A Survey on Causative Alternation in Persian Based on Causal Approach

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

-

Abstract

According to causal hypothesis, the main factor in argument realization is causal relationship between participants. Based on this hypothesis, alternations can be accounted for, by difference in verbal profiles. In causative alternations, the difference between two constructions is due to the initial point of verbal profile: In causative variant, causer is located at the initial point but in anticausative variant, it is occupied with cause, because anticausative variant describes a situation in which the focus is on the change of causee. The manual study of 3602 data taken from Hamshahri Corpus II survey revealed that focusing on the change of causee is related to topicality. Causee which appears as subject is more topical than causer. data analysis, also revealed that in causative constructions, the topicality of causer and consequently focusing on the causality of it, induce causer to reveal as subject.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

– جباری، محمد‌جعفر (1382). «تفاوت مجهول در زبان‌های فارسی و انگلیسی». مجله زبان‌شناسی، ش 35: 78-94.
– حق‌بین، فریده (1383). «جهت میانه در زبان فارسی». مجله دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی و اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ش 146: 141-154.
– خرمایی، علیرضا و موسوی، مریم (1394). «تصویری نو از جهت مجهول در زبان فارسی بر اساس چارچوب نقش‌گرایانه گیون». پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی، 5 (9): 49-84.
– راسخ مهند، محمد (1386). «ساختار ناگذرا در فارسی». مجله زبان و زبانشناسی ش1: 1-20.
– شجاعی، راضیه و کریمی­دوستان، غلامحسین (1991). نگاشت و تناوب موضوعی در برخی ساخت‌های زبان فارسی. مجموعه مقالات هشتمین همایش زبان‌شناسی ایران. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، 389-400.
– صفری، علی و کریمی­دوستان، غلامحسین (1392). «تناوب سببی در زبان فارسی». پژوهش­های زبانی، ش 4: 1-75.
– عباسی، م و کریمی­دوستان، غلامحسین (1398). «تناوب سببی در گویش‌خوری». زبان­شناسی گویش­های ایرانی، سال 4، ش 1: 1-25.
– Comrie, B. (1992). Language Universal and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and morphology. England: Black Well; 2nd ed.
– Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
– Croft, W. (1998c). The structure of events and the structure of language. In The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. Michael Tomasello, 67–92. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
– Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford University Press, New York.
– Givo´n, T. (2001). Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goldberg.
– Hespelmath, M. (1990). “The Grammaticalization of Passive Morphology”. Studies in language, 14: 12-71.
– Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structure. Cambridge Mass: MIT press.
– Jackendoff, R. (1997). “Twisting the night away”. Language, 73: 534-59.
– Langaker, R. (2002). Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar.2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
– Levin, B., & Malka, R.H. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical semantic interface. Cambridge Mass: MIT press.
– Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge Mass: MIT press.
– Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
– Pinon, Ch. (2001). A finer look at causative – inchoative alternation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11. Rachel Hastings. Brendan Jackson and Zvolenskey (eds.), Ithaca, NY: CLC.
– Randall, J. (2010). Linking: The Geometry of Argument Structure. Springer. New York.
– Reinhart, T. (2002). “The Theta system-an overview”. Theoretical Linguistics 283: 229-290.
– Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic causative type. In The grammar of causative constructions. (Syntax and Semantics, 6.), ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, 43–116 New York: Academic Press.
– Talmy, L. (2000). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49–100. Revised and expanded version published in toward a cognitive semantics, Concept Structuring Systems, ed. Leonard. Talmy, 409–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics