مجهول در زبان فارسي از منظر صرف توزيعي

Passive in Persian: Distributed Morphology Approach

در مقاله توصيفي تحليلي حاضر، ساخت هاي موسوم به مجهول ِزبان فارسي را در چارچوب رويكرد صرف توزيعي (halle marantz, 1993)، رويكردي غير واژگان گرا كه ساخت تمام واحدهاي غير بسيط را به تنها حوزۀ زاياي دستور، يعني نحو مي سپارد از منظر تعامل نحو و معنا، با تمركز بر ديدگاه امبيك (2004)، بررسي مي كنيم. از آنجا كه مجهول هاي فعلي و صفتيِ زبان فارسي، جملگي غير بسيط اند؛ لذا در رويكرد حاضر، خلاف پژوهش هاي پيشين در ساخت مجهول، با قواعد نحوي يكسان توصيف و تبيين مي شوند و تفاوت آن ها به جايگاه هاي متفاوتِ ادغام هسته نمود (بالا يا پايين گروه فعلي) نسبت داده مي شود. همچنين، با استناد به شواهد تعبيري و زباني، چون برخي وجه هاي وصفي واحد (گداخته، بسته و آراسته)، در تركيب » اسم مفعول + شدن «، هم تعبير رخداد و هم تعبير رخدادِ نتيجه اي دارند؛ بنابراين، نوع ديگري از مجهول صفتي، يعني »نتيجه اي « را در زبان فارسي معرفي مي كنيم و مشخصه هاي نحوي آن را در چارچوب صرف توزيعي نشان مي دهيم. دليل چنين تفاوت تعبيري، كاربرد دوگانه فعل »شدن «، به عنوان فعل كمكي در ساخت رخدادي و فعل ربطي يا عملگرِ »شدن « به تعبير امبيك (2004) در ساخت نتيجه اي است.

“Verbal versus adjectival” dichotomy of passive structures has occurred in studies based on approaches believing two generative component in the grammar, i.e. syntax and lexicon. Distributed morphology (DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993), a non-lexicalist approach to morphology, takes the theoretical position that there is only one generative component in the Grammar, the syntax, and claims that all derivation of complex objects is syntactic. This descriptive-analytic article is aimed to study the so-called passive structures and the participles used in them, in Persian within the framework of DM, from the perspective of syntax-semantics interface, focusing on Embick (2004). The article tries to answer the following two questions: a. How can we, based on DM, give a unified analysis of passive structures in Persian and so end the arguments among linguists regarding the existence of passive in Persian. b. What syntactic features within DM, are responsible for some Persian participles having different interpretations (eventive and resultative). Regarding the first question, it is predicted that, since Persian verbal and adjectival passives are all complex objects, their derivations, based on the present approach occur in syntax. Regarding the second question, it is hypothesized that, since some Persian participles such as godɑxte, bæste and ɑrɑste, in “participle ʃodæn” structures in passive structures, have different interpretations, there is another kind of participle (resultative) in Persian. After analyzing the data, it is argued that since Persian verbal and adjectival passives are all complex objects, their derivation, based on the present approach and contrary to previous studies, occur in syntax and their distinction is attributed to the position at which aspect head is merged (above or under v). In other words in verbal (eventive) passives the aspect head is merged above “v head”, while in simple adjectival passives it is merged under “v head”. Also based on linguistic and interpretive evidences, findings showed that some participles (godɑxte, bæste and ɑrɑste) in “participle ʃodæn” structures are interpreted as both event and resultative. So another kind of participle (resultative), in Persian will be introduced and its unique syntactic features in DM framework will be specified. The significant syntactic difference between the eventive and resultative passives is first attributed to the feature [AG] which is present in eventive passive and missing in resultative ones, and second to the different uses of “ʃodæn” : as auxiliary in verbal passives and copula or BECOME-operator (Embick, 2004) in resultative passives.