Persian Double Object Constructions and Ditransitive Constructions within Distributed Morphology

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Corresponding Author, Ph.D. of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to study dative and locative alternations in Persian based on Wood & Marantz (2017) within Distributed Morphology. We attempt to investigate the extent to which argument structure alternation can be reduced to the syntactic and semantic properties of a single head, labeled i*. The notion of possession transfer in double object construction (DOC) and locative relation in ditransitive construction (PPC) can be accounted for by assuming the ability of a verb to occure in DOC and PPC involves the ability to select D*P and p*P respectively. If i* combines with DP, it projects D*P and takes a DP specifier. If i* combines with pP, it projects p*P and introduces a DP specifier. Semantically i* assigns to the DP specifier the theta-role of possessor and figure respectively by contextually determined interpretive rules. Therefore, the interpretation of external arguments in double object construction and ditransitive construction is derived from structural environments and the conceptual content of roots.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

انوشه، مزدک (1397). «بازنگری در تصریف زمان گذشته در زبان فارسی بر پایه نظریه صرف توزیعی». دو ماهنامه جستارهای زبانی. ش 1، فروردین و اردیبهشت 1397، 57-80.
روشن، بلقیس (1377). معنی­شناسی واژگانی: طبقه­بندی فعل­های فارسی. پایان­نامۀ دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
فقیری، پگاه و پلت سامولیان (2014). «جایگاه مفعول مستقیم در فارسی: بررسی داده­بنیاد». اولین کنفرانس ملی در نحو و معناشناسی زبانهای ایرانی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران، 61-74.
کریمی دوستان، غلامحسین و علی صفری (1390). «اثر کلی / جزئی در تناوب مکانی زبان فارسی». پژوهش‌های زبان شناسی. سال سوم، شماره اول، بهار و تابستان. 77-99.
کریمی، یادگار و الهه نجفی (1396). «ساخت الحاقی: توصیف و پیامدهای نظری». پژوهش‌های زبانی. سال نهم، شماره اول، بهار و تابستان 1396. 99ـ 120.
مویدی، ، مونا و رضا لطفی (1392). «بررسی ساخت دو مفعولی در متون ادب فارسی». مجله پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی. سال 5، شماره اول، بهار و تابستان. 101-119.
واعظی ، هنگامه (1393). «افعال دو مفعولی در زبان فارسی: تعامل میان نحو و کلام». دوماهنامه جستارهای زبانی. شماره 5، بهمن و اسفند ماه 1393، 251-274.
References
Acedo-Matellan, V. & J. Mateu (2013). Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: a syntactic approach, Probus 25, 227-265
Anousheh, M. (2018). Review of the past tense in Persian based on the theory of Distributed Morphology. Linguistic Quarterly, 9 (1), PP. 57-80 (In Persian).
Aoun, J. & Y. A. Li (1989). Scope and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry PP. 141-172.
Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Spingeter.
Barss, A. & H. Lasnik (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347-354.
Bobaljik, J. (2015). Distributed Morphology. U Conn Storrs
Bruening, B. (2010a). Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2). 287–305.
Caha, P. (2009). The Nanosyntax of Case, Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at Large. Cambridge, MA: MIT Doctoral dissertation.
Faghiri, P. & P. Samvelian (2014). Position of direct object & indirect object in Persian: a data-based study. 1st National Conference on Semantics and Syntax of Iranian Languages, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. pp. 61-74. (In Persian).
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical representation of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20, Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of infelection. In: K. Hale & S. J. Kayser (eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111-179. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Harley, H. & S. Miyagawa (2018). Syntax of Ditransitive. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics.
Harley, H. (2013). External Arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 123. 34-57.
Karimi Doostan, Gh. & A. Safari (2011). General / partial effect on spatial rotation of Persian language. Linguistic Research (Journal of Isfahan Faculty of Literature and Humanities), 3 (1), PP. 77-99 (In Persian).
Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. De Gruyter Mouten.
Karimi, Y. & E. Najafi (2017). Supplementary construction: description and theoretical implications. Linguistic Research (Journal of Isfahan Faculty of Literature and Humanities, 9 (1), PP. 99-120 (In Persian).
Kayne, R. S. (1984) Connectedness and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kelly, J. R. (2013). The Syntax-Semantics Interface in Distributed Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Washington, DC.
Larson, RK. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguist. Inq.19: 335-92
Legate, J. A. (2014). Voice and V: Lesson from Acehness. MIT Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marantz, A. (2013). Verbal argument structure: events and participants, Lingua 130, 152-168
Moayed, M. & A. Lotfi (2013). A study of the construction of two objects in Persian literature texts. Linguistic Research (Journal of Isfahan Faculty of Literature and Humanities), 5 (1), PP.101-119 (In Persian).
Oblishevska, O. (2005). Locative Alternation in Slavic. University of Ottawa.
Ormazabal, J. & J. Romero (2010). The derivation of dative alternations, In M. Dugine, S. Huidobro, N. Madariaga (eds), Argument structure and syntactic relations: A crosslinguistic perspective, 203-232. Benjamins
Pesetesky, D. (1982). Paths and Categories, Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
Rappaport, H. & B. Levin (1988). What to do with theta-roles. IN: W. Wilkins (eds.), Thematic Relations. 7-36. San Diago. CA: Acadeic Press.
Rappaport, H. & B. Levin (2008). The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. J. Linguist. 44: 129-67
Roshan, B. (1998). Lexical Semantics: Classification of Persian Verbs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran. (In Persian).
Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the word: economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. John Benjamins B.V.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Vaezi, H. (2015). Two-verb verbs in Persian: Interaction between syntax and speech. Linguistic inquiries, 5 (21), PP. 251-274 (In Persian).
Wood & Zanuttini. (2018). Datives, data and dialect syntax in American English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 3(1): 86. 1-22.
Wood, J. & A. Marantz (2017). The Interpretation of External Arguments. The Verbal Domain. Print ISBN-13: 97801987678.
Wood, J. (2015). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Srtucture. Vol. 90 of Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Spinger. 2, 3, 4.
Yakhabi, M. & A. Lotfi (2017). Does the syntax in Modern Persian allow the locative verbs to participate in alternation? International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. 6 (5), 255-262.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics