ساختمان بند التزامی بر پایه عملیات تطابق چامسکی | ||
| پژوهش های دستوری و بلاغی | ||
| دوره 15، شماره 27، تیر 1404، صفحه 162-180 اصل مقاله (1.44 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: دستوری | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22091/jls.2025.13094.1698 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| محمدرضا پیروز* | ||
| استادیار زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| به دلیل تاثیر زبان انگلیسی بر جستارهای زبانشناختی و دستورشناختی، و نیز ضعیف بودن ساختهای التزامی در این زبان، ساختهای التزامی کمتر مورد توجه دستوریان، به ویژه دستوریان زایشی بوده است. این بدان دلیل است که زبان انگلیسی این ساختها را محدود به چند مورد در حاشیه دستور خود نموده است، و در عوض به جای استفاده از بند متمم التزامی از بند مصدری بهره گرفته است. این در حالی است که زبان فارسی، همچون برخی دیگر از زبانها از این ساختها به گونه زایا بهره میبرد. بر این پایه، هدف از این جستار، کنکاش در ساختهای التزامی در زبانها، و مقایسه ساخت بند التزامی زبان فارسی با آن بندهاست. بر این پایه، جستار کنونی نشان میدهد که عناصر حاشیه چپ بند در یک بند التزامی زبان فارسی مبتنی بر آثاری همچون ریتزی (Rizzi, 1997) و دیگران است. آنگاه نشان میدهد که ساخت نحوی بند التزامی در این زبان، تمامی عناصر ایجاد کننده خودایستایی و التزامی بودن را برخوردار است تا از نگاه رده شناسی، این ساختها حتی از زبان ژاپنی، که نظام کاملی را از ساخت التزامی نشان میدهد یک گام فراتر باشد. این ساخت التزامی، آن گونه که این کاوش پیگرفته است شباهت کاملی را با ساخت اخباری از خود نشان میدهد و نقطه مقابل یک ساخت ناخودایستا و عریان مصدری است که در زبانهایی مانند انگلیسی یافت میشود. سپس نشان میدهد که چینش عناصر سازنده یک بند التزامی بر پایه همان چینشی است که اوشیما (Oshima, 2003)، آنتوننکو (Antonenko, 2010) ، و دیگران برای ساختهای التزامی در زبانهای رومانیایی، زبان روسی و دیگر زبانها پیسنهاد کردهاند. سرانجام، این کاوش با استفاده از عملیات تطابق چامسکی (Chomsky, 2000) نشان میدهد که چگونه ساختمان یک بند التزامی بر پایه نحو کمینگی اشتقاق میشود و چگونه این ساختها نیازمند بازنگری در عملیات تطابق هیراییوا (Hiraiwa, 2001) را در زبانها گوشزد میکنند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| بند التزامی؛ عملیات تطابق چندگانه؛ حاشیه چپ بند؛ نمود؛ خودایستایی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Structure of Subjunctive complements Based on Chomsky's Operation Agree | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammadreza Pirooz | ||
| Assistant Professor of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Due to the influence of the English language on the development of syntax, and because subjunctive constructions are poorly generated in English, such constructions have received relatively little attention in generative tradition. This is because English restricts these constructions to a few marginal cases, and instead, it relies predominantly on its bare infinitival constructions. This is while in finite and/or subjunctive languages like Persian, a productive use of these finite constructions are available. Accordingly, this study aims to investigate Persian finite subjunctive constructions and compares them with the relevant finite subjunctives in other languages. More specifically, the present analysis shows that the left-periphery elements of a Persian subjunctive clause are analyzed following (Rizzi, 1997) with respect to MoodP and CP and demonstrates that the syntactic structure of these subjunctive clause contains all features that make finiteness and/or subjunctive force possible. These include the embedded subjunctive TP (including ϕ-features), nominative Case/case of the embedded PRO, appearing within the subjunctive mood phrase (SbjvP), and the embedded clause is dominated by a CP with the overt complementizer ke, “that” constituting a non-phasal CP. As such, the Persian subjunctive clause bears a complete structural resemblance to the indicative clause and stands in stark contrast to the non-finite, bare infinitival constructions found in languages such as English. The study further shows that the ordering of the constituents within a subjunctive clause follows the same pattern proposed by (Oshima, 2003), and (Antonenko, 2010). Finally, using the Operation Agree (Chomsky, 2000; 2001), or more specifically Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa, 2001; 2005), this analysis illustrates how the structure of a Persian subjunctive clause derives under the minimalist account, obviating the need for Move, and how these constructions highlight the need to reconsider formulation of Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky, 2000; 2001) to include the non-phasal constructions like the subjunctives. Introduction This study investigates the structure of finite subjunctive clauses in Persian, a language that, unlike English, lacks infinitival constructions altogether. Persian instead makes a productive use of finite subjunctives which appear in subordinate clauses, headed by the complementizer ke “that.” These subjunctives are semantically similar to non-indicative, subjunctive clauses in other languages like the Balkan languages (Oshima, 2003), Greek (Roussou, 2009), Italian (Alessandra, 2009), Serbian (Nikolić, 2020), Japanese (Oshima, 2003), and Russian (Antonenko, 2010), among many others. Materials & Methods The study mainly relies on native-speaker linguistic data, and acceptability judgments. Using core Minimalist accounts of Merge, Multiple Agree, Phase Theory, and the cartographic analyses of the left periphery, the research constructs derivations of subjunctive clauses. Research findings Persian subjunctives display a cluster of morpho-syntactic features that align them with finiteness as seen in the English and Persian juxtapositions. Ali wanted to leave here. Ali mi-xast ke æz inja be-r-e. Ali asp-want.pst comp from here sbj-leave-3sg[1] ‘Ali wanted to leave here.’ Structurally, the finite subjunctive complementation can replace different types of constructions that appear in the non-finite infinitive constructions in other languages. Ali sæy=kærd ke æz inja be-r-e. (control constructions) Ali try-pst.3sg comp from here sbj-leave-3sg ‘Ali tried to leave here.’ Ali bayæd (ke) æz inja be-r-e. (modals) Ali must comp from here sbj-leave-3sg ‘Ali must leave here.’ be=næzær=miræs-e ke Ali æz inja be-r-e. (raising predicates) seem-3sg comp Ali from here sbj-leave-3sg ‘It seems that Ali will leave.’ æge Ali æz inja be-r-e, … (conditionals) if Ali from here sbj-leave-3sg ‘If Ali leaves here, …’ Based on the constructions above, we propose the following properties of the finite subjunctives. The Properties of the Persian Finite Subjunctive Person and number: the embedded verb obligatorily carries agreement endings. Tense: the verbal stem includes tense. Finiteness: the clauses are classified as finite (Cowper, 2016). Case: a structural Nominative case is available for embedded subject DPs, even with the empty category PRO (Pirooz, 2016; Landau, 2006; Sigurðsson, 2008). Mood: the verb is marked with the subjunctive prefix be-. CP: these clauses are introduced by the overt complementizer ke (Darzi, 2008; Pirooz, 2025; 2016; Ilkhanipour, 2014). Therefore, Persian subjunctive clauses are instances of full finite CPs, resembling the (matrix) indicatives and licensing nominative Case/case (with no need for ECM). So, the following configuration is radically different from the bare non-finite infinitive configurations in English. Here is the clausal architecture. The Clausal Architecture of Persian Finite Subjunctive … [CP ke [SbjP be- [TP DPNom. [vP DP v-ϕ … ]]]] Discussion of Results & Conclusion As seen in the properties in (7) and the architecture in (8) above, Persian occupies the comprehensive end of the scale of finiteness, since it exhibits a full suite of properties related to the finiteness and subjunctives simultaneously. Besides, the left periphery of Persian subjunctives, (8) above, follows the architectural structure of Rizzi (1997), hosting CP, MoodP, and TP, all above vP. Within Agree-based syntax (Chomsky 2000, 2001), Persian subjunctives provide strong support for Multiple Agree (2005; Hiraiwa, 2001), where a full CP structure is projected, and the valuation of features differs between free and control subjunctives. In free subjunctives, T is defective only with respect to tense. It is anaphoric to the temporal head in the matrix clause, but its φ-features are valued locally. Multiple Agree establishes a dependency between the embedded T and the matrix T for temporal anchoring. In control subjunctives, the embedded T is doubly defective as it lacks both tense and φ-feature values. Multiple Agree must connect it both to matrix C/T (for tense) and to a controller (subject or object) for φ-features. This classifies control subjunctives into two categories of subject- and object-control. In the subject-control environment, the embedded φ-features co-vary with the matrix subject in Spec-TP, yielding straightforward Agree seen in (3) above. In object-control, (9) below, the φ-features are valued by the matrix object inside vP, requiring the Agree chain to extend deeper into the matrix vP. Ostadi daneꭍjuyanj ro mæjbur kærd ke be-r-anj teacher students obj force=made.3sg comp sbj-go-3pl there ‘The teacher forced the students to go there.’ As the co-indexations show, the embedded verb receives third person plural ending from the matrix object DP. [1]. Asp.: aspect; Pst.: past; Comp.: complementizer; Sbj.: Subjunctive; 3Sg.: Third person singular. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| subjunctive complements, Operation Multiple Agree, left periphery of the clause, mood, finiteness | ||
| مراجع | ||
منابعدرزی، علی. (1385). «ضرورت تمایز میان فرایند ارتقا و مبتداسازی در زبان فارسی». ویژهنامه فرهنگستان ـ دستور. شمارة 2. صص: 187ـ161.
ولیپور، مونا. (1399). دستاوردهای سنت دستورنویسی عربی برای زبان شناسی جدید، مطالعه موردی: وجه التزامی. علم زبان. شمارة 11. صص: 136ـ109.
ReferencesAlessandra, G. (2009). Toward the syntax of a subjunctive mood. Lingua, 119, 1832-1857. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.008.
Antonenko, A. (2008). The Nature of Russian subjunctive clauses. Manuscript, 1-38.
Antonenko, A. (2010). Puzzles of Russian subjunctives. University of Pennsilvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16,1 0-11.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz. A Life in Language, 1-52.
Darzi, A. (2008). On the vP Analysis of Persian Finite Control Constructions . Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 103-116. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.103. [In Persian]
Darzi, A & Kwak, S. (2015). Syntax and semantics of subjunctive clauses in Persian. Lingua, 153, 1-13. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.003.
Ghomeshi, J. (2001). Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 9-40. 10.1017/S0008413100017928.
Hashemipour, M. M. (1989). Pronominalization and control in modern Persian. PhD dissertation. University of California.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001). Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. MIT working papers in linguistics, 40, 67-80.
Ilkhanipour, N. (2014). On the CP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 323-331.
Ilkhanipour, N. (2018). On subjunctive clauses and irrealis mood in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 63, 100-111.
Karimi, S. (2008). Raising and control in Persian. In S. Karimi, Samiian, Vida & D. and Stilo. Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, 177-208. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Krapova, I. (2021). Complementizers and particles inside and outside of the left periphery: The case of Bulgarian revisited. In B. Sonnenhauser & B. Wiemer. Clausal complementation in South Slavic, 211-269. 10.1515/9783110725858-004.
Landau, I. (2001). Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Springer.
Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 811-877.
Nikolić, D. (2020). Distribution of PRO in Serbian subjunctives. Calgary (Working) Papers in Linguistics, 31, 89-109. 1880/112771.
Oshima, S. (2003). Subjunctives and subject obviation (Part I). Journal of Inquiry and Research, 78, 1-21.
Oshima, S. (2004). Subjunctives and subject Obviation (Part II). Journal of Inquiry and Research, 79, 1-19.
Pesetsky, D & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. University of Pennsilvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 1-10.
Pesetsky, D & Torrego, E. (2008). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian, & W. K. Wilkins. Pesetsky, D & Torrego, E. (2008). The syntax of Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, 262-294. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Quer, J. (2006). Subjunctives. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. V, 660-684. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Quer, J. (2008). Subjunctives. In Everaerrt, M & Reiemsdijk, H Van. The Blackwll Companion to Syntax, 660-684. Blackwell.
Rivero, M. L. (1994). Clause structure and v-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 63-120.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman. Elements of Gramma, 281-337. Springer.
Roussou, A. (2009). In the mood for control. Lingua, 1811-1836. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.010.
Swan, M. (1995). Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Valipour, M. (2020). Relevance of the Arabic Grammar Tradition to Modern Linguistics: A Case Study of Subjunctive Mood. Language Science, 7, 109-136. 10.22054/ls.2020.49682.13067(11) 109-136. [In Persian]9
Wanatabe, A. (2000). Feature copying and biniding: Evidence from complementizer agreement and switch reference. Syntax, 3, 159-181.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 217 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 29 |
||