بازتحلیلی نقشگرا از دوگان‌سازی واژبستی مفعول در فارسی

در زبان فارسی به حضور همزمان مفعول رایی و یک واژه‌بست دوگان‌سازی واژه‌بستی اطلاق‌‌می‌شود. در این مقاله نشان‌خواهیم‌داد که ارائۀ یک تحلیل دستوری صحیح از این فرایند منوط است به تمایزی که میان مرز بند و جمله قائل می‌شویم. هم‌نمایگی مفعول رایی و واژه‌بست ضمیری در حوزۀ بند، ذیل عنوان دوگان‌سازی قرار می‌گیرد؛ در‌حالی ‌که اگر رابطۀ هم‌نمایگی میان این دو سازه در حوزۀ جمله قرار بگیرد فرایند موردنظر، چپ‌نشانی است که به موجب آن گروه اسمی نشانه‌گذاری‌شده با «را» به حاشیۀ چب بند منتقل ‌شده و نقش آن در مقام مفعول را همان واژه‌بست در درون بند بر عهده‌ می‌گیرد. شاید بتوان بارزترین وجه تمایز میان دو ساخت دوگان‌سازی مفعول و چپ‌نشانی آن را، حضور یک وقفۀ آوایی در مورد دوم دانست.

A Functional Reanalysis of Object Clitic Doubling in Persian

Extended Abstract;;Introduction;;Nichols apos;s (1986) typological parameterization of languages as head versus dependent marking opened a horizon in language typology and linguistic research. Dependentmarking languages are those which morphologically encode dependency between verb and its argument(s) by grammatical markings on the latter. In headmarking languages, on the other hand, the dependency is displayed via bound forms hosted by the verb. This parameterization is not categorical however, as some languages utilize both strategies to encode grammatical relations, which is referred to as double marking or locus. Persian exhibits head and dependentmarking features at the clause level, situating itself then within the category of doublemarking languages. In close connection with this, Persian allows the possibility of cooccurrence between a ramarked direct object and a crossreferencing bound form, which is tentatively called clitic doubling. The study sought to argue that the cooccurrence of a ramarked object and a coreferential clitic can be representative of two informationstructurally distinct structures. One is referred to as clitic doubledobject construction and the other as leftdislocated object construction. Diachronically, it is assumed that the latter sets the stage for the appearance of the former, and the two constructions coexist in modern Persian.;;Theoretical Framework;;Object clitics optionally appear on transitive verbs in Persian. This resurrects the classical controversy concerning the agreement versus argument status of bound forms on a par with their controlling reference phrases. Haspelmath (2013) presented four dominant views in the literature with reference to this issue: the virtual agreement view, the boundargument view, the dual nature view, and the doubleexpression view. Under the virtualagreement view, bound forms are uniformly considered purely as agreement markers even if their controllers are absent. This is normally taken in generative approaches under the rubric of “prodrop” or “null subject”. Under the boundargument view, bound forms are treated in any event as true arguments; no matter their controllers are present, in which case they hold an appositive/adjunct status to the verb. The presence or absence of controllers are the key solution to the agreement or argument status of bound forms in the dualnature view. Eventually, the dualexpression view allows an argument to be expressed twice. In line with Haspelmath (2013), we regard bound forms to perform as proindexes, crossindexes or grammindexes. Proindexing is defined in terms of the complementary distribution of bound forms with their corresponding RPs, such that they never occur within the same clause. This implies that a bound form can cooccur with its controlling RP within the same sentence, in which case the RP is a dislocated topic. Bound forms and their optional controlling reference phrases are authorized to be in the same clause under a crossindexing view, leading to the consideration of reference phrases as conominals. Grammindexing is akin to what Siewierska (1999) terms as grammatical agreement, where the obligatory presence of a conominal to bind a grammindex within the same clause is vital (e.g. s in English).;;Method;;This study is a theorybased investigation that tackles the role of information structure in the formation of the clitic doubledobject and leftdislocated object construction. Hence, some random sentences and questionanswer pairs are presented from colloquial Persian in order to fathom out how the topicfocus articulation of an utterance characterizes the information structure in the given constructions. ;;Results and Discussion;;It becomes clear that first, clitic doubling terminologically is a misnomer and can be representative of two distinct grammatical constructions, following Haspelmath apos;s nomenclature. The proindexing construction is identified when the controlling reference phrase is outside the boundary of the clause, either within the same sentence or in the preceding discourse. The crossindexing construction is recognizable when the controlling reference phrase/conominal and the clitic, indexing its feature bundles, are allowed to occur in the same clause. Second, the proindexing construction is topicalitymotivated in the sense that, the controlling reference phrase needs to be a topic of the sentence/discourse. We maintain that proindexing is incompatible with the trifold focus taxonomy in Lambrecht (1994) and occurs only when the object referent constitutes part of the pragmatic presupposition. In contrast, the crossindexing is a focusdriven operation and can be accounted for in the light of laying extraemphasis an object with referential properties. Third, we argue that the crossindexing construction historically evolves from the proindexing construction in the following fashion: a) The object referent as a dislocated nominal separate via hangingtopic constructions from the clause by an intonational pause whilst being proindexed by a coreferential clitic inside it; b) Ra starts appearing on the dislocated object by analogy of its use with oblique and possessor roles, dating back to Middle Persian (Hopper Traugott, 2003); c) The intonational pause disappears and the dislocated object incorporates into the clause, leading to the emergence of the crossindexing construction. This explains why the proindexing and the crossindexing constructions coexist in modern Persian from a synchronic perspective.;;Conclusion;;We conclude that first, the simultaneity of the proindexing and crossindexing construction confirms the reanalysis of the Persian ra as an object marker. Ra as a topic marker appeared initially on dislocated objects in the proindexing formats, which concomitantly paved the way for its companionship with clauseinternal objects in crossindexing formats. This is by no means new and crosslinguistically attested. Second, the birth of the crossindexing construction out of the proindexing construction lends further credence to the emphatic nature of the former on the grounds that, the presence of a controlling reference phrase and its corresponding crossindex in the same clause is viewed as providing additional information helping to identify the referent in case the indications given by the crossindex and by the context are not sufficient (Siewierska, 1999; Creissel, 2001). Third, the coexistence of the proindexing and crossindexing mediates the two opposing views in the literature. Some researchers favor object doubling (Rasekh Mahand, 2006) and some, on the contrary, defy it and support the view that those sentences which seem to contain instances of object doubling indeed represent what can be conveniently taken as object dislocation (Ghomeshi, 1997). ;