عنوان مقاله [English]
The aim of this article is to study the holistic effect in locative alternation of Persian. In Persian a number of verbs denoting dislocation of a substance (locatum) to a surface or a container (location) participate in locative alternation(bar zadan‘load’, pashidan ‘spatter’) The locative alternation in Persian is characterized as a special relationship between two syntactic realizations of the same verb, which are called the locative variant and the objectivevariant. In locative variant the locatum is realized as NP accompanied by “ra” and location as a prepositional phrase (PrepP). In objective variant the location argument appears as NP accompanied by “ra” and locatum as a bare NP just before the verb. It is shown that contrary to Roshan(1998) and Lazard(1982), realization of location as NP accompanied by “ra” is not necessarily associated with holistic reading. When location argument appears with “ra”, it is considered to be “more affected” than PrepP. Contrary to Anderson (1988) who claims that the partitive/holistic effect is associated with the alternate realization as NP or PrepP, we propose that the choice between coding the location argument as a NP or a PrepP amounts to a choice between coding it as the patient or not. The patient stands in a privileged relation to the process, and it is encoded as “primary affected” entity (NP). The entity realized as a PrepP is encoded only as a secondary affected – hence the location is less ‘affected’ (Langacker 1991). So holicity is seen as an instantiation of the ‘primary affectedness’ semantically associated with the patient in general and “ra” marks the argument which is coded as patient. Count locatums obligatorily appear with “ra” and are associated with holistic and partitve reading. Mass and generic locatums can appear with or without “ra”. When appeared without “ra” holistic reading is not possible since they are not bound in their instantiation domain. When appeared with “ra”, the “quantificational” function of “ra” bounds them in their instantiation domain- hence the possibility of holistic reading.
حاجتی، عبدالخلیل. (1358). فعل لازم و را در زبان فارسی. مجله دانشکده ادبیات تربیت معلم، 5، 211-185.
دبیرمقدم، محمد. (1369). پیرامون را در زبان فارسی. مجلة زبانشناسی، س 7، ش1، 2-60.
درزی، علی. (1385). شیوه استدلال نحوی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
روشن، بلقیس. (1377). معنی شناسی واژگانی: طبقه بندی فعلهای فارسی . پایاننامه دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
صادقی، علیاشرف. (1349). را در زبان فارسی امروز. نشریه دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی تبریز، 93، 22-9.
Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7, 387–96.
Anderson, S. R. (1977). Comments on the paper by Wasow. in P. Culicover. (Eds). Formal Syntax, 361–77.New York: Academic Press. .
Anderson, S. )1988(. Objects (direct and not-so-direct) in English and elsewhere. In C. Duncan-Rose and T. Venneman (Eds), On Language: Rhetorica, Phonologica, Syntactica. A Festschrift for R.P. Stockwell, 287-314. London: Routledge
Beavers, J. (2006) Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford University.
Beavers, J. (2010). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 10-30
Boas, H. C. )2009(. Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions Lingua, 10, 101-136.
Croft, W.) 2010(. Verbs, Aspect and Argument Structure. To be published by Oxford University Press.
Declerck, R. (1986). Two notes on the theory of definiteness. Journal of Linguistics, 22, 25-39.
Dowty, D. )1991(. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67,547-619
Dowty, D. )2000(. The fallacy of argument alternation. In Ravin,Y and C. Laecock. (Eds). Polysemy, 111-128. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Fillmore, C. J. )1968(. The case for case. in E. Bach and R.T. Harms. (Eds). Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1-88, New York: Holf, Reinhart and Winston
Givón, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (1997). The relationships between verbs and construction. In M. Verspoor. (Ed). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and Construction of Meaning, 383-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (2nd edition). London: Arnold.
Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson )1980). Tansitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.
Iwata, S. (2005). Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics,16, 355–407.
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Approach. Amsterdam: John
Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relation in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 89-150.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin' the night away. Language, 73, 534-59.
Jeffries, L. and P. Willis (1984). A return to the spray paint issue. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 715–729.
Karimi, S. (1989). Aspects of Persian Syntax, Specifity and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington
Karimi, S. (2003). Object positions, specificity and scrambling. in Karimi, S. (Ed) Word Order and Scrambling, 91-125.London: Blackwell Publishing.
Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Kay, P. (2000). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction.First international conference on Construction Grammar, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kay, P. (2002). Patterns of coining. unpublished paper. University of California, Berekley, CA
Laffut, A. (1997). The spray/load alternation: Some remarks on a textual and constructionist approach. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86, 457–87.
Laffut, A. (1998). The locative alternation: A contrastive study of Dutch vs. English. Languages in Contrast, 1, 127–60.
Laffut, A. (1999). Agnation as a heuristic tool: An application to the locative alternation. Leuvense Bijdragen, 87, 315–35.
Laffut, A. (2006). Three-Participant Constructions in English: A Functional-Cognitive Approach to Caused Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambton, A. (1953). Persian Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lazard, A. (1982). Le morpheme ra en Persian et les relations actancielles. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, 73.1, 177-208
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Levin, B. (2006). English object alternations: A unified account. unpublished paper. Stanford University.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelis, L.A. and J. Ruppenhofer (2000). Valence creation and the German applicative: The inherent semantic of linking patterns. Journal of Semantics, 17, 335-95.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT press.
Rappaport M.and Levin, B. (1988) .What to do with theta-roles. In W. Wilkins, (Ed). Thematic Relations, 7–36. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz-Norman, L. )1976(. The grammar of content and container. Journal of Linguistics, 12: 279- 287
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van Den Eynde, K., P. Mertens and P. Swiggers. (1997). Structuration Segmentale et Suprasegmentale en
Syntaxe: Vers un Modèle Intègrationiste de l’Ecrit et de l’Oral. Preprint nr. 157. Leuven: Dept. of Linguistics.