Local Dislocation Operation in Farsi

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

Abstract

In Farsi, the clitic pronouns are often added to the stem as the last element, but in some structures, they can be immediately attached to their hosts. The ability to describe this dual behavior can be used as a criterion to check the effectiveness of different approaches. This research aims to find out if Distributed Morphology and its post-syntactic mechanism are needed to determine the position of different morphemes at the level of the word? Or it can be explained using lexicalist hypothesis? For this purpose, after introducing the theoretical background and previous researches, we analyze data from Farsi; the analyses shows that the assumptions of lexicalists cannot explain why the clitic pronoun (shon) has two positions in (xodeshoniha) and (xodihashon), but this phenomenon is not allowed in other structures. On the other hand, by analyzing the data in the framework of Distributed Morphology, it was found that only with the existence of post-syntactic operations such as local dislocation and considering the content feature of clitics and stems the dual behavior of the clitic pronouns can be explained.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 315-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396917 
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (4), 555-595. DOI:10.1162/002438901753373005
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & c. Reiss (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistics Interfaces (pp. 289-324). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199247455.001
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, & J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Linguistics Essays in Honor of Bromberger (pp. 111-176). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Julien, M. (2002). Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford university Press. DOI:10.1017/S0022226704312740
Kayne, S. R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Koopman, H. (2005). Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(4), 601-633. DOI:10.1162/002438905774464359
Koopman, H. (2014). Recursion restrictions: Where grammar count. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in Cognition (pp. 17-38). springer.  DOl:10.1007/978-3-319-05086-72
Koopman, H. (2015). Generalized U20 and morpheme order, under review.
Koopman, H. (2017). A note on Huave Morpheme ordering: Local dislocation or generalization U20? Perspectives on the architecture and acquisition of syntax (pp. 23-47). DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-4295-92
Kunio, K., & Yohei, O. (2016). Wh-concord in Okinawan=syntactic movement + morphological merger. In University of Pennsylvania working paper in linguistics, Vol. 22.
Marantz, A. (1995). A late note on late insertion. In Kim, Y. et al. (Eds.) Explorations in generative grammar (pp. 396-413). Hankuk Publishing Co.
Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, & et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 201-225).University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 4.2.
Marantz, A. (1998). ‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. M.S., MIT.
Nevins, A., & Parrott, J. K. (2010). Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: The patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua, 120(5), 1135-1159. DOI:10.1016/.lingua.2008.05.008
Noyer, R. (1997). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland.
Shaghaghi, V. (1998). What is a clitic? Is such a concept used in Persian? In Y. Modarresi and M. Dabir-Moghadam (Eds.), Proceedings of Third Conferences of Linguistics (5-6 March, pp. 141-157). Tehran: A'alame Tabatabai University (In Persian).
Shaghaghi, V. (2014). An introduction to Morphology. Tehran: SAMT (In Persian).
Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the Word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.138
Sorahi, M. A., & Alinezhad, B. (2013). A typological study of clitics in Persian. Journal of linguistics & Khorasan dialects,5(8), 103-120 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/ lj.v5i8.34489
Spencer, A., & Luis, A. (2012). Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge university Press. DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139033763
Zwicky, A., & Pullum, G. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 59(3), 502-513. DOI:10.2307/413900
Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects
Volume 11, Issue 3 - Serial Number 42
September 2023
Pages 43-64

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics