توزیع پرسشواژه در جملات پرسشی تک‌پرسشواژه‌ای در فارسی

این پژوهش، از روشی کیفی پیروی می کند تا توزیع پرسش واژه را در جمله های پرسشی تک پرسش واژه‌ای فارسی، در چارچوب رویکرد اشتقاقی و نحو فاقد مشخصه مورد بررسی قرار دهد. همچنین مقاله حاضر، در پی بررسی آن است که چرا در بعضی ساخت‌ها پرسشواژه ضرورتاً به‌ صورت درجا ظاهر می گردد، در حالی که در برخی دیگر درجا بودن یا نبودن آن، کاملاً اختیاری است. در این پژوهش، زبان‌ها باتوجه به تنوع توزیع پرسش واژه، به دو دسته زبان‌های دارای پرسش واژه ثابت و پرسش واژه غیر ثابت تقسیم شدند که زبان فارسی در دسته دوم قرار دارد. سپس، با تکیه بر این تقسیم‌بندی و با بهره‌گیری از دامنه‌ نمایی و بازادغام نشان دادیم که پرسش واژه در تمامی زبان‌ها به‌صورت اجباری در دو جایگاه ادغام می‌شود. آن گاه استدلال کردیم که تلفظ یکی از دو پرسش واژه ادغام شده حاصل تعاملی است که میان نظام‌های خوانشی و بیرونی‌ساز برقرار می‌شود. در همین راستا، با بازنگری عملکرد پیش‌آوری کانون نشان دادیم که نمی‌توان پیش آوری کانون را عامل بازادغام (یا همان حرکت) پرسش‌واژه به‌حساب آورد، بلکه صرفاً عاملی است در جهت تلفظ بالاترین پرسش‌واژه. در نهایت، با بررسی ساخت‌های دارای افعال ربطی نشان دادیم که وجود/عدم وجود فعل ربطی در کنار پرسش‌واژه می تواند عامل موثری در تلفظ بالاترین پرسش‌واژه به‌ تنهایی باشد. بر این اساس، اصلی با عنوان « اصل تلفظ بالاترین پرسش‌واژه» صورت‌بندی شد. بر پایه این اصل نشان داده شد که بر خلاف رویکردهای موجود درباره پرسش‌واژه در فارسی، می توان اختیاری یا اجباری بودن حرکت پرسش‌واژه را به ‌صورتی کاملاً یک پارچه تحلیل کرد.

The Distribution of Whword in Single WhQuestions in Persian

By investigating the distribution of whword insingle Whquestions in Persian through a qualitative method in terms of the theory of Derivational Approach (Epstein et al., 1998) and FeatureFree Syntax (Boeckx, 2015) we intend to explain why whword is necessarily in situ. in some sentences and why its movement is optional in others. In this study, based on the distribution of whwords, we put languages into two different categories: fixed whword and nonfixed whword. Languages like English and Japanese in which whword appears in just one place (either in situ. or nonin situ.) are put in the first category, and languages like Persian in which whword appears in a variety of positions are put in the second category. By combining this classification with ScopeMarking (Pesetsky, 1987) (in which it is believed that each quantifier (such as whword) must have a scope) and Remerge (Zhang, 2004) (in which it is believed that the movement of α is not the process of “copy+ merge+ delete”, but a simple remerge of α), we suggest that converting a statement into a whquestion is related to conceptualintentional systems and we can achieve it by resorting to merge, remerge and the related interpretation in conceptualintentional systems without resorting to morphological features. Besides, we show that forming a whquestion is not the matter of being a whin situ. language or a nonwhin situ. language, but is the matter of scope marking. By accepting the compulsory merger of whword in two positions in Persian, we naturally admit that the movement of whword is compulsory as well. Since if no remerge process happens, whword cannot extend its scope over the whole sentence, and as a result, no whquestion will be formed. Accordingly, we show that merger of whword in two positions is compulsory, just one of which must be pronounced, however: A. an in situ. position and B. the position in which the whword can scope mark the whole sentence.We, also discuss the factors which determine the pronunciation of one of those merged whwords. By taking a look at Persian related data, we understand that each merged whword enjoys the same chance of being pronounced and if we just resort to articulatoryperceptual systems, then, we must make some arguments in favor of those whwords which can be pronounced in both insitu. and noninsitu. positions. Meanwhile, if we put all these issues into discourse, the problem we face is those whwords which are only pronounced in the insitu. position. Accordingly, we resort to a mixed solution in which both articulatorperceptual systems and discourse related issues are observed. As a result, by reinterpreting the focus fronting as a triggering factor for pronunciation of the higher merged whword, we hold that, according to discourse, if an element which is not the already established “matter of current concern”, becomes “the matter of current concern” or becomes more relevant to the already established “matter of current concern”; then, the interpretation systems detect whword as a structure which is susceptible to focus fronting. This detection and interpretation sends instructions to externalization systems, and they accordingly, pronounce the highest remerged whword. As a result, we cannot take focus fronting as a triggering factor for remerge (or movement). This shows that the pronunciation of the highest merged whword is the result of the interaction between interpretation systems and externalization systems. Accordingly, we formalize “the principle of pronouncing the highest whword” as follows:The principle of pronouncing the highest whword:In a language the Externalization Systems pronounce the highest whword, if;A)    The language is a nonfixed whword,B)    The interpretation systems detect the whword as a structure which is susceptible to focus fronting.** In case B does not happen, whin situ. will be pronouncedWe also investigate into the structures with copulas in which a whword is adjacent to a copula and indicates that presence or absence of the copula with a whword can be a significant factor in pronouncing the highest merged whword. Accordingly, we formalize “the revised principle of pronouncing the highest whword” as follows:The principle of pronouncing the highest whword alone:In a language the Externalization Systems pronounce the highest whword alone, if;A)    The language is a nonfixed whword,B)    The interpretation systems detect the whword as a structure which is susceptible to focus fronting,C)    Whword is not the sister of copula.** In case B or C does not happen, whin situ. will be pronounced.By resorting to the abovementioned approach that is, by utilizing merge, remerge, the interpretation of the conceptualintentional systems and the interaction between these systems and the externalization systems (articulatoryperceptual system), and without referring to morphological features, we can analyze the movement of whword as both optional and obligatory in a unified manner.