مصدر فارسی چه ماهیتی دارد و چگونه فرافکن می شود؟ تبیینی در چارچوب صرف توزیعی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
پیرامون مصدر و ساخت نحوی اش اتفاق نظر وجود ندارد؛ برخی آن را اسم و دیگران فعل می دانند. دسته سومی نیز بنابه رفتار اسم فعل گونه آن، مصدر را ذیل مقولات مشکّک یا مقوله پذیر در بافت، تلقی می کنند. در پژوهش حاضر برآن بودیم تا بدون نیاز به نگرش سوم، پیشنهادی برای سلسله مراتب فرافکنی مصدر در چارچوب صرف توزیعی ارائه کنیم؛ به نحوی که نه تنها منطبق بر ویژگی های دوگانه اسم فعل گونه اش باشد، بلکه نشان دهد چگونه مصدر فارسی در مقام صفت نیز می تواند ایفای نقش کند. در نیل به این هدف، ساخت نحوی و ویژگی های مصدر فارسی بررسی شدند که این ویژگی ها، افزون بر موارد پیش گفته در سایر مطالعات، از این قرار بودند: مصدر فارسی با مصدر زبان هایی نظیر انگلیسی متفاوت است و از جنبه هایی به اسم مصدر میل می کند، گرچه رفتار آن مطلقاً بر اسم مصدر نیز منطبق نیست. بنابراین، ماهیت مصدر فارسی با هر دو مقوله مصدر و اسم مصدر انگلیسی تفاوت دارد و به تبع، اشتقاق شان یکسان نخواهد بود؛ پرسشواژه در ساخت مصدری به کار می رود؛ مصدر (منفی) می تواند به هیچ واژه مجوز حضور بدهد؛ همچنین، مصدر می تواند نه به عنوان اسم و نه به عنوان فعل، بلکه در مقام صفت به کار رود. بدین ترتیب، پیشنهادی برای سلسله مراتب فرافکنی مصدر ارائه شد و جایگاه ادغام وند مصدری نیز بررسی شد. شواهد نشان دادند که برخلاف فرض های محتمل اولیه، هیچ کدام از هسته های اسم کوچک، زمان و فعل کوچک محل درج وند مصدری فارسی نیستند. درنهایت، اتخاذ رویکرد صرف توزیعی اجازه داد رابطه میان فعل خودایستا و صورت متناظر مصدری اش در قالب فرایندهای نحوی مشترکی منعکس شود.What Nature Does the Persian Infinitive Have and How Is It Projected? An Explanation in the Distributed Morphology Framework
The categorization and syntactic structure of the infinitive have been subjects of debate, with differing views considering it either as a noun or a verb. This research aims to explore the characteristics of Persian infinitives and propose a hierarchy for their projection within the framework of Distributed Morphology. By considering the infinitive's dual nominal-verbal behavior and its potential role as an adjective, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive explanation of the Persian infinitive. In addition to reviewing relevant literature, it is observed that the behavior of the Persian infinitive differs from that of the infinitive in languages such as English. While it shares some similarities with the English gerund, it is important to note that the Persian infinitive has distinct properties. Consequently, the nature of the Persian infinitive and its derivation differ from those of the English infinitive and gerund. The study also highlights the use of wh-words in infinitive structures and the ability of (negative) infinitives to permit the presence of polarity items within their structure. Furthermore, the infinitive can function not only as a noun or a verb but also as an adjective. Based on these observations, a hierarchy of infinitive projection is proposed. Additionally, the research suggests the position of infinitive affix insertion, providing evidence that contradicts initial assumptions regarding the insertion point of the Persian infinitive affix.
Key Words: Persian Infinitive, hierarchy of projection, Distributed Morphology, morphosyntactic merge, categorization of infinitive affix
Introduction
The categorization of the infinitive as either a noun or a verb has been a matter of ongoing debate. This duality of behavior has led to differing positions among grammarians, with some considering it a noun, others considering it a verb, and some proposing a fuzzy categorization. The specific behavior of the Persian infinitive further complicates the issue, as it can function both as an infinitive and as a gerundive nominal in languages, like English. This research aims to propose a hierarchy for the projection of Persian infinitives within the framework of Distributed Morphology. This framework, which lacks categories for roots, offers a suitable approach for explaining the nominal-verbal and adjectival behaviors of infinitives. Additionally, it accurately captures the relationship between finite verbs and their corresponding infinitive forms through common syntactic processes, without making a clear distinction between morphology and syntax.
Literature Review
There has been a lack of agreement among grammarians regarding the nature of the infinitive, leading to different perspectives in the literature. Some scholars consider the infinitive as a noun (Hosseini, 2002; Darzi, 2005; Anvari and Givi, 2013), while others classify it as a verb (Shariat, 1985; Nobahar, 1993; Mosaffa Jahromi, 2013). Another group argues that the infinitive exhibits both nominal and verbal features (Shafaei, 1984; Rezaei, 2016; Rasekh-Mahand, 2015).
The discussion of the infinitive's argument structure adds further complexity to the analysis. Vahedi-Langrudi (1996: 10-12) suggests that the behavior of Persian infinitives resembles that of English gerunds, emphasizing their valency. Dabir Moghaddam (1997: 35) provides a comprehensive perspective on the argument structure of infinitives, highlighting a process in Persian that converts finite verbs into infinitives, where they become the head of genitive (Ezafe) phrases. Aghagolzadeh et al. (2010) demonstrate that all Persian infinitives can bear an argument structure, with the semantic roles of verbs appearing as possessive elements after the noun and prepositional phrases. Karimi Doostan (2007) refers to words such as “hefz/maintaining”, “ʔanjam/doing”, and “?edâme/continuing” as “propositional nouns”. These words exhibit verb-like behavior due to their argument structure, while also accommodating prepositions, Ezafe markers, and light verbs, which aligns them with nouns.
The incorporation of arguments is another aspect relevant to the analysis of Persian infinitives. Karimi and Tishehgaran (2022) discuss four types of infinitives: unergative, unaccusative, transitive, and ditransitive. Anoushe (2021: 731) proposes a structure for Persian infinitives within the framework of Distributed Morphology, capturing their dual behavior.
Figure 1: Persian infinitive structure (Anoushe, 2021: 731)
nP
vP
n (-dan/-tan)
√ro
(0-) v
Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive-analytic research approach, employing the formal framework of Distributed Morphology. The data was collected through a combination of attested and self-constructed examples, guided by the authors’ intuition.
Discussion
The presence of vP, CauseP, TP, and NegP in the hierarchy of Persian infinitive projections is supported by their verbal behaviors, such as the ability to accommodate adverbs, negation markers, causative affixes, the potential for passivization, and the possession of an argument structure. Additionally, the necessity of an nP node is affirmed by their nominal behaviors, including the acceptance of plural markers, modification by adjectives, and the presence of the “râ” marker. The inclusion of a wh-word in infinitive constructions further confirms the existence of a CP. However, a challenging issue arises regarding the position of the infinitive affix. While the heads of vP, TP, and nP all have the potential to host the infinitive affix, some evidence rejects all three positions as potential merger sites for the infinitive affix.
The vP head is unable to contain the infinitive affix due to the presence of light verbs occupying the head position in compound verbs, leaving no space for the affix to merge. Furthermore, in causative infinitives, where the causative projection is located above the vP, merging the infinitive affix before the causative affix is not feasible. Persian deverbal nouns, formed by adding nominal affixes to the verbal root (cf. Anoushe 2021: 625-627 and 731), do not exhibit the same behaviors as infinitives, as they are unable to accommodate adverbs and verbal negative affixes. Consequently, the nature of infinitives and deverbal nominals in Persian differs, and the infinitive affixes “-dan/-tan” cannot be considered nominal. As a result, the head of nP lacks an overt representative element and serves solely as a null syntactic element, altering the category of the infinitive without being the insertion position for the infinitive affix. Likewise, merging the infinitive affix in the head of TP encounters a challenge in future tenses, as the lexical main verb appears as a truncated infinitive. This poses a contradiction since the head T is occupied by an auxiliary verb in the future paradigm and cannot naturally serve as the position for the truncated infinitive affix.
Therefore, we require an independent position, separate from the aforementioned three locations, to provide the insertion position of the infinitive affix, which can account for all Persian infinitive constructions while remaining consistent. Given that infinitiveness is a characteristic projected across the entire structure, we propose the introduction of an Inf(initive) Phrase, with its head serving as the insertion site for the infinitive affix. This phrase is positioned above CauseP and below TP. By merging nP over CP, the infinitive assumes a nominal nature and exhibits nominal characteristics. Additionally, it is possible to merge CP with an adjective. Consequently, the hierarchy of infinitive projection expands to the structure n/a in its final order.
Conclusion
The primary focus of this article was to address the challenge of categorizing Persian infinitives as verbs, nouns, or, in some cases, adjectives. Based on the findings, a proposed hierarchy of infinitive projections was presented, along with the identification of the appropriate position for the insertion of the infinitive affix. Contrary to initial assumptions, the evidence suggests that none of the heads of vP, nP, and TP serve as suitable locations for merging the infinitive affix. Instead, it is merged into an independent projection that encompasses the infinitive features, known as InfP.
The final hierarchy of Persian infinitive projection, taking into account its verbal, nominal, and adjectival behaviors, is as follows:
nP/aP < CP < (NegP) < TP < InfP < (CauseP) < vP < √P
تبلیغات
