Language Research

Abstract   The Vocative construction is one of the earliest conceptions acquired by children. So it must be a universal phenomenon. It is surprising that it had been rarely studied. While the vocative is a building block of sentences, although non-obligatory, it has often been approached from a non-linguistics perspective. This paper aims to investigate both the internal/syntactic structure of the vocative phrase and its syntactic position in Persian within the framework of Minimalist Theory. To do this, the data are collected addressee, which is identified by the vocative phrase (VocP), is a functional projection derived by a bundle of morpho-syntactic and semantic features. In the one hand, the projection is located above the functional projections of the nominal domain and the determiner phrase (DP). On the other hand, it is located in the left periphery of the sentence. The vocative phrase located between the topicalized and focused phrases as a result of topic and focus movement in the language. The phrase may or may not be co-indexed with a constituent in the main clause. Although vocative phrases are not morphologically marked in Modern Persian, there are elements such as “Ey”, “Âhây” and “hey” which are sign of vocative in Persian, named vocative particles. These particles are optional, however, located in the vocative phrase. The particles, also, are different stylistically. The fisrt one is used in literary style and the second two particles are used in colloquial style. Moreover, the vocative head is shown to take a DP complement. The DP merges with the head of the phrase, as its complement Vocative particles are proposed to bear an uninterpretable D-feature along with the some other morpho-syntactic features. Checking these features make the DP complement to be interpreted as vocative in the LF, namely the vocative DP. The distribution of vocative particles indicates that the “EY” particle is a bound morpheme but “Âhây” and “Hey” are free morphemes. The projection is prosodically marked by pause and linearly followed by a comma

Abstract The present article mainly aims to investigate the process through which relative clauses appear postverbally and distant from the noun they modify. To do so, relative clauses are first classified into two categories of Restrictive (RRC) and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses (NRRC). The article focuses only on the RRCs given the vastness of the research area. Adopting a non-movement analysis for postverbal RRCs within Minimalism, arguments coming from Quantifier Raising and Adjunct Merger are presented to support the hypothesis that RRCs are adjoined to a copy of the NP they modify after the latter adjoins to a functional projection in the left periphery to host the RRC. Furthermore, it is proposed that the head of the aforementioned fumctional projection may come from the lexicon with an optional strong D feature ([uD*]) that triggers the movement of the copy of the source NP. As such, assuming that we have verb movement in Persian and that complement clauses in this language move to their surface position within TP to check a clause type feature, the postverbal RRCs are predicted to follow complement clauses to give the right relative order of the two postverbal clauses, a prediction that is borne out. Finally, the restriction on the presence of only one RRC postverbally is scrutinized in addition to the compulsory postverbal appearance of RRCs in certain structures.

Abstract Quantifiers basically occur adjacent to a nominal phrase. However, sometimes the quantifier and the nominal phrase appear apart in sentences. This phenomenon is referred to as quantifier floating (Q-floating). The most prominent approach to Q-floating is stranding analysis, according to which the quantifier and the adjacent nominal phrase together make up a single constituent, and in the course of derivation, the nominal phrase moves from this constituent to a higher position, stranding the quantifier in situ; in other words, stranding analysis considers the floating quantifier construction as the result of a transformation from non-floating quantifier construction. This paper addresses the structure of floating and non-floating quantifier constructions, provides evidence from Persian to indicate the independence of their structures, and argues for the oblige toriness of each structure. The floating quantifier is shown to be a late adjunct to a copy of its associated DP: in the derivation leading to quantifier floating, a DP moves from its θ-position and then receives a QP as an adjunct, and then it moves again to a higher position and strands the quantifier in situ.  According to Chomsky’s (2013) Labeling Algorithm, when QP is an adjunct to DP, the movement of DP and it’s leaving the QP behind is obligatory; to put it another way, floating quantifier construction is obligatory. As opposed to floating quantifier construction, in non-floating quantifier construction, QP is not an adjunct. In this construction, the DP is the complement of the quantifier head. Given Labeling Algorithm, this construction is obligatorily motivated, too. In addition, since quantifier phrase is the topmost nominal phrase in such constructions, it is a phase; and in order for the DP to move out of this phase, it needs to move first to the specifier position of the QP, but this movement is considered too short. For this reason, DP cannot move off the QP in non-floating quantifier constructions

Abstract This paper investigates the External Merge position of the floating quantifier “hame” (all) in Persian. Quantifier floating has received two major analyses: stranding adverbial. In this paper, the former approach is shown to be more explanatorily justified. The paper provides evidence to indicate that “hame” is adjoined acyclically to the argument DP after the DP moves from its θ-position, along the lines of Boskovic (2004). More specifically, quantifier floating is shown not to be possible from θ-positions. The evidence comes from the prosodic pattern of Persian unmarked sentences as well as the scope interaction of negation and the floating quantifier “hame”. In regard to prosodic pattern of Persian unmarked sentences, main sentence stress has been argued by Kahnemuyipour (2009) to mark the left edge of vP. Floating quantifier is shown to occur before the element bearing main sentence stress in unmarked sentences, so it is claimed to be outside of vP, and therefore outside of the θ-position. As regards the second evidence, i.e. scope interaction, in negative sentences containing floating “hame’ when negation is not focused, ‘hame’ is constantly out of the scope of negation, and this means that in such sentences, neither the floating quantifier nor its copies are within the c-commanding domain of NegP. To put it another way, the base position of the floating quantifier is higher than NegP, which is argued to be between TP and vP. To determine the position of NegP in Persian, evidence is provided from negation in gerund phrases in Persian, and the scope interaction between manner and speaker-oriented adverbs on the one hand and between these adverbs and negation on the other. Showing that NegP is located between vP and TP within the scope of “hame”, it is concluded that the External Merge position of quantifier is higher than vP, and therefore is outside the θ-domain.

Abstract Clausal dependents of noun in Persian are divided into two groups: relative clauses (restrictive relative clause /RRC and non-restrictive relative clause /NRRC), and clausal complements of noun (CCN). By mentioning the semantic and syntactic differences between these two groups, Iranian researchers often consider them as independent and distinct clauses. In this study, we show that the so-called CCN is a kind of RC and for some reason they cannot be complements. First, like RCs, these clauses are optional and adjunctive. Second, those few nouns that can accept a clausal dependent, unlike their corresponding verbs, do not semantically indicate an event or process or action. Third, the behavior of these clauses happens to be remarkably similar to that of NRRCs, mainly because the head nominal in both clauses are definite. The necessity of definiteness arises from the information structure of the clause and its being discourse-bound. On the other hand, contrary to what has been described in the literature, the head N of the clauses is not necessarily a predicative noun; however, semantically it necessarily does contain an event descriptor. That is why not every noun can be the head N of these clauses. The seeming CCNs are in fact RCs that are the product of relativization of an event argument. Since this element is hidden and located in one of the functional projections, CCNs seem to have no gap/resumptive pronoun. Thus, it is better to use the term “event-relative clauses” to refer to these clauses. The syntactic analysis of these clauses –in a manner similar to the syntactic analysis of RCs– will justify the impossibility of extraction, because according to Phase Theory, CP and DP are the phases that the extracted item must first move to their edges; However, the specifier of these two phrases is filled in by the relative operator and the DP, and no element can be extracted from it.

Abstract This study is an investigation of multiple–râ constructions as an instance of so-called split DP in Persian in the Minimalist framework. In principle, DP splitting may give rise to another phenomenon, namely, syntactic doubling. This phenomenon, as its name suggests, involves the occurrence of more than one syntactic marker in a syntactic object. In Persian, this marker is the accusative Case marker –râ. To account for the multiple occurrence of –râ, we follow Kahnemuyipour's (2014) treatment of adjectival Ezafe construction as involving a head final NP. We then analyze split DPs in Persian as a byproduct of topicalization and focalization of inner elements of DPs. So given the Topic and Focus interpretation of syntactic objects in the constructions under investigation and their relative order, we posit TopP and FocP projections in a domain between head D and NumP.  It is worth noticing that in linguistics theorizing the Split DP construction corresponds to split CP as proposed by Rizii (1997(. With respect to accusative Case marker then we adopt Darzi’s (2006) treatment of –râ as the morphological realization of dependent Case in the domain of V + I in Persian. Under Baker and Vinokurova's (2010), Preminger's (2014) and Baker's (2015) proposals, the dependent Case marker appears on a DP which is c-commanded by another DP in a certain domain if the latter is not yet valued for Case. In this respect, finally, we employ the mechanism of subextraction from the main DP as a result of which the extracted element altogether carries other Case marker to a higher DP upon extraction. With regard to nominative Case, after adopting Levin and Preminger’s (2014) proposal, namely, unmarked Case, which in turn appears as a result of the interaction between I/T and being in the domain proposed by Bobaljik (2006,2008) and Darzi (2006), we maintain that subextraction is also accounted for constructions with multiple nominative Case.

Abstract This study explores the nature of relatively free word order of verbs and their arguments in Persian. Based on the theory of phases and multiple spell-out which is an instantiation of Minimalist Program, we attempt to account for the restrictions on these word order variations. Having a direct interaction with the syntax-phonology interface rather than a purely syntactic one, these restrictions, which have no interaction with information structure, are accounted for using linearization principle (Fox & Pesetsky 2005) and sentential stress rule (Kahnemuyipour 2004). The main generalization is that no argument that bears the sentential stress can appear on the right side of the verb. As such, nonspecific object of transitive verbs and nonspecific subject of unaccusatives and passives cannot follow the verb. This specific argument imposes no restriction on verb fronting which is in fact VP fronting in Persian.

Abstract A growing number of recent studies on verbal meaning have demonstrated that positing a direct mapping between (lexical/logical) semantics and syntax with respect to event structure can account for numerous linguistic phenomena. In this article, we demonstrate that certain facts in Persian can only be explained by decomposing verbs into smaller syntactic pieces that reflect subparts of a complex event structure. Contrary to the previous claims, taking the theoretical position that there is only one generative component, we argue that morphological causative predicates are constructed in syntax. By replicating the dobare ‘again’ test, we shall further claim that morphological causatives are not syntactically atomic units, but are decomposable into separate morphemes in the syntactic structure. We show the different pattern in morphological causatives with respect to the modification of manner adverbials in terms of the size of the complement of the v_CAUSE.