Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:30:36.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persian Complex DPs: How Mysterious Are They?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Simin Karimi
Simin Karimi*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Persian complex DPs exhibit structural peculiarities with respect to the placement of the object marker for specific DPs and the position of embedded CPs. This article discusses these peculiarities as well as the internal structure of Persian complex DPs and the distribution of clitic pronouns in this language. It is argued that a base generation approach accounts more adequately for Persian and other languages that exhibit the following properties: lack of a wh-relative pronoun, presence of an invariant relative complementizer, and alternation between a gap and a pronoun representing the relativized head. Regarding the postverbal position of the embedded CP, it is argued that extraposition and VP-remnant face theoretical and empirical problems, while V-raising and XP movement, as instances of scrambling triggered by focus in this language, provide an adequate explanation for Persian data.

Résumé

Résumé

Les DP complexes en persan montrent certaines particularités structurales en ce qui concerne le placement du marqueur objet pour les DP spécifiques ainsi que la position des CP enchâssés. Cet article discute ces particularités et examine également la structure interne des DP complexes en persan et la distribution des pronoms clitiques dans cette langue. Il est proposé qu’une approche en termes de génération dans la base explique de façon plus adéquate le persan ainsi que d’autres langues qui partagent les caractéristiques suivantes: l’absence d’un pronom relatif, la présence d’un complémenteur relatif qui ne varie pas, et une alternance entre un élément non réalisé lexicalement et un pronom représentant la tête relativisée. En ce qui concerne la position post-verbale du CP enchâssé, il est démontré que des analyses en termes d’extraposition et de «VP-remnant» font face à des problèmes théoriques et empiriques, alors que le mouvement du V et le mouvement de XP, interprétés comme des occurrences de «scrambling» résultant de la mise en focus en persan, offrent une explication adéquate pour les données du persan.

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. 63 - 96
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

Abney, Steven. 1986. Functional elements and licensing. Paper presented at GLOW conference, Girona, Spain.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentine. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1981. The general theory of binding and fusion. Linguistic Analysis 7:277–325.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1970. More on the definiteness marker: Interrogatives in Persian. Linguistic Inquiry 1:359–363.Google Scholar
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 89–103. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1982. Syntax and semantics of causative constructions in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Darai, Ali. 1996. Word order, NP movement, and opacity conditions in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives, and dislocation structures. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Enç, Miirvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1996. Projection and inflection: A study of Persian phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102:133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hashemipour, Margaret. 1989. Pronominalization and control in Modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization. Studia Linguistica 53:1–39.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. Linguistic Analysis 20:139–191.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1996. Case and specificity: Persian ra revisited. Linguistic Analysis 26:173–194.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1999a. Specificity effect: Evidence from Persian. Linguistic Review 16:125–141.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1999b. A note on parasitic gaps and specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 30:704–713.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2001a. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2001b. Object Shift, scrambling, and specificity. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin, and Brame, Michael. 1986. A generalization concerning the EZAFE constructions in Persian. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Conference on Linguistics, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin, and Lobeck, Anne. 1997. Specificity effects in English and Persian. In The Proceedings of North East Linguistics Society 28:175–186.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin E. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–391.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A′ distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop 1992. The specificity condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry 23:510–516.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. To appear. Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In Word Order and Scrambling, ed. Karimi, Simin. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Theoretical morphology, ed. Hammond, Michael and Noonan, M., 253–270. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1989. Clitics and phrase structure. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony, 99–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4, ed. Dimitriadis, A. et al., 201–225.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In The syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. Carnie, Andrew and Guilfoyle, Eithne, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moyne, John, and Carden, Guy. 1974. Subject reduplication in Persian. Linguistic Inquiry 5:206–249.Google Scholar
Najafi, Abolhasan. 1991. Qalatnanevisim(“Let’s not write incorrectly”). Tehran: Markaze Nashre Daneshgahi.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 1983. Structure of phrasal categories in Persian: An X-bar analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 1994. The Ezafe construction: Some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax. In Persian studies in North America, ed. Marashi, Mehdi, 17–41. Bethesda: Iranbooks.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1994. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23:443–468.Google Scholar
Soheili-Isfahani, Abulghasem. 1976. Noun phrase complementation in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Tabaian, Hassan. 1974. Conjunction, relativization, and complementation in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to Dutch syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar