and YP possess, as demonstrated in (2b). Through the examination of various linguistic phenomena in the Persian language, including doubled clitics, object omission, passivization, fronting, and the occurrence of adverbs inside small clauses, we have established that the subject of a small clause must undergo movement to a higher position. Once the subject of the small clause is raised, the label of the small clause is determined by the in situ phrase. As a result, the categorial status of the small clause in Persian is
determined based on the label of the predicate.
تبلیغات
