تحلیلی بین زبانی از ساختار ارتقایی خودایستا در زبان فارسی

وجود ساخت ارتقایی در بیشتر زبان هایی که گروه متمم نمای ناخودایستا برمی گزینند به اثبات رسیده است، چراکه اعتقاد بر این است که در بند ناخودایستا به‌سبب ناقص بودن هستۀ زمانی جملۀ پیرو، این هسته قادر به بازبینی حالت فاعلی نیست و فاعل جملۀ پیرو برای بازبینی مشخصۀ حالت خود مجبور به حرکت به جایگاه فاعلی بند بالاتر است. براساس این دیدگاه ارتقا از درون بند خودایستا به‌دلیل امکان پذیر بودن بازبینی حالت مجاز نیست. در پژوهش حاضر با به کارگیری داده های زبان های مختلف نشان داده می شود برخلاف این تصور، ارتقای فاعل به فاعل در برخی زبان ها از درون بند خودایستا نیز امکان پذیر است. البته ساخت های ارتقایی در زبان های دارای متمم خودایستا نیز کاملاً یکسان نیستند و با هم تفاوت هایی آشکار دارند. در پژوهش حاضر چهار نوع مختلف ساخت ارتقایی خودایستا اعم از فراارتقا، فوق‌ارتقا، بیش‌ارتقا و ارتقای کپی در زبان های مختلف و فرضیه های متفاوت دربارۀ آن‌ها مورد مطالعه قرار می گیرد و درنهایت سعی می شود با توجه به شواهد موجود مبنی‌بر وجود ساخت ارتقایی در زبان فارسی، جایگاه زبان فارسی در این تحلیل بین‌زبانی از ساخت ارتقایی مشخص شود.

Cross-linguistic analysis of finite raising in Persain

This article provides and examines empirical data from different languages showing that long Amovement of the subject of the embedded finite clause to the subject position of the main clause is indeed possible in many languages of the world. However all kinds of raising out of finte clause are not the same and have obvious differences from each other.In present article we introduce and acoount four kinds of finite raising including hyper raising, super raising further raising and copy raising in different languages. Finally we try to determine the position of Persian in crosslinguistic analysis of raising.1. IntroductionThe possibility of raising out of nonfinite clauses has been approved generally. In fact because of the defectiveness of infinitives, it is impossible for the subject to be asigned case in such clauses. Subsequently, the embedded subject has to move to the subject position of the matrix clause to check its nominative case. Based on this view raising is not permitted out of finite clauses because the nominative case of subject can be checked in the embedded clause. In general, in the present article, we seek to find the answer to the question of whether it is possible to raise the subject of the embedded finite clause in Persian. 2. Literature ReviewThose who deny the existence of raising structure in Persian (Hashemipour, 1989; Ghomeshi, 2001; Karimi, 1999; Dabir Moghaddam, 1369), provide evidences showing such structures in Persian are only some kind of topicalization.First, the predicate in the embedded clause of raising is typically represented by a subjunctive form which is a kind of finite clause and it has tense and agreement features that enable it to license nominative case on its subject. Therefore, the subject NP/DP of the embedded clause assigned nominative case. Since there is no need for the embedded subject to move out of the subordinate clause, it can remain in situ. Second, there is no agreement between the matrix verb and the moved embedded subject, The subject agrees with the embedded verb in these cases. Furthermore, any other phrasal element from the embedded clause may move into the matrix clause in these. Based on these pieces of evidence, it has been argued in the literature that Persian lacks raising constructions.Contrary to opponentschr('39') view, Darzi (1993) clearly distinguishes between the raising and control structures with arguments such as idiom chunks, selective restrictions, the ambiguity of the scope of quantifiers, and negative polar elements. He also provides evidences with arguments such as the floating quantifiers, the distribution of the naked reflectionemphatic pronoun xod , and the scope of the general quantifiers that such structures are the result of the raising of the subject to the subject position and in fact a movement to argument (A) position. ( For more information, see: Darzi, 2010). 3. MethodologyTo answer the question whether raising is possible in Persian, with the method of crosslinguistic analysis, we examine different types of raising out of finite cluses in different languages, Then the position of Persian language in this classification should be specified. 4. ResultsThis article provides evidence for an Amovement analysis of subject raising in Persian based on a number of tests, including , idiom chunk raising, scopal amibiguity , not changing the semantic reading despite of the passivisation of the embedded clause , etc. 5. DiscussionAccording to standard assumptions about Raising structures, Raising out of finite clauses, which have tense and agreement features and which are considered to be nondefective, is neither necessary nor permitted. However, contrary to this assumption, there are empirical data that show Amovement out of finite complement clauses is indeed possible in many prodrop languages. But all kinds of these raising structures are not the same and have obvious differences from each other:Hyper raising: The embedded subject in prodrop languages cannot get case inside the finite clause, hence it stays active and raises into the main clause where its case and phai features valued.Then in hyper raising structures raised subject is in agreement with the verb of the main clause (Ura 1994).Copy raising: Hyper raising and copy raising structurs are identical in all crucial respects, with the main difference being that the pronominal resumptive copy is a full lexical pronoun in the latter languages, whereas it is a null pronoun in languages with Hyperraising.Super raising: In this kind of raising, the NP/DP (the object of the sentence) passes from the position of the subject that has already been occupied and moves to the position of the subject of the higher clause, that is, the nonlocal argument position.Further raising: In these constructions, the DP moves to the specifier of the embedded Tense, with which it agrees, and then satisfies the EPP in a higher position, where it gets its CaseF deleted. Contrary to hyper raising, the raised subject is in agreement with the verb of the embedded clause ( Fern aacute;ndezSalgueiro, 2005, 2008 2011) . 6. ConclusionIt is quite clear that the process of raising in Persian, like Galician, Spanish, Portuguese, European and Italian, is of the Further raising type, because in this language, as in the languages ​​mentioned, the raised subject is not in agreement with the verb of the main clause. acirc;nh acirc; benazar miy acirc;d (ke) e faghir bashan.They to view durcomes (that) poor be3pl lsquo;They seem to be poor. rsquo;In this construction, the DP moves to the specifier of the embedded Tense, with which it agrees, and then satisfies the EPP in a higher position, where it gets its CaseF deleted.The lack of hyper raising structures in Persian can be attributed to the fact that multiple agree of phi features is not allowed in Persian. Regarding copy raising, the following example shows that there is no special rule of copy raising in Persian language to save the derivation from being crashed.*Ali benazar miy acirc;d (ke) u faghir bashe.Ali to view durcomes (that) he poor be3sg lsquo;Ali seems to be poor. rsquo;Due to the lack of a special rule for copy raising in Persian, it seems super raising constructions could not be found in Persian to