نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
2 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Conditions governing Ezafe/possessive marker allomorphy in Sanandaji Kurdish are of vital importance. There are four possible cases for the head noun of Ezafe construction; i.e. it can be definite and accompanied by an adjective; definite without any adjective complement; and indefinite with or without an adjective complement. Also, there are two possible cases for the head noun of possessive constructions; i.e. it is always definite, but it may be accompanied by an adjective complement or not. Amongst them, there is just one case with an evident case marker «=æ»: A definite noun phrase accompanied by an adjective reflects the Ezafe/possessive relation by linker «=æ», otherwise «=i» inserts. Hence, the rationale behind the aforementioned morpho-syntactic conditions is a challenging issue in Ezafe/possessive constructions. Furthermore the distinctive interpretation of the two constructions; is not to be disregarded just the possessive construction bears the meaning of possession. The present paper aims at investigating Ezafe/possessive constructions from a Distributed Morphology view and provides an analysis of their derivations which explains the structural similarities and constraints determining the alternation of case marking. It is supposed, the value of features in «Ez» determines the winner of the competition between «=æ» and «=i». Accordingly, when uninterpretable features in node Ez are valued as [Ez, +MOD, +DEF], «=æ» inserts into the node, and in other three cases, based on the under-specification principle «=i» inserts. Also, the difference in morphological features of the Complement of EzP nodes is responsible for the distinctive meaning of Ez- and Possessive constructions. In possessive constructions, the head of the adjective phrase, as a complement of EzP, contains an uninterpretable feature [POSS] which must be satisfied by merging EzP node with a possessive complement. Therefore the difference is related to the complement of EzP not the Ez node itself.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
انوری، حسن و حسن احمدی گیوی (1396). دستور زبان فارسی جلد دوم، ویرایش چهارم، تهران: فاطمی.
انوشه، مزدک (1394). «فرافکن‌های نمود و زمان در صفت‌های فاعلی مرکب: بر پایه نظریه صرف توزیعی»، جستارهای زبانی 26، صص72-49.
ـــــــــــــ (1396). «جایگاه فرافکن نفی و مجوزدهی به هیچ واژه‌ها در فارسی بر پایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی»، پژوهشهای زبانی 14، صص 20-1.
ـــــــــــــ (1397). «بازنگری در تصریف زمان گذشته در زبان فارسی، بر پایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی»، جستارهای زبانی 43، صص 80-57.
تفکری‌رضایی، شجاع و علیرضا سلیمانی (1397). «مجهول در زبان فارسی از منظر صرف توزیعی»، جستارهای زبانی 43، صص 183-161.
دبیر مقدم، محمد (1392). رده‌شناسی زبان‌های ایرانی، جلد دوم. تهران، انتشارات سمت.
علینژاد، بتول و صادق محمدی (۱۳۹3). «واژه‌بست‌های ضمیری در گویش کردی سورانی، تعامل با حروف اضافه»، زبان و ادب فارسی 18، صص94-76.
قریب، عبدالعظیم، جلال همایی، رشید یاسمی، ملکالشعرای بهار و بدیعالزمان فروزانفر (1373). دستور زبان فارسی (پنج استاد). تهران: ناهید.
کریمی، یادگار (1389). «ساخت اضافه در سطح رابط نحو و صورت آوایی»، زبان‌پژوهی 3، صص 173-190.
ــــــــــــ (1391). «مطابقه در نظام کنایی (ارگاتیو) زبان‌های ایرانی: رقابت واژه‌بست و وند»، پژوهشهای زبان‌شناسی، 8، صص ۱8-۱.
محمد‌ابراهیمی، زینب و فاطمه دانش‌پژوه (۱۳۸۷). «واژه‌بست و روابط دستوری معنایی آن با فعل در زبان کردی (گویش سورانی)»، پژوهشنامۀ علوم انسانی ۵۸، صص ۱68-۱45.
Alinezhad, B and Mohammadi S. .2014. Pronominal Clitics in Surani Kurdish: Interaction with Prepositions, Persian Language and Literature 18: 76-94 [In Persian].
Anoushe, M. 2015. Aspect and Tense Projections in the Complex Agentives: A Distributed Morphology Approach, Language Related Research 26: 49-72 [In Persian].
ـــــــــــــــ. 2017. The Position of NegP and Licensing N-words in Persian: A Distributed Morphology Approach, Journal of Language Research 14: 1-20 [In Persian].
ــــــــــــــــ. 2018. A Revision of Persian Past Tense Inflection: A Distributed Morphology Approach, Language Related Research 43: 57-80 [In Persian].
Anvari, H. & H. Ahmadi Givi (2017). Persian Grammar, Vol 2. 4th Ed., Tehran: Fatemi [In Persian].
Gharib, A., J. Homaei, R. Yasami, M. Bahar & B. Foruzanfar (1994), Persian Grammar, Tehran: Nahid [In Persian].
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology After Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Dabir-moghadam, M. 2013. Typology of Iranian Languages Vol. 1 & 2, Tehran: Samt [In Persian].
Embick, D. and Noyer, R. 2001. Movement Operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555-595.
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In A. Carnie, H. Harley & T Bures (Eds), Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Cambridge: MIT Press, 275–288.
ــــــــــــــــــــــ. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection”. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge: MIT Press, 53-110.
Halle, M. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission, In Papers at the Interface G (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30), B. Bruening, Y Kang & M. McGinnis (Eds), Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics, MIT, 425-49.
Harley, H. & Noyer, R. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology, Glot International 4(4): 3-9.
Harley, H. and Stone, M. S..2013. The no agent idioms Hypothesis. In R. Foli, Ch. Sevdali and R. Truswell (Eds). Syntax and its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251.275.
Karim, R. A. 2016.The Syntax of Verbal Inflection in Central Kurdish, Ph.D. dissertation, Newcastle University.
Karimi, Y. 2012. Agreement in Iranian Ergative Languages: the Competition of Affixes and Clitics, Journal of Researches in Linguistics 8: 1-18 [In Persian].
ــــــــــــــ. 2010. Ezafe Construction the Interface of Syntax and Phonetic Form Levels, Journal of Language Analysis 3: 173-190 [In Persian].
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Klavans, J. L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61: 95-120.
Mahootian, S. 1993. A Null Theory of Code-switching. Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, Illinois.
Marantz, A. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
ــــــــــــــــ 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds), Theoretical morphology, New York: Routledge, 253-270.
McCarus, E., N. 2009. Kurdish. In G. Windfuhr, ed., The Iranian Languages, 587-633.London: Routledge.
Moinzadeh, A. 2005. A New Approach to the Ezafe Phrase in Persian, Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa papers in Linguistics, 33: 43-64.
Noyer, R. (1997). Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological structure. New York NY: Garland.
Noyer, R. (1998). “Impoverishment Theory and Morphosyntactic Markedness” in S. Lapointe, D. Brentari, and P. Farell. eds., Morphology and Its Relation to Syntax and Phonology, CSLA, Stanford.
ـــــــــــــــ 2001. Clitic sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF convergence. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 751-829.
Samiian, V. 1983. “Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian: An X-Bar Analysis”. Ph.D. dissertation. UCLA.
Samvelian, P. 2007. “What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization”. In Texas Linguistics Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 263-283
Siddiqi, D. 2009. Syntax within the Word, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taffakori Rezaee, S. and Soleimani. A. .2018. Passive in Persian: Distributed Morphology Approach, Language Related Research 43: 161-183 [In Persian]
)