سببیت در زبان فارسی (تحلیلی بر اساس دستور نقش و ارجاع)

دستور نقش و ارجاع در راستای تحلیل ساخت‌های مرکب چارچوبی ارائه می‌دهد که «سلسله‌مراتب روابط میان‌بندی» نام دارد و به‌عنوان قاعده‌ای کلی برای بررسی‌های بینازبانی به کار می‌رود. این سلسله‌مراتب خود متشکل از دو « پیوستار معنایی» و «پیوستار نحوی» است و بر اساس تصویرگونگی بنا نهاده شده است، به این معنی که ساخت‌‌هایی که دارای همبستگی زیاد معنایی هستند در قالب ساخت‌های نحوی مستحکم‌تری بیان می‌شوند و برعکس. در این سلسله‌مراتب، ساخت‌های سببی نیز جای دارند و محور مطالعۀ پژوهش حاضر قرار گرفتند. ساخت‌های سببی در مطالعۀ حاضر به سه نوع سببی نوع یک، سببی امری و سببی نوع دو تقسیم شدند. بر این اساس نخست به بررسی ابعاد نحوی، معنایی و تعامل این دو بعد در ساخت‌های سببی پرداختیم. در بعد نحوی نوع رابطۀ الحاق-پیوند و در بعد معنایی، سلسله‌مراتب معنایی مورد بحث بودند. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که سببی‌های نوع یک در رابطۀ هم‌وابستگی هسته‌ای و سببی‌های نوع دو و امری در رابطۀ هم‌وابستگی مرکزی به سر می‌برند. تعامل دو سطح نحو و معنا در ساخت‌های سببی نیز در قالب الگوریتم‌های پیوندی تبیین شدند. در نهایت چنین محرز شد که یافته‌های زبان فارسی در جهت تائید «سلسله‌مراتب میان‌بندی» عمل می‌کنند و از این رهگذر می‌توان بر کفایت تبیینی آن صحه گذارد.

A Role and Reference Grammar’s Account of Causation in Persian

AbstractRole and Reference Grammar (RRG) provides a workable mechanism, namely “interclausal relations hierarchy”, for the analysis of complex constructions. It is used as a general rule for interlinguistic studies. This hierarchy consists of &semantic continuum& and &syntactic continuum& and is based on iconicity, which means that constructions with high semantic correlations are expressed in the form of stronger syntactic relations and vice versa. In this hierarchy, causative constructions are also included, which were the focus of the present study. In this research, causative constructions were divided into 3 types: causative [type 1] or direct causatives, causative [type 2] or indirect causatives, and jussives. We first examined their syntactic semantic forms and interactions in causative constructions. The juncturenexus relations and semantic hierarchy were discussed in the syntactic and semantic dimensions, respectively. The findings indicated that the direct causatives were in nuclear cosubordination relations, while the indirect causatives and jussives were in core cosubordination relations. We also proposed a constructional scheme for direct causation in Persian. The interaction of the two levels of syntax and semantics in causative constructions was also explained in the form of linking algorithms. Finally, it was found that Persian language acts in a way that it confirms the &interclausal relation hierarchy& and thus, its explanatory adequacy could be corroborated.Keywords: Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), juncturenexus relations, causation, interclausal relations hierarchy, interclausal semantic hierarchy. IntroductionThe concept of causation and causal constructs in Persian language has been the subject of much linguistic researches, most of which have been based on typological studies. Researchers in this field have considered different grammatical, semantic, and pragmatics aspects. In the present study, some goals were pursued that distinguished it from other similar studies. First, its focus was on direct causatives, which did not seem to have been discussed in other studies. Also, simultaneous attention was paid to the syntactic and semantic dimensions of causal constructions. It was explained how these two levels interacted with each other. To achieve the desired goals, we used the principles and assumptions of the Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). We intended to answer the following questions:What are the syntactic and semantic representations of causal constructions in Persian language?How is syntactic interaction with semantics of causal constructions explained?How is the relation of iconicity manifested in causal constructions based on the “interclausal relation hierarchy”?It is worth mentioning that we used Noonan’s classification system (2007) to classify the indirect causatives and jussives. In this type of classification, the complementtaking predicates are divided into manipulative predicates, desiderative predicates, phasal predicates, utterance predicates, etc. Materials and MethodsIn the current research, we used a descriptiveanalytical method to examine the data. As mentioned in the previous sections, causal constructions fall into 3 categories: direct causatives, indirect causatives, and jussives. Regarding the direct causatives, the data are mainly obtained from sources, such as a colloquial Persian dictionary (Najafi, 1999) and examples presented in other researches, as well as speakers’ ordinary speech. Considering the other two types, i.e., indirect causatives and jussives, the main examples are taken from the written corpus of Hamshahri 2 (AleAhmad et al., 2009). The statue contains 150 million words and consists of various cultural, literary, political, scientific, social, genres, etc. from 1988 to 2008. Discussion of Results and ConclusionsThe concept of causative [type 1] (direct causation) in Persian generally appears in the form of constructions that are used in spoken style, such as:Qaza ra be xorde koodak dad.The food made eat koodak give.She made the child eat the food.In this type of construction, although the verb &give& is inherently causal (it has two events: it gives something and the respondent receives something), the other verb, &eat,& adds the concept of coerciveness to the construction. Thus, the concept of manipulation is expressed lexically and in the form of a complex predicate, “be xord dadan”. Adam ra az karo zandegi miandazad.Lit: one from work and life throw.It takes one away from work and life.In some constructions like the second one, the verb &to throw& is a causative predicate. In these cases, the concept of causation/manipulation is manifested in the form of a complex predicate consisting of a predicate verb, andaxtan, and a predicate noun, karo zandegi.In these types of causal constructions, two events, i.e., causing event and resulting event, are expressed separately in the form of two predicates. The verbs denoting states of affairs, through which the actor acts on the undergoer by a nonverbal means are usually called ‘causative’ verbs, e.g., make, force, or cause, whereas when the verbs that are used by the actor as a verbal means (speech) to persuade the undergoer do something are called ‘jussive’ verbs, e.g. tell, order, or persuade. In such constructions, there are two cores in a cosubordination relation. The first core includes the main predicate (causative or jussive) and the other core consists of a verb, which denotes the main event. It is in an infinitive or subjunctive form. Man ra vadar be raftan kard.Me         force    goHe made me go.