ساخت های انکاری در زبان فارسی

مقاله حاضر به بررسی ساخت هایی می پردازد که هدفشان دریافتِ اطلاعات نیست و گوینده انکار یا محال بودن موردی را تایید می‌کند؛ این نوع ساخت ها، انکاری نامیده می شوند. هدفِ پژوهش این است که بدانیم ساخت های انکاری که از جنبه ساختاری شبیه ساخت های پرسشی هستند، در زبان فارسی چه ویژگی هایی دارند. دامنه پژوهش، مشتمل بر شماری از ساخت انکاری است. داده ها از دو بُعد معنایی و کاربردی  بر مبنای دیدگاه چوانگ (cheung, 2008; cheung, 2009) بررسی می شوند و روش تحلیل داده ها توصیفی تحلیلی است. بررسی داده ها نشان می دهد که ساخت های انکاری ماهیت پرسشی ندارند و پرسش واژه های محدودی در این نوع ساخت ها به کار می روند. برآیند کلی پژوهش نیز نشان می دهد که با وجود شباهت ظاهری میان جمله های پرسشی در زبان فارسی، ساخت های انکاری با ساخت های دیگر مانند پرسش های متعارف، تعجبی، تاکیدی و بلاغی تفاوت دارند. حضور فعل مثبت، عدم دریافت پاسخ، دامنه سور محدود، کاربرد محدود قید ها و مجاز نبودن پاسخ پاره جمله ای از ویژگی های خاص این نوع جمله ها است که آن ها را از دیگر ساخت های مشابه متمایز می کند.

Investigating Negative WhConstructions in Persian

INTRODUCTIONThe present study examines a specific type of constructions that are not intended to get information or receive an answer and the speaker confirms his/her denial or the impossibility of the case; these types of constructions are called negative Whconstructions. The purpose of the present study is to get the features of these constructions in Persian. Research scope is a number of negative constructions that Persian speakers agree on their correctness. Data are analyzed from two semantic – pragmatic dimensions based on Cheung (2008 – 2009). 13 are English negative Whexamples and 45 are Persian ones:Where did he eat anything in the library?! (Kiss, 2015, p. 4) Since when/ *from when/ *when is John watching TV now?! (Cheung, 2009, p.298) Since when/ *from when/ *when is John a professor?! (Cheung, 2008, p.48)Koja Mina ketab     mi khune?!   Where  Mina      book     PRES read Az key ta hala Maryam  qazaye   mahali dorost kardan balade?!    From when (since) Mary       food      local         cook           to be able to     Reviewing the research literature shows that so far this type of questions in Persian have been largely ignored linguistically and only rhetorical scholars in poetry and fiction have dealt with it. While the use of them is not limited to the field of literature and poetry, and are also used in a variety of Persian colloquial and discourse contexts. Therefore, in this paper, this type of constructions is studied based on the principles governing linguistics. We examine which whwords are used in these Persian sentences. What are the special semantic pragmatic features, and what are their differences or similarities with conventional interrogatives and other similar constructions.Our study has 3 parts: After reviewing the previous studies, presenting the framework, the features of this type of constructions are discussed semantically pragmatically. We use different tests to determine their characteristics and distinguish them from other constructions such as conventional, emphatic, surprising and rhetorical ones. The final section deals with the results of Persian data and evidence.  MATERIALS AND METHODSThe scope of the study consists of a number of negative whquestions that Persian speakers agree on their correctness. The data have been gathered from speakers’ everyday conversations in natural contexts. They are analyzed from semantic pragmatic dimensions. The method of research is descriptive – analytic.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe overall results of data indicate that despite the apparent similarity between whquestions in Persian, the negative whquestions are different from conventional, surprising, emphatic and rhetorical ones. The results show that conventional whconstructions can be combined with some adverbs, but the combination of negative whones with the adverbs leads to ungrammatical constructions. The examination of the data also shows that in Persian, some whwords like where, when and who are unmarked whwords in negative whconstructions. Negative whquestion words do not refer to place, time, etc. Unlike conventional interrogative constructs, negative whones are largely fixed in form and cannot be changed or replaced by a seemingly synonymous whword. Morphologically, whwords of negative whconstructs are restricted to a very limited set of whwords, and semantically they are used only in the contexts that indicate disagreement. Also, reviewing data shows that in conventional whconstructions, depending on the type of whword, it can be answered with a piece of fragment. While in negative whconstructions, it is not possible to answer as a fragment.The examination of Persian data related to negative whconstructions and rhetorical ones shows that both of them are related to noninterrogative interpretation and in both, the speaker does not follow the answer. Despite this similarity, negative whquestions in any context show the meaning of at all and negation, but rhetoric shows both positive and negative states. Generally, the results show that negative whconstructions are different from the other constructions mentioned above. CONCLUSIONSemantic pragmatic study of these constructions show that the presence of a positive verb, lack of getting answers and limited use of whwords are special features of these sentences that distinguish them from other similar ones. Syntactic tests including substitution, adjunct doubling, embedding, and negation dominance shows that, a) limited number of whwords are used in these constructions. Therefore, substituting the synonymous whword makes these constructions ungrammatical. b) Adjunct doubling is acceptable and permissible. c) They aren’t used in dependent clause positions. d) The dominance of negation in these constructions is onesided and only the negation form dominates the whole sentence. The evaluation of syntactic features also shows the distinction between these constructions and the conventional ones.