Sekretarz redakcji Joanna Orzechowska

Transkrypt

1

2 Rada Programowa Franciszek Apanowicz, Anna Bednarczyk, Józef Darski, W³adimir Griesznych, Aleksander Kiklewicz, Joanna Kokot, Jurij Kowbasenko, Jolanta Miturska-Bojanowska, Ewa Nikadem-Malinowska, Grzegorz Ojcewicz (przewodnicz¹cy), Heinrich Pfandl, Stanis³aw Puppel, Klaus Steinke, Ewa ebrowska, Aleksander o³kowski, Bogus³aw y³ko Recenzenci Franciszek Apanowicz, Tadeusz Bogdanowicz, Janusz Danecki, Marcelina Grabska, Wojciech Kubiñski, Janusz Malak, Zoja Nowo enowa, Miros³aw Jan Ossowski, Waldemar Pfeiffer, Jan Sosnowski, Bogus³aw y³ko Sekretarz redakcji Joanna Orzechowska Adres redakcji Uniwersytet Warmiñsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie Instytut Neofilologii ul. Kurta Obitza 1, Olsztyn, tel. fax (89) , (89) Projekt ok³adki Barbara Lis-Romañczukowa Redakcja wydawnicza Ma³gorzata Kubacka ISSN Copyright by Wydawnictwo UWM Olsztyn 2011 Wydawnictwo UWM ul. Jana Heweliusza 14, Olsztyn tel. (89) , fax (89) wydawca@uwm.edu.pl Nak³ad 110 egz. Ark. wyd. 23,20; ark. druk. 19,75 Druk: Zak³ad Poligraficzny UWM w Olsztynie, zam. 155

3 Spis treœci 3 SPIS TREŒCI Jêzykoznawstwo i glottodydaktyka Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh, The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction... 5 Ëþäìèëà Àðàåâà, Jolanta Miturska-Bojanowska, Ôåìèíàòèâû â ñòðóêòóðíî-ñèñòåìíîì è êîãíèòèâíî-ôóíêöèîíàëüíîì àñïåêòàõ (íà ìàòåðèàëå èìåí ëèö æåíñêîãî ïîëà â ðóññêîì ÿçûêå êîíöà XX íà àëà XXI âeêoâ) Èðèíà Áàäàíèíà, Çàèìñòâîâàííûå ñóùåñòâèòåëüíûå íàçâàíèÿ ëèö â ñîâðåìåííîì ðóññêîì ÿçûêå êàê ÿâëåíèå ìåæêóëüòóðíîé êîììóíèêàöèè Monika Cichmiñska, Marta Topolewska, Conceptual Blending in House M.D Jolanta Hinc, Wp³yw jêzyka angielskiego jako pierwszego jêzyka obcego na szyk wyrazów w zadaniach w jêzyku niemieckim jako drugim jêzyku obcym u polskich uczniów z podstawow¹ znajomoœci¹ jêzyka niemieckiego. Analiza b³êdów Ma³gorzata Jedynak, Teaching Experience and Its Role in Foreign Language Teachers Anxiety Àëëà Kàìàëîâà, Çàìåòêè îá èñòîðèè ðóññêîãî ñëîâà ïå àëü Åëåíà Êîâÿçèíà, Êîíöåïöèÿ êîìïåòåíòíîñòè â îáó åíèè ïðîôåññèîíàëüíî îðèåíòèðîâàííîìó èíîñòðàííîìó ÿûêó Àëåêñàíäð Êðàâ åíêî, Çíà åíèå è êîììóíèêàöèÿ êàê ëèíãâèñòè åñêàÿ ïðîáëåìà è êîðíè åå íåïîíèìàíèÿ Joanna Nawacka, Monika Piotrowska-Mazurowska, Zapo yczenia we wspó³czesnym rosyjskim argonie m³odzie owym. Przyczynek do badañ Joanna Orzechowska, Êîíòåíò-àíàëèç òåêñòà Âîéíîâñêîãî ñèíîäèêà Helena Pociechina, Ïðîáëåìû èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïàìÿòíèêîâ ñòàðîîáðÿä åñêîé ïèñüìåííîñòè Òàòüÿíà Ðîãîæíèêîâà, K èñòîðèè ñîöèàëüíûõ òåðìèíîâ: còðàõîâàíèå Micha³ Wilczewski, Translator s Creativity in Rendering Neologisms of a Literary Text Literaturoznawstwo i kulturoznawstwo Ma³gorzata Ha³adewicz-Grzelak, Social Rhetoric in the Iconography of Saint Nicholas Barbara Kozak, Poezja pasyjna Symeona z Po³ocka Olga Letka-Spycha³a, Metaforyczne obrazowanie sfery sacrum w poezji Inny Lisnianskiej na przyk³adzie utworów B ïðèãîðîäå ñîäîìà i Èåðóñàëèìñêàÿ òåòðàäü (w ujêciu kognitywnym) Iwona Anna Ndiaye, Poezja Wasilija Kamienskiego pod mikroskopem. Z historii rosyjskiej poezji wizualnej

4 4 Spis treœci Ãàëèíà Íåôàãèíà, Ïîëüñêèå ñòðàíèöû ðîìàíà Ë. Óëèöêîé Äàíèýëü Øòàéí, ïåðåâîä èê Ewa Nikadem-Malinowska, Metafora echa w cyklu wierszy Èåðóñàëèìñêàÿ òåòðàäü Inny Lisnianskiej Grzegorz Ojcewicz, Najnowsza wersja okolicznoœci i przyczyny œmierci Sergiusza Jesienina. Od zlecenia do ekshumacji Andrzej Pilipowicz, Maria Callas w dramacie Maria Callas. Lekcja œpiewu Terrence a McNally ego i w powieœci Wielki Bagarozy Helmuta Kraussera Irena Rudziewicz, Câÿçè Íàòàëèè Ãîðáàíåâñêîé ñ Ïîëüøåé S³awomir Studniarz, Piêæ ywotów Kruka, czyli o polskich przek³adach wiersza The Raven Edgara Allana Poego Renata Trejnowska-Supranowicz, Die Stellung der Frau in der Zeit der Romantik und ihre Widerspiegelung in Rahel Varnhagens Briefen

5 UWM Olsztyn The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): Acta al-ishtighal Neophilologica, Construction XIII, ISSN JÊZYKOZNAWSTWO I GLOTTODYDAKTYKA Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh Department of English Language, Literature and Cultural Studies Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan THE LEFT PERIPHERY IN MODERN STANDARD ARABIC (MSA): AL-ISHTIGHAL CONSTRUCTION Key words: verbal occupation, topic, topicalization, focus, left periphery Abbreviations acc accusative com complementizer CP complementizer phrase DP determiner phrase foc focus GB government binding gen genitive I inflection IP inflectional phrase MSA Modern Standard Arabic nom nominative NP noun phrase spec specifier T tense top topic TopP topic phrase TP tense phrase V verb VP verb phrase 1ps 1st person 3ps 3rd person ø null particle Introduction Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) displays a topic-comment structure of the following type: (1) Kareem-un ra?a-hu Zayd-un Kareem (nom) saw (3ps) him (acc) Zayd (nom) Kareem, Zayd saw him This sentence represents a topic-comment structure: a topic DP (Kareem-un) followed by a comment (a sentence) which contains a resumptive pronoun coreferential with the topic. Topics in Arabic have defining characteristics [Bakir 1979; Suaih 1980;

6 6 Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh Abdul-Ghani 1981; Farghal 1986; Fassi Fehri 1993]. For instance, topics are definite, nominative and base-generated. They also have an obligatory coreferential resumptive pronoun in the comment part. Arabic also displays a topicalization structure of the following type: (2) Kareem-an ra?a Zayd-un Kareem (acc) saw (3ps) Zayd (nom) Kareem, Zayd saw According to Mohammad [2000: 63], topicalization or focalization [Bakir 1980] contains an NP which is optionally moved from base-generated position that is not sentence initial to another position, leaving a gap behind. This DP (the so-called NP) is the focus of the sentence. As shown in (2) above, the fronted DP is the object which retains its accusative case that is assigned by the lower verb ra?a saw, and a gap is left behind at the site of extraction. Thus, the DP forms a chain with the gap position represented in the conformity of the case assignment retained for the moved DP. Mohammad [2000: 65 67] also proposes that the NP is a long-distance extractable and it obeys the movement constraints. Among other characteristics, focus DP in topicalization construction also obeys no definiteness or specifity restriction; i.e. unlike the topic DP which is always definite the focus DP can be either definite (3a) or indefinite (3b): (3a) al-walada the boy (def) the boy I saw (3b) walada-an a boy (indef) a boy I saw ra?ayt-u saw I ra?ayt-u saw I To summarize, focus DP retains its case forming a chain with the gap, it is also not base-generated; i.e. it is extractable and finally it can be either definite or indefinite. This paper is composed of the following main parts: part 1 gives an overview of the structure of left-dislocation. Part 2 presents the structure of the verbal occupation known in Arabic as al-ishtighal. Part 3 Data and assumptions gives a detailed presentation of the arguments supporting the notion that the verbal occupation construction consists of a focus DP, not a topic DP. The idea of multi foci in MSA is presented in the subparts 3.2 and 3.3.

7 The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction 7 1. Shorafat s analysis [1999] Shorafat demonstrates that a topic phrase should be projected immediately above complementizer phrase (CP). A topic can be inserted through merge in [Spec, CP] provided that an independent topic phrase is projected immediately above CP. (4) al-bayt-u ishtara-hu Zayd-un the house (nom) bought it Zayd (nom) Zayd bought the house (5)TopP ei Spec Top ei Top I ø CP ri Spec TP al-bayt-u ri T VP ishtara-hu ri Spec v Zayd-un 4 The topic DP is generated in [Spec, CP]. The topic phrase is headed by a null particle ø. This particle comprises the set of formal features and needs to be checked by the overt movement of the topic. The topic movement is vacuous since the landing site is adjacent and no phonetically realized material intervenes. Thus, schematically, a topic phrase projection has the following representation: (6)[TopP [Spec [Top [Top [CP [TP ]]]]]] 2. Johnson s analysis [1998]: verbal occupation al-ishtighal This construction is basically left-dislocation. In the topic position there is a base- -generated structure [Chomsky 1977; Cinque 1991]. According to Cinque [1991], left- -dislocation cannot be an instantiation of wh-type movement of the sentence initial NP. This type of left-dislocation displays the topic-comment construction with the topic assigned the accusative case with the resumptive pronoun either in the accusative or the genitive case:

8 8 Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh (7) a-l qisa-ta qar? a-ha at-talib-u the story (acc) read (3ps) it (acc) the student (nom) the story, the student read it (8) at-talib-a marart-u bi-bayti-hi the student (acc) stopped I (1ps) by house his (gen) the student, I stopped by his house According to the GB model, a different topic structure would be required, one in which a governing head would not be blocked by intervening barriers. Such a head becomes available if an additional maximal projection topic phrase is assumed having a functional head topic and a specifier position such that the left-dislocated NP occupies the spec topic. According to this proposal, the NP can be governed without any maximal projection barriers. (9) Zayd-an i darabta-hu i Zayd (acc) you j struck him Zayd, you struck him (10)TopP ei Spec Top Zayd-an (acc)ei Top IP ei Spec I pro j ei I VP ei V NP darabta-hu i 3. Data and assumptions It is obvious that the constructions topic-comment (left-dislocation) and verbal occupation (Ishtighal) motivate further investigation in terms of exploring the syntactic differences and properties that each construction displays. This research is expected to uncover the architecture of left periphery of the CP structure for the MSA Case selection The above-mentioned two analyses make clear that the functional head topic is supposed to be able to assign either the nominative case under checking for the topic- -comment construction [Shorafat 1999] or the accusative case under structural govern-

9 The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction 9 ment for verbal occupation (left-dislocation) construction [Johnson 1998]. It is still unclear how to account for the notion that a governing head may assign two cases simultaneously in the same structure. Let us consider the following examples: (11) Salim-un qabaltu-hu (topic-comment with a nominative DP) Salim (nom) met I him Salim, I met him (12) Salim-an qabaltu-hu (verbal occupation with an accusative DP) Salim (acc) met I him Salim, I met him (13) walad-an qabalt-u (hu) ams (topicalization) a boy (acc) met I (him) yesterday a boy, I met yesterday This nominative accusative case asymmetry of the fronted DP makes clear that the verbal occupation construction has the same case properties found in topicalization in MSA where the topicalized DP (focus) bears the accusative case with an optional resumptive pronoun as a result of the movement from its original position to the head position. This distinction is made clear in terms of the chain notion [Chomsky 1986]. Put it differently, the initial DP in (12) forms a chain with the clause internal position occupied by the resumptive pronoun attached to the verb. This preposed focus bears the accusative case by virtue of being related to the direct object position while in (11) the DP (Salim-un) bears the nominative case supporting the notion that it is base- -generated and it does not form a chain with the accusative resumptive pronoun attached to the verb qabala met he. This significant difference between the DP in the topic-comment construction (11) and the verbal occupation (12) suggests that the DP in the latter construction forms a chain with its clause internal position represented by the clitic. On the other hand, the left dislocated DP in the topic-comment construction in (11) does not form a chain with the clause internal pronoun, so it bears a case different from the case associated with the clause internal position. This case variation of the left-peripheral DP attracts the attention to the fact that the preverbal DP in constructions like the verbal occupation in (12) could be classified as focus, not topic DP Topic position with question operators According to Rizzi [1997], in Italian question operators follow topics: (14a) *A chi, il premio Nobel, To whom, the Nobel. Prize, lo daranno? will they give?

10 10 Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh (14b) Il premio Nobel, The Nobel Prize, a chil lo daranno? to whom will they give it? This order of the topic with the question operators is unlikely to be found without posing any problem for the topic-question operator in MSA. Based upon the data shown below, it seems obvious that question operators in MSA are compatible with both focus and topic, but with a different order. While similar to Italian it is possible for the question operators in MSA to follow topic in the left-dislocation: topic-comment construction, it is not possible for such an operator to follow this topic DP in the verbal occupation construction, rather it can precede it. I think this characteristic enhances the tendency for the DP in the verbal occupation construction to be similar to that DP (focus) in topicalization where focus and the verb cannot be separated by any element. (15a) Zayd-un mata qabalt-u-hu? (topic-comment) Zayd (nom) when met you him (acc) (15b) *mata Zayd-un qabalt-u-hu? when Zayd (nom) met you him (acc) (16a) *Zayd-an mata qabalt-u-hu? (verbal occupation) Zayd (acc) when met you him (acc) (16b) mata Zayd-an qabalt-u-hu? when Zayd (acc) met you him (acc) (17) mata rajul-an qabalt(u-hu)? (topicalization) when man (acc) met you Sentence (15b) demonstrates that a topic cannot follow the wh-expression (mata when ), suggesting that, according to Shlonsky [1996], the verb obligatorily moves to the comp head of which the wh-expression is the spec. In (16b), I assume that the DP (Zayd-an) is in focus position. The evidence is that it can be an instance of contrastive focus (18a), used in contexts where the speaker gives information which is in conflict with existing information [Ouhalla 1999]: (18a) mata Zayd-an (la?baah-u) qabalt-u-hu? (verbal occupation) when Zayd (acc) (not his father) met you him (acc) (18b) *Zayd-un mata (la?abouh-hu) qabalt-u-hu? (topic-comment) Zayd (nom) when met you him (acc) Sentence (18a) shows that the DP in the verbal occupation construction has the landing site the focus phrase in which it has the contrastive reading. Sentence (18b), on the other hand, shows that the nominative DP in the topic position cannot have the contrastive reading displayed for the DP in (18a).

11 The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction Topic-focus order in relation to question operators In addition to Rizzi s proposal displayed in part 3.2 on Italian, Shlonsky [2002] proposes that focus is the legitimate place of wh-questions and interrogative particles in MSA i.e. focus and wh-operators are in complementary distribution where focus takes place, a question operator does not. I assume that both focus and question operators in MSA are not in complementary distribution; hence they can occur simultaneously. The data below also motivate the question of having one focus or two in the complementizer layer in MSA. (19a) ar-rajul-u kayfa ibna-hu wajadt? (topic-comment topic question operator...focus) the man (nom) (topic) how son (acc) his (focus) found you (19b) *ar-rajul-a kayfa ibna-hu wajadt? the man (acc) how son (acc) his found you In example (19a), the nominative DP ar-rajul-u the man is in the topic position spec and it is base-generated with the resumptive pronoun cliticized to the DP ibna son ; hence the ungrammaticality of (19b) with the nominative topic. In addition, this topic DP cannot be judged as grammatical with the contrastive reading in (19c): (19c) *ar-rajul-u (la alwaladu) kayfa ibna-hu wajadt? the man (nom) (topic) (not the boy) how son (acc) his (focus) found you On the other hand, the accusative DP ibna-hu his son in (19c) which is related to a gap in the internal position of the lower verb wajadt found you can bear the contrastive reading as in (19d): (19d) ar-rajul-u kayfa ibna-hu (la Sadeeqa-hu) wajadt? the man (nom) (topic) how son (acc) his (focus) found you The same postulation of the contrastive reading possibility can be extended to be valid for the DPs in the verbal occupation construction. In the ungrammatical sentence (20a), the DP ar-rajul-a the man can not precede the question operator, but it follows it in a certain order with the focus being in the last part as shown in the following linear configuration (question operator topic focus): (20a)*ar-rajul-a kayfa ibna-hu wajadt? (verbal occupation) the man (acc) how son (acc) his found you? (20b) kayfa ar-rajul-a ibna-hu wajadt how the man (acc) son (acc) his found you

12 12 Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh In (20b) the order of the topic DP with the question operator and the focus DP conforms to the configuration proposed above. I assume that the DP ibna-hu his son in (20b) is in the focus position due to the fact that this DP can be reconstructed in the DP gap in the internal position of the verb wajadt found you and this DP undergoes movement to the focus phrase forming a chain with the gap in the internal position argument of the verb wajadt found you as in (20c): (20c) kayfa ar-rajul-a wajadt ibna-hu? how the man (acc) found you son (acc) his Another reason could be introduced in favor of the notion that the DP ibna-hu his son in (20b) is in the focus position is the fact that this DP is grammatical with the contrastive reading (20d): (20d) kayfa ar-rajul-a ibna-hu (la Umma-hu) wajadt? how the man (acc) son (acc) his (not his mother) found you But we cannot judge sentence like (20c) as grammatical with the contrastive reading of the topic DP ar-rajul-u the man : (20e)*kayfa ar-rajul-a (la Umma-hu) ibna-hu wajadt? how the man (acc) (not his mother) son (acc) his found you The notion that I want to raise here is that the DP ar-rajul-u the man in (20b) repeated here as (20d) is in the in the accusative case and at the same time it is in the topic position which is against the ideas presented in the body of this paper that topics are always nominative. (20f) kayfa ar-rajul-a ibna-hu wajadt? how the man (acc) son (acc) his found you My assumption is based upon the arguments introduced by Shlonsky [2002] and Shorafat [1999] on the topic which follows the comp anna that. They propose that the accusative topic, which is originally nominative, functions as the complement of the comp anna. This argument is also supported by the notion that the thematic relation that holds between anna and the topic phrase is the same as that does between a verb and its object. Similarly, I assume that the accusative topic DP ar-rajul-a the man is originally in the nominative case but due to its position as a complement of the question operator kayfa how it is assigned the accusative case and retains its position as topic. This it is plausible to come up with the notion that the verbal occupation sentence can have a topic DP in certain contexts like the interrogative structures presented in (20d). In this part, evidence is proposed in favor of having multiple foci in MSA and this evidence is supported by the data from both topic-comment structure and verbal occupation structure.

13 The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction Embedded topics In MSA, topic-comment structure can be embedded [Abdul-Ghani 1981, Shlonsky 2002 and Shorafat 1999]: (21) zanna Salim-u anna al-bayta ishtara-hu Zayd-un thought Salim (nom) that the house (acc) (topik) bought it Zayd (nom) Salim thought that the house, Zayd bought it [Shorafat 1999] The accusative topic al-bayta, which is originally nominative, functions as the complement of the comp anna. The relation that holds between anna and the topic phrase in (21) is the same as that between a verb and its object. Shorafat proposes that since the topic phrase, as a whole, cannot check the accusative case of the comp, the spec of this phrase anna can do the job. How could such an analysis investigate the embedded constructions in verbal occupation in which there is no embedded comp anna and the sentence maintains it grammaticality? (22)?alimt-u ar-rajul-a qabala-hu Kareem-un (verbal occupation) knew I the man (acc) met him Kareem I knew that, the man, Kareem met him I assume here that similar to topicalization, verbal occupation should not necessarily be introduced by the complementizer anna and the DP is in the focus position. This assumption is based upon two arguments. First, this DP bears the accusative case and it is not assigned such a case by its internal position of the preceding verb?alima which is similar to what we have seen with the case assignment that occurs between the comp anna and its DP albayta the house. So it is possible to hypothesize that the DP ar-rajul-a the man forms a chain with the resumptive pronoun attached to the lower verb qabala met and this DP undergoes movement to the head position leaving behind an optional resumptive pronoun. Second, this focus DP can sit comfortably with the contrastive reading as in (23) below: (23)?alimt-u ar-rajul-a (la alwalada) qabala-hu Kareem-un (verbal occupation) knew I the man (acc) (not the boy) met him Kareem (nom) I knew that, the man, not the boy Kareem It appears clear that the verbal occupation construction when embedded provides strong evidence that the initial DP has the focus characteristics such as the chain formation and the contrastive reading.

14 14 Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh 3.5. Island constraints According to Johnson [1998], verbal occupation is a left-dislocation construction in which the dislocated DP is base generated and thus it is not sensitive to Ross island constraints [Ross 1967]. The data below present arguments that the DP in the verbal occupation is sensitive to such constraints and this conclusion supports the assumption that the verbal occupation DP is focus, not topic. This property makes this construction with a non base-generated initial DP more similar to topicalization than to left- -dislocation. I shall employ Ross constraints [Ross 1967] to examine the validity of my assumption. First, verbal occupation but not topic-comment construction is sensitive to the complex noun phrase constraint (CNPC): (24) *Zayda-an ra?aytu ar-rajula allathi Daraba-hu (verbal occupation) Zayd (acc) saw I the man that hit him Zayd, I saw the man that you hit (25) Zayda-un ra?aytu ar-rajula allathi Daraba-hu (topic-comment) Zayd (nom) saw I the man that hit him Zayd, I saw the man that you hit him Second, the verbal occupation construction is sensitive to Ross coordinate structure while the topic-comment construction is not: (26)*Zayda-an ra?a Kareem-un?iyyah-u wa Khalid-an (verbal occupation) Zayd (acc) saw Kareem (nom) him and Khalid (acc) Zayd, Kareem saw him and Khalid (27) Zayda-un ra?a Kareem-un?iyyah-u wa Khalid-an (topic-comment) Zayd (nom) saw Kareem (nom) him and Khalid (acc) Zayd, Kareem saw him and Khalid Third, verbal occupation cannot occur across Ross wh-island constraint (28), while the topic-comment constructions can (30): (28)*al-muddariss-a tasa:?lt-u man ra?a-hu (verbal occupation) the teacher (acc) wondered I who saw him the teacher, I wondered who saw him (29) al-muddariss-u tasa:?lt-u man ra?a-hu (topic-comment) the teacher (nom) wondered I who saw him the teacher, I wondered who saw him Eventually, according to Fassi Fehri [1982, in: Mohammad 2000], Arabic displays what is called right branch condition which is equivalent to Ross left branch condition. Topic-comment construction obeys this constraint (30); on the other hand, verbal occupation construction does not (31):

15 The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction 15 (30) Kareem-un ra?ayt-u baytah-u (topic-comment) Kareem (nom) saw I house his Kareem, I saw his house (31)*Kareem-an ra?ayt-u baytah-u (verbal occupation) Kareem (acc) saw I house his Kareem, I saw his house The data presented above provide evidence that verbal occupation is sensitive to Ross constraints and this aspect can be easily found with topicalization. Based upon this similarity between verbal occupation and topicalization, it is plausible to conclude that the initial DP in both constructions is focus and the DP in the topic-comment is topic. Conclusion It is evident from the data displayed above that there are differences between left- -dislocation and the verbal occupation construction (al-ishtighal) despite of their structural similarity. These differences show that verbal occupation construction in MSA has the tendency to behave as topicalization where the fronted DP possesses the focus characteristics. Further, it has been shown that the multi-foci tendency is valid in such constructions like verbal occupation. Bibliography Abdul-Ghani, K. Mohammad (1981). Government Binding in Classical Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation. Austin, University of Texas. Bakir, M. (1979). Aspects of Clause Structure in Arabic: A study in Word Order Variation in Literary Arabic. Bloomington/Indiana, Indiana University Linguistics Club. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge/Mass., MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar Dependency. Cambridge/Mass., MIT Press. Farghal, M. (1986). The Syntax of WH-Questions and Related Matters in Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana University. Fassi Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Johnson, P.A. (1998). The Refutation of the Grammarians by Ibn Mada Al-Qurtubi. A Translation, with Syntactic Analysis of BAB AL-ISHTIGHAL Arabic, Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Arizona. Mohammad, A. Mohammad (2000). Word Order, Agreement and Pronominalization in Standard Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ouhalla, J. (1999). Focus and Arabic Clefts. In: G. Rebuschi, L. Tuller (eds.). The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In: L. Haegeman (ed.). Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

16 16 Sabri Alshboul, Yousef Al-Shaboul, Sahail M. Asassfeh Shlonsky, U. (1996). Remarks on the Complementizer Layer of Standard Arabic. In: J. Lecarne, J. Lowenstamm, U. Shlonsky (eds.). Research in Afroasiatic Grammar. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Shorafat, M. (1999). Topics in Arabic: A Minimalist Approach. Al-Arabiyyah 32, Suaih, S. (1980). Aspects of Relative Arabic Clauses. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana University. Summary The Left Periphery in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA): al-ishtighal Construction This paper is trying to investigate the interaction between case checking and the thematic roles of the DP in al-ishtighal (verbal occupation) construction in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). Standard Arabic belongs to the group of VSO languages which also allow SVO as an alternative order in finite clauses. Yet, Arabic possesses a rich case morphology that is able to mark the thematic roles of the DPs in the clause. This research provides evidence that there are differences between left-dislocation and the verbal occupation construction (Ishtighal) despite of their structural similarity. These differences show that verbal occupation construction in MSA has the tendency to behave as topicalization where the fronted DP possesses the focus characteristics. Further, it has been shown that the multi-foci tendency is valid in such constructions like verbal occupation.

17 UWM Olsztyn Ôåìèíàòèâû â ñòðóêòóðíî-ñèñòåìíîì è êîãíèòèâíî-ôóíêöèîíàëüíîì Acta Neophilologica, àñïåêòàõ... XIII, ISSN Ëþäìèëà Àðàåâà Êåìåðîâñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé óíèâåðñèòåò Jolanta Miturska-Bojanowska Uniwersytet Szczeciñski ÔÅÌÈÍÀÒÈÂÛ Â ÑÒÐÓÊÒÓÐÍÎ-ÑÈÑÒÅÌÍÎÌ È ÊÎÃÍÈÒÈÂÍÎ-ÔÓÍÊÖÈÎÍÀËÜÍÎÌ ÀÑÏÅÊÒÀÕ (ÍÀ ÌÀÒÅÐÈÀËÅ ÈÌÅÍ ËÈÖ ÆÅÍÑÊÎÃÎ ÏÎËÀ  ÐÓÑÑÊÎÌ ßÇÛÊÅ ÊÎÍÖÀ ÕÕ ÍÀ ÀËÀ ÕÕI ÂEKOÂ) Key words: feminines, Russian, structural word-formation, cognitive word-formation Àêòèâíîå ñîòðóäíè åñòâî Ðîññèè ñ ðàçëè íûìè ñòðàíàìè ìèðà, ñòðåìèòåëüíî èçìåíÿþùàÿñÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòü, óñêîðÿþùèåñÿ òåìïû æèçíè, îòêðûòîñòü ëåêñè åñêîé ñèñòåìû â çíà èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè ñïîñîáñòâóþò ðàçâèòèþ ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèÿ ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà. Ïðè ýòîì çàìåòíî óâåëè èâàåòñÿ êîëè åñòâî äåðèâàòîâ ñî çíà åíèåì ëèöà, òî íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñëó àéíûì, òàê êàê â öåíòðå ÿçûêîâîé êàðòèíû ìèðà íàõîäèòñÿ åëîâåê. Ïî íàøèì ïîäñ åòàì, ñëîâàðè íîâîé ëåêñèêè ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà, âûøåäøèå âî 2-é ïîëîâèíå XX è íà àëå XXI âåêîâ, ôèêñèðóþò îêîëî 10% äåðèâàòîâ ñ àíòðîïîíèìè åñêîé ñåìàíòèêîé. Ñõîäíûå äàíííûå äëÿ åøêîãî ÿçûêà ïðèâîäèò Èíãåáîðã Îíõàéñåð [Îíõàéñåð 2005: 35]. Ñòàòèñòè åñêèå ïîäñ åòû îáíàðóæèâàþò àñèììåòðèþ ìåæäó íàçâàíèÿìè ëèö ìóæñêîãî è æåíñêîãî ïîëîâ â ðóññêîì ÿçûêå. Ïðåîáëàäàþùåå êîëè åñòâî ñëîâ ñî çíà åíèåì ëèöà ýòî íàçâàíèÿ ìóæñêîãî ïîëà (îêîëî 87%), ñðåäè êîòîðûõ äîìèíèðóþò ìóòàöèîííûå ñóôôèêñàëüíûå äåðèâàòû.  åøñêîì ÿçûêå òàêæå ïðåîáëàäàþò íàçâàíèÿ ëèö ìóæñêîãî ïîëà [Îíõàéñåð 2005: 35]. Ôèêñàöèÿ ÿçûêîì êàðòèíû ìèðà ñ ìóæñêîé òî êè çðåíèÿ, ïî ìíåíèþ È.À. Áîäóýíà äå Êóðòåíý è ðÿäà äðóãèõ, áîëåå ïîçäíèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé (Â.È. Áåëèêîâà, Å.È. Ãîðîøêî, Ë.Ï. Êðûñèíà è äð.), ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ÿçûêîâîì ñåêñèçìå (äèñêðèìèíàöèè ïî ïðèçíàêó ïîëà â ÿçûêå), êîòîðûé ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ íå òîëüêî íà óðîâíå ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèÿ, íî òàêæå â ãðàììàòèêå, ëåêñèêå è ôðàçåîëîãèè. È.À. Áîäóýí äå Êóðòåíý êîíñòàòèðóåò, òî äîìèíèðîâàíèå ìóæñêèõ íàçâàíèé íàä

18 18 Ëþäìèëà Àðàåâà, Jolanta Miturska-Bojanowska æåíñêèìè â ñëàâÿíñêèõ ÿçûêàõ îòðàæàåò ïàòðèàðõàëüíûé õàðàêòåð ýòèõ êóëüòóð [Baudouin de Courtenay 1993: 5] åãã. 70-åãã. 80-åãã. 90-åãã. âñå nomina personae íaçâàíèÿ ìóæñêîãî ïîëà íçâàíèÿ æåíñêãî ïîëà Ðèñ. 1. Íàçâàíèÿ ëèö âî II ïîëîâèíå XX âåêà â êîëè åñòâåííîì îòíîøåíèè Â íàñòîÿùåé ñòàòüå îáðàùàåòñÿ âíèìàíèå íà ôåìèíàòèâíûå íàçâàíèÿ, èñëî êîòîðûõ çíà èòåëüíî âîçðîñëî ñ ñåðåäèíû ÕÕ âeêa, òî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ñòðåìëåíèè íîñèòåëåé ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà ê ïðåîäîëåíèþ íåðàâåíñòâà ìåæäó ìóæ èíîé è æåíùèíîé, îñîáåííî â ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé ñôåðå äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Ôàêòîãðàôè åñêèé ìàòåðèàë àíàëèçèðóåòñÿ ñ ïîçèöèé ñòðóêòóðíî-ñèñòåìíîãî è êîãíèòèâíî-ôóíêöèîíàëüíîãî ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèÿ. Ñòðóêòóðíî-ñèñòåìíûé ïîäõîä îáóñëîâëèâàåò âûÿâëåíèå íàèáîëåå àêòèâíûõ ñïîñîáîâ ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèÿ â èññëåäóåìîé íîìèíàòèâíîé ñôåðå, êîãíèòèâíî-ôóíêöèîíàëüíûé ïîçâîëÿåò âûÿâèòü îñîáåííîñòè äèñêóðñèâíîãî õàðàêòåðà ìûñëèòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè åëîâåêà, ïðîÿâëÿþùåãî ôóíêöèîíàëüíûå îñîáåííîñòè ñâÿçûâàíèÿ ìîòèâèðóþùåãî è ìîòèâèðîâàííîãî ñëîâà â ïðåäåëàõ ìèíèìàëüíîé ñòðóêòóðû çíàíèÿ, ïðîïîçèöèè [Aðàåâà 2002]. Ñóùåñòâèòåëüíûå, íàçûâàþùèå ëèö æåíñêîãî ïîëà, êàê ïðàâèëî, âîçíèêàþò ñ ïîìîùüþ ñóôôèêñàöèè. Ëèøü åäèíè íûå ïðèìåðû ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì íåîñåìàíòèçàöèè èëè ñëîæåíèÿ: ëûæíèöà (æàðã.) ïðîñòèòóòêà, ìåòåëêà (æàðã., ïåðåí.) î ìîëîäîé äåâóøêå, æåíùèíå ; ãîðåâåñòíèöà æåíùèíà, ïðèíîñÿùàÿ ïå àëüíîå èçâåñòèå, êèíîãåðîèíÿ, êîìñîìîëêà-äîáðîâîëêà è ïð. Â îòëè èå îò íàçâàíèé ëèö ìóæñêîãî ïîëà ñðåäè äåðèâàòîâ ñî çíà åíèåì æåíñêîñòè ïðåäñòàâëåíà íå òîëüêî ìóòàöèîííàÿ, íî è ìîäèôèêàöèîííàÿ ñåìàíòèêà. Ìóòàöèîííàÿ ñåìàíòèêà ðåïðåçåíòèðóåò ñóáúåêòíî-îáúåêòíûå ïðîïîçèöèè êàê â ñôåðå èìåí ëèö ìóæñêîãî, òàê è æåíñêîãî ïîëà; ìîäèôèêàöèîííàÿ àêòóàëèçèðóåò ñóáúåêòíî-ñóáúåêòíûå ïðîïîçèöèîíàëüíûå ñòðóêòóðû. Â ïåðâîì ñëó àå ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ ðàâíîïðàâíîå ïîëîæåíèå èìåíóåìûõ ëèö â ñîöèóìå, âî âòîðîì çàâèñèìîå ïîëîæåíèå æåíùèíû îò ìóæ èíû.

19 Ôåìèíàòèâû â ñòðóêòóðíî-ñèñòåìíîì è êîãíèòèâíî-ôóíêöèîíàëüíîì àñïåêòàõ Ìíîãèå ôåìèíàòèâû ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ â ñëîâàðÿõ îäíîâðåìåííî ñ ìóæñêèìè íàèìåíîâàíèÿìè ëèö îïðåäåëåííîé ïðîôåññèè. Ñð.: (60-å ãã.) àñôàëüòèðîâùèê è àñôàëüòèðîâùèöà, áàðìåí è áàðìåíøà, áðàññèñò è áðàññèñòêà; (70-å ãã.) áàìîâåö è áàìîâêà, äîâîä èê è äîâîä èöà; (80-å ãã.) æäàíîâåö è æäàíîâêà, áèçíåñìåí è áèçíåñìåíêà, áèçíåñìåíøà; (90-å ãã.) àëèñîìàí è àëèñîìàíêà, çàñòîëüùèê è çàñòîëüùèöà, äåìîêðàò è äåìîêðàòåññà (ðàçã.). Íî âî ìíîãèõ ñëó àÿõ ïîÿâëåíèå ìàñêóëèíèçìîâ íå ñðàçó ïîðîæäàåò íàçâàíèÿ ëèö æåíñêîãî ïîëà. Îòìå àþòñÿ êîððåëÿòû-ôåìèíàòèâû, êîòîðûå ôèêñèðóþòñÿ ñëîâàðÿìè åðåç äåñÿòü, äâàäöàòü èëè äàæå òðèäöàòü ëåò, íàïð.: àíòèêîììóíèñò (60-å ãã.) è àíòèêîììóíèñòêà (90-å ãã.), áàéäàðî íèê (60-å ãã.) è áàéäàðî íèöà (70-å ãã.), áàòóòèñò (60-å ãã.) è áàòóòèñòêà (90-å ãã.), áèàòëîíèñò (60-å ãã.) è áèàòëîíèñòêà (80-å ãã.), áîìæ (80-å ãã.) è áîìæèõà (90-å ãã.), âûñîòíèê (70-å ãã.) è âûñîòíèöà (80-å ãã.), äçþäîèñò (60-å ãã.) è äçþäîèñòêà (80-å ãã.). Êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, â îäíèõ ñëó àÿõ ôåìèíàòèâû íå âîøëè â ñëîâàðü ñêîðåå ïîòîìó, òî îêàçàëèñü íå çàôèêñèðîâàííûìè èõ ñîñòàâèòåëÿìè (àíòèêîììóíèñò àíòèêîììóíèñòêà), â äðóãèõ ñíà àëà ïîÿâèëèñü èìåíîâàíèÿ ëèö ìóæñêîãî ïîëà è çíà èòåëüíî ïîçæå æåíñêîãî (íàïðèìåð, äçþäî ïåðâîíà àëüíî çàíèìàëèñü ìóæ èíû è çíà èòåëüíî ïîçäíåå æåíùèíû). Òåì íå ìåíåå, â ïîâñåäíåâíîì îáùåíèè ìû ãîâîðèì, òî äçþäîèñòêà ýòî æåíùèíà-ñïîðòñìåí, êîòîðàÿ çàíèìàåòñÿ äçþäî. Ïðè ýòîì îòñóòñòâóåò êàêàÿ-ëèáî êîííîòàöèÿ, ïîëîâîå íåðàâåíñòâî. Îáà ñëîâà (äçþäîèñò è äçþäîèñòêà), àêòóàëèçèðóÿñü â ãðàíèöàõ îäíîé è òîé æå ïðîïîçèöèè: ñóáúåêò äåéñòâèå ñôåðà äåéñòâèÿ, òî õàðàêòåðíî äëÿ ìóòàöèîííîãî ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèÿ, óïîòðåáëÿþòñÿ äëÿ îáîçíà åíèÿ ñïîðòñìåíîâ è ñïîðòñìåíîê, çàíèìàþùèõñÿ îïðåäåëåííûì âèäîì ñïîðòà. Â ñâÿçè ñ ðàçâèòèåì òåõíèêè, èíôîðìàòèçàöèè, çíà èòåëüíî ðàñøèðÿåòñÿ ñïåêòð ïðîôåññèé, êîòîðûå ìîãóò âûïîëíÿòü êàê ìóæ èíû, òàê è æåíùèíû. Âîçðàñòàåò êîëè åñòâî ôåìèíàòèâîâ, íàçûâàþùèõ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ ðàçëè íûõ ïðîôåññèé: àìåðèêàíèñò-ê(à), áàíêèð-ø(à), ìîäåëüåð-ø(à), îðãàíù-èö(à); àãåíòåññ(à), ïðåìüåð-ø(à), ñòîëîíà àëüí-èö(à), òåëåìåòðèñò-ê(à), êàìâîëüù-èö(à), øåô-èí(ÿ), ïåêàð-èõ(à), ðåäàêòîð-èñ(à). Ê íèì ïðèìûêàþò äåðèâàòû, íàçûâàþùèå ñïîðòñìåíîê: êàðàòýèñò-ê(à), êðîëèñò-ê(à), ðàïèðèñò-ê(à), ðóáîáèñò-ê(à), ñàíî íèö(à), òðèàòëîíèñò-ê(à) è äð. Èìåíîâàíèÿ ëèö æåíñêîãî ïîëà ïî ïðîôåññèè â îáûäåííîì îáùåíèè ñîîòíîñÿòñÿ êàê ñ íàçâàíèåì ëèö ìóæñêîãî ïîëà, òàê è íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ñî ñôåðîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè (ñð.: áàíêèðøà æåíùèíà-áàíêèð, òî åñòü æåíùèíà, âûïîëíÿþùàÿ ôóíêöèè áàíêèðà, à òàêæå æåíùèíà, ðàáîòàþùàÿ â áàíêå; ïåêàðèõà æåíùèíà-ïåêàðü è æåíùèíà, ðàáîòàþùàÿ â ïåêàðíå). Â ïåðâîì ñëó àå óêàçûâàåòñÿ íà òî, òî æåíùèíà âûïîëíÿåò ïðîôåññèîíàëüíûå ôóíêöèè, à âî âòîðîì íà ìåñòî âûïîëíåíèÿ ýòèõ ôóíêöèé, òî çíà èìî äëÿ âûðàáîòêè ñòðàòåãèè ãîâîðÿùåãî. Æåíùèíà-áàíêèð îñìûñëèâàåòñÿ îáûäåííûì ñîçíàíèåì êàê ðóêîâîäèòåëü áàíêà, åå ìîæíî íàçâàòü òàêæå áàíêèðøåé. Â ýòîì ñëó àå ïðèñóòñòâóåò âîñõèùåíèå, îáóñëîâëåííîå ïðîôåññèîíàëüíûì âûïîëíåíèåì æåíùèíîé ìóæñêîé ðàáîòû. Åñëè àêöåíò äåëàåòñÿ íà ìåñòî ðàáîòû, òî ñëîâî

20 20 Ëþäìèëà Àðàåâà, Jolanta Miturska-Bojanowska áàíêèðøà óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ ñ ëåãêîé èðîíèåé ïî îòíîøåíèþ, íàïðèìåð, ê æåíùèíå, ðàáîòàþùåé êàññèðîì â áàíêå. Çíà èòåëüíóþ ãðóïïó ñðåäè ôåìèíàòèâîâ ñîñòàâëÿþò íàçâàíèÿ ñ êà åñòâåííîé õàðàêòåðèñòèêîé, íàïð.: ãèïåðòîíè -ê(à), ìíîãîæåí-ê(à), ñóèöèä-íèö(à), òåðïåëèâ-èö(à), õîõìà -ê(à). Íåìàëî òàêæå è íàçâàíèé ñî çíà åíèåì ñòîðîííèê, ïîñëåäîâàòåëü : àíòèêîììóíèñò-ê(à), ïåðåñòðîé-ùèö(à), ïó èñò-ê(à), ñòàëèíèñò-ê(à), íóäèñòê(à), êðèøíàèò-ê(à) è ïð. Ìíîãèå íàçâàíèÿ æèòåëüíèö, ðàâíî êàê è æèòåëåé, ìîòèâèðóþòñÿ íàçâàíèÿìè ìåñòà ïðîæèâàíèÿ: ôàðåð-êà (æèòåëüíèöà Ôàðåðñêèõ îñòðîâîâ), ñàóäîâ-êà (æèòåëüíèöà Ñàóäîâñêîé Àðàâèè), êóâåéò-ÿíêà (æèòåëüíèöà Êóâåéòà), èíîïëàíåòÿí-êà (æèòåëüíèöà èíîé ïëàíåòû), ðåïðåçåíòèðóÿ ïðîïîçèöèþ ñóáúåêò äåéñòâèå ìåñòî. -èí(ÿ) -ecc(a) -èx(a) -øa -èö(à) -ê(a) Ðèñ. 2. Ñëîâîîáðàçîâàòåëüíàÿ àêòèâíîñòü ñóôôèêñîâ ïðè îáðàçîâàíèè ôåìèíàòèâîâ Íàèáîëüøåé äåðèâàöèîííîé àêòèâíîñòüþ ñðåäè ôåìèíàòèâîâ îòëè àþòñÿ ñóôôèêñû: -ê(à), -èö(à), -ø(à), -èõ(à), -åññ(à), -èí(ÿ). Ýòè ñóáñòàíòèâû ìîòèâèðóþòñÿ êàê ïðîèçâîäíûìè, òàê è íåïðîèçâîäíûìè ìàñêóëèíèçìàìè. Åñëè ñðàâíèòü àêòèâíîñòü ñóôôèêñîâ, ó àñòâóþùèõ â îáðàçîâàíèè íàçâàíèé ëèö ìóæñêîãî ïîëà, òî íàèáîëåå ïðîäóêòèâíûå ìîäåëè â äàëüíåéøåì ñëóæàò ñëîâîîáðàçóþùåé áàçîé äëÿ íàçâàíèé ëèö æåíñêîãî ïîëà (ñð. ðèñ. 3, 4), òî ïðîÿâëÿåò ìóæñêîå íà àëî â ðóññêîé ÿçûêîâîé êàðòèíå ìèðà. -àòîð -òåëü -åö/-îâåö -ùèê/- èê -èñò -íèê Ðèñ. 3. Ïðîäóêòèâíîñòü ñóôôèêñîâ ïðè îáðàçîâàíèè ìàñêóëèíèçìîâ