Argument Alternation in Persian: The Role of “Ra” and Holistic Reading in Locative Alternation

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Abstract

The appearance of arguments of a verb in different ways is called Argument Alternation. The aim of this paper is to study locative alternation in Persian. Locative alternation is defined as follows: The arguments of some locative verbs like “bar zadan” (load) can appear in two different ways. In locative variant the theme is realized as the direct object with “Ra” and locative argument as indirect argument whereas in objective variant the locative argument is realized as the direct object with “Ra” and the theme as indirect argument. The most important feature of locative alternation in many languages is holistic/partitive effect. Based on this effect, if the theme or the locative argument is realized as the direct object they will be associated with holistic reading but in the form of indirect object, they can be associated with holistic or partitive reading. Studying locative alternation can help us find answers to a number of questions concerning Persian grammar. In this paper, it is shown that in Persian, locative alternation verbs do not have the holistic reading in their objective variant. The so called Objective variant is the result of a change in the point of view toward the locative argument and following Dabir Moghadam, in this variant, locative argument is considered to be the secondary topic, though it is accompanied with “Ra”.
 

Keywords

References

روشن، بلقیس (1377). معنی­شناسی واژگانی. طبقه­بندی فعل­های فارسی. پایان­نامۀ دکتری زبان­شناسی، دانشگاه تهران.
Anderson, S. (1971). The Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation. Foundation of Language, 6, 387-396.
Baker, M. (1985). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. PhD Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
------------ (1997). Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax (Eds.), In: L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, (pp. 73-137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Beavers, J. T. (2006). Argument/Oblique Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University.
Belletti, A. & L. Rizzi (1988). Psych Verbs and Theta Theory. Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-352.
Boas, H. C. (2009). Verb Meanings at the Crossroads between Higher-Level and Lower-Level Constructions. Lingua, 120, 22–34.
Borer, H. (1998). Passive without Theta Grids. In: S. G. Lapointe, and et. al (Eds.), Morphological Interfaces, (pp. 60-99). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, J. & J. Kanerva (1989). Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 1-50.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
---------------- (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hogue: Mouton.
---------------- (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Croft, W. (1995). Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics. Language, 71, 490-532.
----------- (1998). Event Structures in Argument Linking. In: M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments, (pp. 21-63). University of Chicago Press.
----------- (2010). Verbs, Aspect and Argument Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dabir Moghadam, M. (1992). On the (in) Dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the Post-Position -Ra in Persian. In: D. Stein (Eds.), Cooperating with Written Texts,(pp. 549-573). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dick, S. C. (1987). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
------------ (2000). The Fallacy of Argument Alternation. Ravin, Y. and C. Laecock. Polysemy, (pp. 111-128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: an Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In: E. Bach and R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals In Linguistic Theory, (pp. 1-88). New York: Holf, Reinhart and Winston.
----------------- (1971). Some Problems for Case Grammar. In: R. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Report of the 22nd Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies,(pp. 35-56). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-------------------- (2005). Argument Realization: the Role of Constructions, Lexical Semantic and Discourse Factors. In: J. Östman and M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, (pp. 17-43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
--------------------- (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, J & S. Vinker (1993). Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events. In: E. Reuland and W. Abraham (Eds.), 143-55.
Hale, K. L. & S. J. Keyser (1993). On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In: K. L. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20, (pp. 53-109). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hale, K. L. & S. J. Keyser (1997). On the Complex Nature of Simple Predicators. In: A. Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates, (pp. 29- 65). Stanford: Center for the Studyof Language and Information.
Hale, L. & S. J. Keyser (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hall, B. (1965) Subject and Object in English. PhD Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Iwata, S. (2005). Locative Alternation and Two Levels of Verb Meaning. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 355–407.
Jackendoff, R. (1987). The Status of Thematic Relation in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 89-150.
------------------ (1990). Semantic Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
------------------ (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karimi, S. (2003). Object Positions, Specificity and Scrambling. In: S. Karimi (Ed.), Word Order and Scrambling, (pp. 91-125). Blackwell Publishing.
------------ (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Larson, R. K. (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-91.
Levin, B & M. Rappaport Hovav (1988). What to do with Theta-Roles. In: W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations, (pp. 7–36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity: at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
------------------------------------------ (1998). Non-Event –er Nominals: A Prob into Argument Structure. Linguistics, 26, 1067-83.
------------------------------------------ (2001). An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives. Language, 77, 766-99.
------------------------------------------ (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, B. (2006). English Object Alternations: A Unified Account. Unpublished ms. Stanford University.
McCawley, J. D. (1973). Prelexical Syntax. In: J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic and Semantic Topics, (pp. 343-56). Tokyo: Taishukan.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (2002). Change of State Verbs: Implications for Theories of Argument Projection. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (pp. 269-80). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Ritter, E. and S. T. Rosen (1998). Delimiting Events in Syntax. In: M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments, (pp. 135-164). University of Chicago Press.
Rothstein, S. (2000). Secondary Predication and Aspectual Structure. Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 17, 241-264.
----------------- (2004). Structuring Events. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tenny, C. L. (1987). Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT.
--------------- (1992). The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In: Sag & Szabolcsi (Eds.), 1-27.
--------------- (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van Hout, A. (1996). Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. PhD Dissertation, Tilburg University.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1990). Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language, 66(2), 221-260.
------------------------- (2005) Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects
Volume 6, Issue 20
June 2018
Pages 67-89

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics