پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 931 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,652 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,491,736 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,884,262 |
حرکت در دو رویکرد حاشیه‌های نحوی و خطی شدن چرخه‌ای : شواهدی از قلب نحوی در کردی کلهری | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 11، شماره 32، آذر 1398، صفحه 209-229 اصل مقاله (617.03 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2018.17426.1424 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| شجاغ تفکری رضایی1؛ مصطفی خان محمدی* 2 | ||
| 1زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات ، دانشگاه رازی | ||
| 2گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی - دانشکده ادبیات - دانشگاه رازی | ||
| چکیده | ||
| رویکرد حاشیه‌های نحوی چامسکی (Chomsky, 2000, 2001) و خطیشدن چرخه‌ای فاکس و پزتسکی (Fox & Pesetsky, 2005)، دو رویکرد مطرح در تبیین حرکت در نحو فاز ـ بنیاد هستند. در این مقاله، نقاط قوت و ضعف این دو رویکرد، با داده‌های قلب نحوی در کردی کلهری به چالش‌کشیده می‌شود. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که براساس رویکرد حاشیۀ نحوی، قلب نحوی نزدیک و قلب نحوی دور در کردی کلهری هر دو از ساز و کار یکسانی پیروی می‌کنند. در این رویکرد، عنصر مقلوب به صورت چرخه‌ای و فقط از طریق حاشیۀ نحوی فاز‌‌های واژگانی و نقشی به مشخص‌گر گروه تأکید حرکت می‌کند. ارائه نکردنِ تبیینی بهینه از مرجع‌گزینی دور ضمیر پی‌چسبیey/ / (اش) در قلب دور، از نقاط ضعف رویکرد حاشیۀ نحوی است. در رویکرد خطیشدن چرخه‌ای، قلب نحوی نزدیک و دور در حاشیۀ نحوی و قلب چندگانه در جایگاه غیر حاشیه رخ می‌دهد. توجیه بهینه مرجع‌گزینی دور ضمیر پی‌چسبی در قلب دور، از نقاط قوت رویکرد خطیشدن چرخه‌ای است. تبیین فراتر از واقعیت (تعمیم افراطی) در دستوری اعلام کردن قلب دورِ گروه فعلی برخلاف واقعیات زبانی کردی کلهری نقطۀ ضعف این رویکرد است. به طور کلی، رویکرد خطیشدن چرخه‌ای توان تبیینی بهینه‌تری در اغلب موارد نسبت به رویکرد حاشیۀ نحوی دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| قلب نحوی؛ رویکرد حاشیۀ نحوی؛ رویکرد خطیشدن چرخه‌ای؛ کردی کلهری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Movement in Syntactic Edges and Cyclic Linearization Approache : Evidence from Scrambling in Kalhuri Kurdish | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Shoja Tafakkori Rezaee1؛ Mostafa Khanmohammadi2 | ||
| 1English Language and Literature, Humanistic Faculty, Razi University | ||
| 2English language , Literature faculty< Razi university< Kermanshah< Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Movement is one of the basic properties of human languages. Studying and accounting different movements is one of the main concerns in generative linguistics. One of the movements which attracts the interest of many linguists is Scrambling. Scrambling is the movement which occurs in languages with free word order including Kalhori Kurdish. Kalhori Kurdish is an Iranian language spoken in Kermanshah and Ilam provinces, west part of Iran. In this article, we attest the merits of two rival movement approaches, namely Syntactic Edges (Chomsky 2000, 2001) and Cyclic Linearization (Fox & Pesetsky, 2005). Chomsky (2000) introduces the phase-based approach minimalism. He argues that syntactic derivation creates syntactic units, called phase. Chomsky (2000, 2001) claims that full argument structure v*P and CPs are strong phases and spell-out applies to these strong phases. Spell-out is viewed as an operation that transfers syntactic objects in each strong phase to phonology and logical form. The consequence of such an approach is the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). An important consequence of PIC is that edges or syntactic escape hatches must be postulated at each strong phase. In phase-based approach, spell-out makes elements in the complement of strong phases inaccessible to further operations in the higher phases and movements which are triggered by features in higher phases that only occur through the edges of strong phases in successive cyclic fashion; therefore, “edges” provide a path for any upward movement. On the other hand, Fox and Pesetsky (2005) argue that movement can occur in nonedge zones as object shift in Scandinavian languages. They claim that movement is possible without postulating Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) and edges. Fox & Pesetsky (2005) claim that spell-out is an operation which changes asymmetric hierarchical structure in syntax into linear structure in phonology. They argue that even after spell-out, syntactic objects can be accessible to operations in upper phases if they do not violate the linear preservation principle. In this article, we try to compare strengths and weaknesses of these approaches in the light of Scrambling in Kalhori Kurdish. In Kalhori Kurdish, SOV is the unmarked word order. Scrambling provides marked interpretation by changing this unmarked word order. Scrambling is a common operation and feature-based process in Kalhori Kurdish. In both approaches, Scrambling in Kalhori Kurdish triggers phrases with contrastive focus feature to move cyclically from lexical phase to functional phase through phase edges to the spec of focus phrase. By using some evidences such as the position of sentence adverbs and phrase adverbs and the presence of overt subject in tag questions, we proved that EPP feature on TPP cannot trigger short distance scrambling in Kalhori Kurdish. Therefore, short distance scrambling is an A’-movement to the spec of focus phrase which is located at the top of TPP. Also, long-distance scrambling is an A’-movement to satisfy focus feature. Based on Syntactic Edges approach, scrambling in Kurdish occurs exclusively in the specs of v*P and CPs. Uniformity in short- and long-distance scrambling is the main outcome of analyzing scrambling in this approach. Although this approach provides a unified mechanism in explaining short- and long-distance scrambling in Kalhori Kurdish, it cannot provide an adequate explanation for long-distance binding of /ey/ as an eclitic pronoun. Miagawa (2006) claims that scrambling occurs at the edges of phases and proposes two kinds of movement to the Spec of CP, movement of WH phrase and long-distance scrambling. He argues that only WH phrase inters agreement with the head of Cp and long-distance scrambling does not inter agreement relationship with the head of CP. Miagawa claims that long-distance scrambling occurs as an optional movement only to satisfy edge feature. Scrambling evidences in long-distance scrambling manifests that unlike Miagawa (2006), the landing site of scrambled phrase in Kalhori Kurdish is not the spec of Cp but spec of FocP. On the other hand, in Cyclic Linearization, scrambling in Kalhori Kurdish can occur both in edges zone (short and long distance scrambling) and in nonedge zone (multiple scrambling). This approach explains long-distance binding of /ey/ as a clitic pronoun properly because the binding relationship between clitic pronoun and its antecedent A does not violate the linear preservation principle, so, it is an licit movement, which is one of its merits over syntactic edges. Contrary to Kurdish data and writers’ linguistic intuition, long-distance scrambling of verb phrase is licit movement in Cyclic Linearization. This is one of the weaknesses of Cyclic Linearization. Overall, Cyclic Linearization, in spite of lack of consistency in its concepts, can suggest more adequate explanation for scrambling in Kalhori Kurdish than Syntactic Edges. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Scrambling, Syntactic Edges approach, Cyclic Linearization approach, Kalhuri Kurdish | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
دبیر مقدم، محمد. (1392). رده‌شناسی زبان‌های ایرانی. تهران: انتشارات سمت. کریمی، یادگار (1388) ساخت کنادی: منشاء و ماهیت آن، پایان نامه دکتری.دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. همایون‌فر، مژگان. (1394). بررسی جایگاه هسته در فرافکن‌های نقشی جمله در فارسی بر پایه نظریه فازها. مجموعه مقالات سومین کنفرانس ملی زبان شناسی و آموزش زبان فارسی. به کوشش محمد حسینی معصوم و شهلا شریفی. صص. 739 -767. References
Chomsky, N. (2000). “Minimalist inquiries”: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Drivation by Phase. In K. Hale (Ed.), A Life in linguistics (pp. 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistics Inquiry, 36, 1-22.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. IN foundational issues in linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problem of Projection.Lingua, 130, 33-49.
Citko, B. (2014). Phase Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistics perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dabir Moghadam, M. (2013). The typology of Iranian languages. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Fox, D., & Pesetsky, D. (2003). Cyclic linearization and typology of movement. Linguistics Society of America Summer Institute. Michigan State University. Michigan, USA. [Online]: <https://home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/ko.pdf>
Fox, D., & Pesetsky, D. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 1-45.
Homayounfar, M. (2016). The study of the position of functional heads in Persian based on phase theory. In M. Hosseni Masoum & Sh. Sharifi (Eds.), The 3rd National Conference of Linguistics and Teaching Persian Language (pp. 739-767). Tehran: Nevise [In Persian].
Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling, evidence from Persian. New York: Mounton de Gruytre.
Karimi, Y. (2010). Ergativity: its origin and nature (PhD dissertation). Allameh Tabatabaii University, Tehran [In Persian].
Karimi Doostan, Gh. (1997). Light verb constructions in Persian (PhD dissertation). University of Essex, Essex, England.
Ko, H. (2005). Syntactic edges and linearization (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge. U.S.A.
Ko, H. (2007). Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistics Inquiry, 38, 49-83.
Ko, H. (2011). Predication and edge effects. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 29,725-78.
Ko, H. (2014). Syntactic edges and scrambling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahajan, A. (1990). A/A-bar distinction movement theory (PhD dissertation) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A.
Mahajan, A. (1994). Right ward scrambling. In D. Beermanand etpal (Ed.), Right Ward Movement (pp. 185-213). Amesterdam: John Benjamin Publication.
Miyagawa, Sh. (2001). EPP, scrambling and wh in Situ. In M. Kenstowitch&K. Hale (Eds.), A Life in language (pp. 293-338). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Sh. (2003). A-Movement scrambling and options without optionality. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 177-200). Oxford: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, Sh. (2006). Moving to the edge. International Conference on English and Linguistics. Pusan National University, Busan, Korea. [Online]: < https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5728dfa81bbee0da7943b811/t/5799a03ce4fcb532086c34a6/1469685821285/Moving+to+the+edge.pdf >
Miyagawa, Sh. (2010). Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based on discourse-based languages. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ross, J. (1967). Constrains on variables in syntax (PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A.
Saito, M. (2006). Optional a-scrambling. In N. MacGloin & J. Mori (Eds.),The 15th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference (pp. 1-20).Kyoto: Kyoto University. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 597 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 351 |
||
