جمله‌های شبه‌مرکب در فارسی و راهبردهای ساخت آن

قید را می توان از جنبه های صرفی، نحوی و معنایی تعریف و به انواعی تقسیم کرد. نقش معنایی قید توصیفگری است. مفاهیم قیدی تنوع معنایی گسترده ای دارند. به لحاظ ساختمانی، نقش قیدی (افزوده) را می توان از طریق گروه های قیدی، گروه‌های اسمی، گروه‌های حرف‌اضافه ای و بندها بیان کرد. در زبان فارسی، در بسیاری موارد، این نقش را گروه‌های اسمی و حرف اضافه ای بر عهده دارند. این گروه ها خود می توانند وابسته های گوناگونی از جمله «بند» داشته باشند. مواردی مانند «وقتی که»، «جایی که»، «به محض این که»، «در حالی که»، «به خاطر این که»، «همچنان که»، «به گونه ای که» را در کتاب های دستور و بسیاری از دیگر منابع، معمولاً حرف ربط مرکب یا گروه ربطی در ساخت جمله های مرکب در نظر گرفته اند و بندِ موصولی یا متممیِ درون گروه اسمی یا حرف اضافه ای را با بند قیدی یکی انگاشته‌اند. ولی از نظر ساختی اینها بخشی از گروه اسمی و گروه حرف اضافه ای با نقش قیدی اند. از این رو، به نظر می‌رسد این گونه ساخت ها را نمی توان جملۀ مرکب در نظر گرفت. به هر روی، برای تمایزگذاری میان این موارد از موصولی سازی در نهاد و مفعول، در این مقاله آنها را «راهبردهای ساخت بند شبه مرکب» نامیده ایم. در این پژوهش، که پژوهشی توصیفی است، مفاهیم بیانگر روابط قیدی را در 19 گروه (10 گروه اصلی و 9 زیرگروه) طبقه بندی کرده‌ایم. همچنین نشان دادیم ارتباط مستقیمی میان آشکار شدن «که» موصولی یا متممی با امکان گسست بند وجود دارد. از این گذشته، با استناد به مثال های متعدد نشان داده‌ایم «مصدر» در زبان فارسی، اگرچه اسم است (ویژگی های تصریفی فعل را ندارد) ولی می‌تواند به شکل «فعلی تنزل یافته» عمل کند. داده های این پژوهش از میان 3000 دقیقه برنامه های گوناگون شبکه‌های مختلف رسانۀ ملی (رادیو و تلویزیون) در بازه‌ زمانی خرداد تا بهمن1400 با تمرکز بر روابط قیدی استخراج شده است.

Pseudo-Complex Clauses in Persian and Their Constructing Strategies

AbstractMorphologic adverbs can be syntactically and semantically defined and classified in different ways. They have basically attributive functions. Having various meanings, their structural functions might be expressed via adverbial phrases, noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and adverbial clauses. In Persian, noun phrases or prepositional phrases, in most cases, perform this adverbial function. These phrases can have various dependents, including “clauses” starting with nominal or prepositional heads, such as “vaqt.ike” (the time that/when), “jā.ike” (the place that/where), “be mahz.e in ke” (in the instant that/as soon as), “darhāl.ike” (in the state that/whereas), &be xāter.e in ke& (for the reason that/because), “hamchenānke” (the same that/as), and “be goone.ike” (in the manner that). These phrases are usually regarded as “complex conjunctions”, “complex coordinators”, or &complex subordinators” in the grammar books and many other resources.  Accordingly, relative or complement clauses inside noun phrases and prepositional phrases are considered to be adverb clauses. However, they are structurally part of noun phrases or prepositional phrases with an adverbial function. Therefore, such a construction cannot be regarded as a complex sentence. Anyway, we call them “strategies of constructing pseudocomplex clauses” when distinguishing between these cases and relativization in the subject and object. In this descriptive research, the adverbial concepts were classified into 19 groups (10 main groups and 9 subgroups). It seemed that there was also a direct relation between the overt expressions of “ke” (that) and the possibility of clause dislocation. Moreover, as the various examples showed, an “infinitive” in Persian could be a “deranked verb” though it was a noun without morphosyntactic properties of a verb. The research data were extracted from 3000 minutes of various television and radio programs of the Iranian National Media in the period of June 2021 to February 2022 with a focus on adverb clauses. Keywords: Adverbial Phrase, Noun Phrase, Prepositional Phrase, Relative Clause, Complex Clause, Deictic Complement IntroductionMost of the previous researches on complex sentences recognized 3 types of subordinate constructions: 1) relative clause constructions with the modifying subject or object of the main clause); 2) complement clause constructions as arguments of verbs; and 3) adverbial clauses modifying the verb or the whole clause. We believed that only Type 3 could be regarded as a complex clause (hypotactic clause) and the two others were just expansions in arguments of one clause and were thus different from Type 3. There were some other constructions considered as adverbial clauses in the Iranian previous studies; for instance:vaqt.ike bārun biād, delam mixād bā ham berim birun qadam bezanim. (When it rains, I desire to go out with you and walk.)In this example, &vaqt& is a noun phrase, which describes the &time &i& indicates that the noun &vaqt& is not specified; &ke& is a relativizer that introduces the relative clause “it rains” as its dependant. However, the grammar books and most of the previous researches considered these cases as conjunctions (complex coordinators or subordinators) by separating the relative or complement clauses. Some other cases included: &vaqt.ike& (the time that/when), &jā.ike& (the place that/where), &be mahz.e in ke& (in the instant that/as soon as), &dar hāl.ike& (in the state that/whereas), &be xāter.e in ke& (with the reason that/because), “hamchenānke& (the same that/as), and &be goone.ike& (in the manner that). These were actually noun phrases or prepositional phrases with an adverbial function; they had a dependant (relative or complement) clause. It should be taken into consideration that in Persian, prepositional phrases and clauses can function as adverbs with their own dependants, including clauses, besides the adverbs functioning as adverbs and noun phrases. Anyhow, since these phrases were accompanied with their dependants, they semantically described an event and because we needed to distinguish them from relativization in verb arguments (i.e., Type 1), we called them “strategies of constructing pseudocomplex clauses” or “pseudosubordinators”. Materials Methods The research data were extracted from 3000 minutes of various television and radio programs of the Iranian National Media in the period of June 2021 to February 2022 with a focus on the mentioned constructions, in which the noun phrases and prepositional phrases had clause dependants. The translated programs, as well as nonstandard and written Persian, were excluded. Some examples were among standard Persian conversations.Since in the previous researches, those constructions were called pseudocomplexes, they were studied under the subject of conjunctions and complex sentences in this paper. Based on the data, we proposed a new classification for adverbials that satisfied our data with a descriptive approach. We classified these concepts into 19 groups (10 main groups and 9 subgroups). In our classification, we took into consideration those precise semantic distinctions ignored in the previous studies on the one hand and paid attention to constructional differences on the other hand. For instance, we respectively arranged the temporal and spatial concepts into 5 and 4 groups, which differed from each other in their possibilities of clause dislocation and overt expressions of &ke&. Therefore, our model took into account not only the semantic distinctions, but also their relations with the syntactic behaviors of the various phrases that functioned as adverbs. Discussion of Results ConclusionsIn this research, we showed that some cases studied under the subject of conjunctions and complex sentences in the previous researches were actually noun phrases or prepositional phrases. They were accompanied with their clausal dependants (relative clauses or complement clauses) functioning as adverbs. We called them pseudocomplex clauses. The two strategies of constructing pseudocomplex clauses were considered as follows:Head noun in the noun phrase or prepositional phrase with an adverbial function + &ke&” as the relativizer + relative clausePrepositional phrase with an adverbial function + deixis + &ke& as a complementizer + deictic complement clauseIn Persian, some adverbial concepts and relations can be expressed through both complex clauses and pseudocomplex clauses. The speakers choose them for pragmatic reasons. This research showed that it was possible to express an adverbial function in the form of an event with a finite verb (a dynamic process) by using the clausal dependants of noun phrases or prepositional phrases; otherwise, it would be like a static image. Also, there was a possibility of clause dislocation in pseudocomplex constructions. Dislocation was possible in none of these constructions because of semantic reasons, but the crucial point was that the relativizer or complementizer was expressed overtly when dislocation happened.