بازتحلیل واژگانی، جلوه‌ای از فارسی سازی وام‌ واژه‌ها در زبان فارسی؛ یک بررسی ساختاری

بازتحلیل واژگانی، یکی از جلوه‌های بومی‌سازی است که در اثر ناآگاهی افراد از ریشة واژه، رخ می‌دهد. در بازتحلیل واژگانی، جزئی از وام‌واژه بر اساس شباهت ظاهری، با یک تکواژ یا واژه مشابه، اشتباه گرفته می‌شود و با آن جایگزین می‌شود. پدیده بومی‌سازی در هر زبانی با توجه به قواعد خاصِ آن زبان، شکل ویژه‌ای به خود می‌گیرد و در پی آن نامی مرتبط با اسم همان زبان، بر آن گذارده می‌شود. بنابراین دراین مقاله، بومی‌سازی وام واژه‌ها در زبان فارسی، «فارسی‌سازی» نام گرفته‌است. هدف این پژوهش، بررسی ساختاری بازتحلیل واژگانی به عنوان یکی از روش‌های ویژه فارسی‌سازی و دسته‌بندی آن بر پایة ساختارِ ارائه‌شده است. در همه موارد بازتحلیل واژگانی، سه مولفه مشترک (وام‌واژه، بوم‌واژه، و ویژگی‌های معنایی وام‌واژه) وجود دارد و بین این سه مولفه نیز سه رابطه (دال و مدلولی، شباهت صوری، و ارتباط مصداقی) حاکم است. رابطه سوم، یعنی ارتباط مصداقی بین مفهوم وام‌واژه و بوم‌واژه بر اساس شکل، کارکرد و یا معنای وام‌واژه که در مولفه سوم نمایان شده‌است، تغییر می‌کند. بر همین اساس، پدیده بازتحلیل به انواع بازتحلیل صوری، بازتحلیل نقشی و بازتحلیل معنایی گروه‌بندی می‌‌شود و ضمن ارائه نمونه‌هایی، هرکدام جداگانه مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیرد.

Lexical Reanalysis, a manifestation of persianization of borrowed words in Persian language; a structural investigation

Nominalized words are complex nominals, which have their own particular derivational structure. These nominals can be derived from different parts of speech. Correspondingly, a deadjectival nominal is a nominal that is derived from an adjective; Although deadjectival nominals and nominalization, in general, have been cases of the most important issues of syntax and morphology in theoretical linguistics, less attention has been paid  in  the  literature  to deadjectival nominals (Roy, 2010; Alexiadou & Martin, 2012; Borer, 2013; Arch & Marin, 2015). On the other hand, a large number of works  on  nominalizations  is  concerned  with  deverbal  nominals (Chomsky 1970; Grimshaw 1990;  Picallo  1991; Marantz 1997; Alexiadou 2001; Borer 2013, among many others).With reference to  Persian deadjectival nominals no attention has been paid to these nominals; therefore, the present study is an attempt to provide a descriptive syntactic analysis of Persian deadjectival nominals based on the Exoskeletal framework as developed in Borer (2013). Borer’s (2013) theoretical framework gives a complete account of nominalization with a detailed syntactic explanation of the underlying syntactic structure of deadjectival nominals; consequently, this approach is opted as the theoretical framework of the present study due to the following reasons: first, the model in which all word formation takes place in syntax is premier to the models sticking to a supreme lexicon; second, since all categories are syntactic and functional, the redundancy between lexical and functional categories is omitted. Borer (2005, 2013) hypothesizes that words do not have any specific lexical category and their exact category is dependent on their syntactic context they occur. Regarding nominalization process, Borer (2013) argues that derivational suffixes merge with their roots in the syntax rather than morphology, that is to say, there is a particular syntactic mechanism that underlies the formation of nominals. Also, she, following Roy (2010), divides deadjectival nominals into two groups: Stative deadjectival nominals and Quality deadjectival nominals. She claims both types of deadjectival nominals have argument structure. However, Stative deadjectival nominals have different syntactic structure from Quality deadjectival nominals. Borer (2013) asserts, although Stative deadjectival nominals contain complete predicative structure with overt external argument and Degree phrase[1], Quality deadjectival nominals never have a complete predicative structure; also, the external argument in these nominals are covert (pro) and the occurrence of Degree phrase in their structure is not necessary.            As aforementioned, in the present study, we try to analyze the underlying syntactic structure of Persian deadjectival nominals adopting Borer’s (2013) Exoskeletal framework. The range of data under analysis is restricted to a single language i.e., Persian. The data were taken from Derivational suffixes in Modern Persian (Kashani, 1992), The Derivational Structure of Word in Modern Persian (Kalbassi, 2008) and Dictionary of prefixes and suffixes in Persian (Farshidvard, 2007). It is worth noting that Persian deadjectival nominals are characterized by the presence of derivational suffixes. The categorial suffixes in Persian deadjectival nominals are: /ӕk/  in /zӕrdӕk/ ‘carrot’; /ɑ/ in/rowʃӕnɑ/ ‘light’; /eʃ/ in /nӕrmeʃ/ ‘leniency’; /kɑr/ in /sefidkɑr/ ‘coppersmith’;/gӕri/ in /vӕhʃigӕri/ ‘brutality’;    /nɑ/ in /tӕngnɑ/ ‘restriction’; /e/ in /zӕrde/  ‘yolk’; /jӕt/ in /hӕsɑsijӕt/; ‘allergy’; /i/ in /ʧɑqi/ ‘obesity’ (all data were taken from Kashani (1992/1993), Farshidvard (2007) and Kalbassi (2008)).               The results of the present study show that the structures of Persian suffixal deadjectival nominals are coincident with Borer’s Exoskeletal framework (i.e Persian has both Stative deadjectival nominals and Quantity deadjectival nominals). The deadjectival nominal /vӕhʃigӕri/ ‘brutality’ is an instance of Persian Stative deadjectival nominals which can appear in /vӕhʃigӕrie ӕli/ ‘Ali’s brutality’, in the derivation of which CN[A][2] needs to scope over the predicate structure that entails Degree phrase. In other words, the Stative deadjectival nominal /vӕhʃigӕri/ is derived from merging the derivational suffix /gӕri/ with the extended projection of the adjective. In the structure of this Stative deadjectival nominal, first the adjective /vӕhʃi/ moves to Degree phrase to achieve its predicative case. Then it moves to become the complement of the extended projection of the adjective CN [A] to merge with the categorial suffix /gӕri/; at this point, the derivation of the Stative deadjectival nominal /vӕhʃigӕri/ will be completed. Also in the derivation of this structure, the determiner phrase /ӕli/ which is in the specifier of Stative phrase raises to the extended projection of nominal(EXSN) to get the genitive case. In Persian the realization of genitive marker (ezafe) is postnominal. On the other hand, in the Persian Qualitydeadjectival nominals like/ʧɑqi/ ‘obesity’ which is obtained from /?ӕlije ʧɑq/ ‘obese of Ali’ the adjective / ʧɑq / moves to the extended projection of nominal [EXSN] then it raises to state phrase to achieve its predicative case. Then it moves to become the complement of the extended projection of the adjective CN [A] to merge with the categorial suffix /i/. At this point, the derivation of the Quality deadjectival nominal /ʧɑqi / will be completed. Similarly, in the derivation of this structure, the external argument pro which places in the specifier of Stative phrase raises to the extended projection of nominal(EXSN) to get the genitive case. It is worth mentioning that Quality deadjectival nominals (e.g. /mӕhdudijӕt/ ‘restriction’), have Stative deadjectival nominal counterparts which have complete predicative structure with an overt external argument. In addition, Quality deadjectival nominals denote the mass abstract entities.               Moreover, the research results indicate, although Borer(2013) didn’t introduced Result deadjectival nominals in her model, Persian has  a kind of Result deadjectival  nominals which does not have an argument structure. Result deadjectival nominals, (like: /sӕbze/ ‘grass’) only have the attributive structure and represent the count concrete entities.[1] Borer (2013) believes that presence of Degree phrase is necessary in the derivation of Stative deadjectival nominals[2] Cfunctor which projects the nominal and takes adjective