Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:10:00.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Event Structure and Complex Predicates in Persian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Karine Megerdoomian
Karine Megerdoomian*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the syntactic and semantic properties of complex predicates in Persian in order to isolate the individual contributions of the verbal components. The event structure of causative alternation and unergative verbs is determined, based on a decomposition of the verbal construction into primitive syntactic elements consisting of lexical roots and functional heads, with the latter projecting all arguments of the verbal construction. An analysis is provided whereby the argument structure is not projected from the lexicon but is formed compositionally by the conjunction of the primitive components of the complex predicate in syntax. The dual behaviour of Persian complex predicates as lexical and syntactic elements, which has been attested in Persian literature on light verb constructions, follows naturally from the analysis proposed since there is no strict division between the level of word formation and the component manipulating phrasal constructs.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie les propriétés syntaxiques et sémantiques des verbes composés en persan afin de mettre à jour les contributions individuelles des composants de la construction verbale. La structure événementielle de certains prédicats complexes est déterminée et une analyse de la construction verbale est proposée où les composants sont décomposés en éléments syntaxiques primitifs qui consistent en des racines lexicales et des têtes fonctionnelles, ces dernières étant responsables de la projection des arguments de la construction verbale. L’analyse fournie suggère que la structure argumentale n’est pas projetée du lexique, mais est plutôt formée de façon compositionnelle en joignant, dans le domaine syntaxique, les composants primitifs du prédicat complexe. Les travaux portant sur les verbes composés en persan ont indiqué que ces constructions montrent un double comportement lexical et syntaxique. L’analyse proposée peut facilement expliquer ces propriétés puisqu’il n’y existe aucune division stricte entre le niveau responsable pour la formation des mots et le module qui manipule les constructions phrastiques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 46 , Special Issue 1-2: The Syntax of Iranian Languages , June 2001 , pp. 97 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alsina, Alex. 1999. On the representation of event structure. In Grammatical semantics: Evidence for structure and meaning, ed. Mohanan, Tara and Wee, Lionel, 77–122. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Barjasteh, Darab. 1983. Morphology, syntax, and semantics of Persian compound verbs: A lexical approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, ed. Benedicto, E. and Runner, J., 19–48. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2000. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. Null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239–297.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547–619.Google Scholar
Fong, Vivian. 1999. Comments on Alsina. In Grammatical semantics: Evidence for structure and meaning, ed. Mohanan, Tara and Wee, Lionel, 123–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, and Massam, Diane. 1994. Lexical/syntactic relations without projection. Linguistic Analysis 24: 175–217.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1996. Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. In Proceedings ofBLS 22.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and θ-theory. Linguistic Inquiry 19:205–232.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–110. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicatore. In Complex predicates, ed. Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, 29–66. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Harley, Heidi, 73–118. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995a. Subjects, events and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995b. Sase bizarre: The structure of Japanese causatives. In Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Koskinen, Päivi, 225–235. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1999. Denominal verbs and Aktionsart. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on the lexicon, ed. Pylkkanen, Liina, van Hout, Angeliek, and Harley, Heidi, 73–86. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: Nominaliza-tions, vocabulary items and the Encyclopedia. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Harley, Heidi, 119–138. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Hout, Angeliek van, and Roeper, Thomas. 1998. Events and aspectual structure in derivational morphology. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, ed. Harley, Heidi, 175–200. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology 3:273–318.Google Scholar
Karimi-Doostan, Mohamad-Reza. 1997. Light verb constructions in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. On external arguments. In Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, ed. Benedicto, E. and Runner, J., 103–130. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Larson, Robert. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon”. In Penn working papers in linguistics 4, ed. Dimitriadis, Alexis et al, 201–225. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Paper read at WCCFL 20, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Jan, and Karimi, Simin. 1992. Light verbs are taken over: Complex verbs in Persian. Proceedings ofWECOL 5:195–212.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiences and cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In The projection of arguments, ed. Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sadeghi, A.A., and Arzhang, Gh.. 1980. Dastur (Grammar). Vols. I, II, III. Ministry of Education and Training, Iran.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1991. Derived objects, inner aspect and the structure of VP. Paper presented at NELS 22, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Vahedi-Langrudi, Mohammad-Mehdi. 1996. The syntax, semantics and argument structure of complex predicates in modern Farsi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and times. In Linguistics and philosophy, ed. Vendier, Zeno. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2000. Primitive aspects of the syntactic code. Paper read at Université Paris VII, Paris.Google Scholar