اشراف چندگانه در ساختار بند موصولی مفعولی در زبان فارسی

در این مقاله ساختار بند موصولی مفعولی در زبان فارسی و امکان ادغام متقارن یک گروه اسمی بین بند پایه و پیرو براساس مفهوم ادغام متقارن چیتکو (2011b) و ریمزدیجک (2006a) در زبان فارسی بررسی شد. بند موصولی مفعولی نوعی بند پیرو است که هستۀ آن در بند پایه و بند پیرو دارای نقش نحوی مفعول است. برای این منظور ابتدا مفهوم ادغام متقارن، ساختار بند موصولی مفعولی و ویژگی‌های آن براساس مفهوم ادغام متقارن و همچنین تقسیم‌بندی بند موصولی مفعولی به دو گروه دارای هسته و آزاد براساس چیتکو (2011b) توضیح داده شدند. داده های زبانی مختلف از زبان فارسی برای تحلیل کاربست مفاهیم مطرح‌شده توسط چیتکو (2011b) که شامل بندهای موصولی مختلف بودند، استفاده شدند. بررسی داده های زبانی نشان داد که تقسیم‌بندی بندهای موصولی مفعولی در زبان فارسی به دو گروه بند موصولی دارای هسته و آزاد براساس چیتکو (2011b) به‌طور کامل منطبق بر حقایق زبان فارسی نیست، زیرا در بندهای موصولی مفعولی آزاد معیار در زبان فارسی، سازۀ مشترک بین بند پایه و پیرو نمی‌تواند یک پرسش‌واژه باشد، زیرا در این شرایط جمله دارای خوانش سوالی خواهد شد که این موضوع برخلاف یافته های چیتکو (ibid) است. دیگر نتایج این پژوهش نشان دادند که ویژگی‌های بند موصولی مفعولی در زبان فارسی مانند یکسان بودن نظام حالت، نقش دستوری و نقش معنایی گروه اسمی مشترک بین بند پایه و پیرو، حاکی از اشتراک این سازه بین بندهای پایه و پیرو و همچنین اشراف چندگانۀ دو فعل واژگانی بر آن است.

Multi Dominance Structure in the Object-Object Relative Clause in Persian Language

In this paper the structure and the symmetric merge of a noun phrase in the matrix and dependent clauses of the objectobject relative clause in Persian language was studied based on the notions of symmetric merge and multi dominance proposed by Citko (2011b) and the results of study by Riemsdijk (2006a). Different examples of relative clauses in Persian language were analyzed based on the notion of symmetric merge proposed by Citko (2011b). These analyses showed that the classification of relative clauses in Persian language into two groups of headed and free relative is not completely compatible with what has been proposed by Citko (2011b) since in Persian language if we use the whword as the head of free relative clause, it would contribute to making the sentence as a whquestion one which is against the findings of Citko (2011b) in English language. Moreover, the results of this research showed that the observed properties of the shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses of the object relative clause in Persian language namely as having the same case, syntactic function, and thematic roles proveed that this noun phrase is merged simultaneously between the two clauses and is a shared constituent between two lexical verb heads in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. This approach provides a clear and costfree explanation for the characteristics of the shared element in the object relative clause in Persian language. In this paper the structure and the merge of a noun phrase in the matrix and dependent clauses of the objectobject relative clause in Persian language is studied based on the notions of symmetric merge and multidominance proposed by Citko (2011b) and the results of study by Riemsdijk (2006a). Chomsky (2001) proposed two kinds of merge namely as external merge and internal merge. Citko (2000, 2003, 2005 and 2011b) based on the practical evidence and properties of these types of merge proposed the third kind of merge operation namely as Parallel merge (symmetric merge) which is similar to External Merge in that it takes two distinct objects as its input and is also like Internal Merge in that it combines one with a subpart of the other.The objectobject relative clause (object relative clause) is a kind of free relative clause of which the nucleus has the syntactic role of objects in both the matrix and dependent clauses. In symmetric merge a constituent is merged simultaneously in two operations and is ccommanded by two different maximal projections.The main question upon which this research was done was whether there is any evidence in support of symmetric merge of a constituent in structure of the object relative clause in Persian language. In this regard, different examples of relative clauses in Persian language were analyzed based on the notion of symmetric merge of a noun clause in the object relative clause proposed by Citko (2011b). Citko (2011b, p.95) proposed that there are two kinds of relative clauses in English: headed and free relative clauses. This difference is illustrated in sentences one and two; the relative clause in sentence one is headed by the DP ldquo;the woman rdquo;, whereas the free relative in sentence two appears to either lack the head entirely or to be ldquo;headed rdquo; by the whphrase itself.1. We hired the woman who (m) Mary recommended. headed relative2. We hired whom Mary recommended. free relativeThere are two views on the structure analysis of free relative clauses as the Comp Account and the Head Account. On the Comp Account, the head position is empty and the whphrase is in [Spec, CP], as argued by Caponigro (2003), GračaninY uuml;ksek (2008), Groos and Van Riemsdijk (1981), Grosu (1994, 1996), and Grosu and Landman (1998), among many others (sentence 3). On the Head Account, the [Spec, CP] position is empty and the whphrase occupies the head position, as shown in (142b), as argued by Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978), Bury (2003), Citko(2000, 2002, 2008b), Donati (2006) and Larson (1987, 1998), among others (sentence 4).Mary eats [DP O [CP what(ever) i [TP Bill cooks t i]]] Comp Account Mary eats [DP what (ever) i [CP [TP Bill cooks t i]]] Head AccountCitko (2011b, p.96) classified the free object relative clauses into two groups based on the status of their head. Headed object relative clause in which the relative clause has a DP as the head (sentence 5) and the second one, the free object relative clause in which the relative clause has no head or a whphrase is its head (sentence 6).5. We hired [the woman that Mary Recommended].6. We hired [whom Mary recommended].Citko (ibid) proposed that we have two kinds of free object relative clause namely as standard free relative and transparent free relative. After studying their internal structure, Citko (2011b, p.99) concluded that there is a symmetric merge in the structure of the standard and transparent free relative. In the standard free relative clause, the whphrase is shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses but in the transparent free relative clause, the semantic nucleus is a shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses.Based on the findings of Citko (2011b) the relative clauses in Persian language analyzed and their properties were studied. These analyses showed that the classification of relative clauses in Persian language into two groups of headed and free relative is not completely compatible with what has been proposed by Citko (2011b) since in Persian language if we use the whword as the head of free relative clause, it would contribute to making the sentence as a whquestion one which is against the findings of Citko (2011b) in English language. The result of this research showed that the observed properties of the shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses of the object relative clause in Persian language namely as having the same case, syntactic function, and thematic roles proved that this noun phrase is merged simultaneously between the two clauses and is a shared constituent between two lexical verb heads in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. This approach provides a clear and costfree explanation for the characteristics of the shared element in the object relative clause in Persian language.