Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:13:44.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control and Thematic Agreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Jila Ghomeshi
Jila Ghomeshi*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article it is shown that Persian has core control constructions in which the obligatorily empty subject of an embedded clause takes its reference from an antecedent in the next higher clause. Evidence is provided that these embedded clauses are relatively transparent for scrambling and lack independent tense. It is therefore argued that core control verbs in Persian take complements that lack CP, TP, and a Case position for their subjects. Control complements do manifest subject agreement, however, suggesting that agreement checking takes place within vP. The implications of this view are explored with respect to the periphrastic progressive construction, in which both the auxiliary and the main verb bear subject agreement, and raising constructions, in which preposed subjects do not trigger agreement on the matrix verb. The relevant contrast is presented in minimalist terms as the idea that agreement in Persian is checked within a strong phase (CP or vP).

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article montre que le persan possède des constructions à contrôle dans lesquelles le sujet vide de la phrase enchâssée obtient sa référence d’un antécédent dans la phrase matrice. Il est démontré que ces phrases enchâssées sont relativement transparentes en ce qui concerne le «scrambling» et ne possèdent pas de temps indépendant. Il est argumenté que les verbes à contrôle du persan sélectionnent des compléments sans structure CP, TP ou position casuelle pour leurs sujets. Ces compléments manifestent toutefois un accord avec le sujet, ce qui suggère que la vérification de l’accord se produit dans vP. Les implications de cette analyse sont examinées en ce qui a trait à la construction progressive périphrastique, dans laquelle l’auxiliaire et le verbe principal s’accordent tous deux avec le sujet, et dans les constructions à montée, dans lesquelles les sujets préposés ne déclenchent pas l’accord sur le verbe principal. Ce contraste est présenté en termes minimalistes comme découlant du fait que l’accord en persan est vérifié à l’intérieur d’une phase forte («strong phase»), c’est-à-dire CP ou vP.

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. 9 - 40
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

Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In The null subject parameter, ed. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Safir, Kenneth J., 69–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13:343–434.Google Scholar
Browning, Marguerite A., and Karimi, Ezat. 1994. Scrambling to object position in Persian. In Studies on scrambling, ed. Corver, Norbert and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 61–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richard. 1995. Inflectional domains and Comp features. Lingua 96:119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chodzko, Alexander. 1852. Grammaire persane ou principes de l’iranien moderne, accompagnées de facsimilés pour servir de modele d’écriture et de style pour la correspondence diplomatique et familiere. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Lingusitics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition -ra in Persian. In Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts, ed. Stein, Dieter, 549–573. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darzi, Ali. 1996. Word order, NP-movements, and opacity conditions in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. Head-to-head merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality. In Comparative syntax of Balkan languages, ed. Rivero, María Luisa and Raili, Angela, 44–73. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1996. Projection and inflection: A study of Persian phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997a. Non-projecting nouns and the Ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15:729–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997b. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102:133–167.Google Scholar
Hashemipour, Margaret M. 1989. Pronominalization and control in Modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. A unified account of Persian stress. Paper read at the Modern Trends in Linguistics Workshop, Tehran.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1989. Aspects of Persian syntax, specificity, and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions: Râ in Persian. Linguistic Analysis 20:139–191.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1999. Is scrambling as strange as we think it is? In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, ed. Arregi, Karlos, Bruening, Benjamin, Krause, Cornelia, and Lin, Vivian, 159–190.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1984. On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry 15:417–59.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 1999. Elements of control. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1957. Grammaire du persan contemporain. Paris: Klinksieck.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A grammar of contemporary Persian. English translation. Costa Meca, Calif.: Mazda.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1985. Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review 4:343–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14:421–67.Google Scholar
Manzini, Rita and Roussou, Anna. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110:409–447.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1981. Semantic interpretation vs. lexical governance. Language 57:841–887.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–339. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochette, Anne. 1988. Semantic and syntactic aspects of Romance sentential complementation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rochette, Anne. 1990. On the restructuring classes of verbs in Romance. In Binding in Romance: Essays in honour of Judith McA’Nulty, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Rochette, Anne, 96–128. Ottawa: Special Publication of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2001. Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In Comparative syntax of Balkan languages, ed. Rivero, María Luisa and Raili, Angela, 74–104. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67:63–113.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 2001. Subjectless constructions in Persian. Paper read at the Modern Trends in Linguistics Workshop, Tehran.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13:561–570.Google Scholar
Verma, Manindra K., and Mohanan, K.P., eds. 1990. Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203–238.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 1998. Infinitives. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, 599–612. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Yoon, James H. 1993. A-Chain locality: Some cross-linguistic variations. FLSM, III: Papers from the Third Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica, ed. Stvan, Laurel S., 356–372. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar