ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Persian Light Verbs’ Productivity
Rhythmic characteristics of speech based on consonantal and vocalic intervals as well as syllabic intervals vary between speakers of the same language. Nonetheless, the rhythmicity of a speech signal is not solely dependent on the durational variability of phonetic intervals but it is also associated with the variability of the intensity patterns as well. Acoustic parameter of intensity is largely determined by the articulatory behaviors of the speech organs such as lip movement or mouth aperture. Therefore, it is plausible that speaker idiosyncrasy in movement of speech articulators and anatomical differences in individual’s vocal tracts may influence the energy distribution across a speech signal which subsequently leads to the variability in the values of the intensity measures. Using experimental phonetics tools and from an explicitly speaker-specific perspective, the present research attempts to explore potential speaker-specific acoustic parameters of speech rhythm which are extracted from the intensity contours across Persian speakers. This research aims to discover whether intensity-based measures of speech rhythm are able to discriminate between speakers in Persian. Two types of acoustic rhythmic measures based on the mean syllable intensity (stdevM, varcoM, rPVIm, nPVIm) and peak syllable intensity (stdevP, varcoP, rPVIp, nPVIp)) were selected for this study. Speech data from 12 Persian male speakers were recorded non-contemporaneously in laboratory environment on two different occasions separated by one to two weeks. Speech tokens were acoustically measured with PRAAT version 5.2.34 and statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS version 21 and R version 3.3.3. Results of the study indicated that speech rhythm measures based on intensity fluctuations play an important role in between-speaker rhythmic variability. In addition, discriminatory power of intensity-based measures is not affected by the language-dependent characteristics of Persian. The results also showed that the peak syllable intensity measures carry more speaker-specific information compared to the mean syllable intensity measures
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_80020_5afd9a6124521dacb7b3673677a29c00.pdf
2022-02-20
1
28
10.22059/jolr.2021.315912.666682
Experimental phonetics
intensity-based measures
speaker identification
speech rhythm
between-speaker variability.s"
Mahdie
Eshaghi
mahdie_eshaghi@ut.ac.ir
1
Posterior Ph.D. in Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Gholamhosain
Karimi doustan
gh5karimi@ut.ac.ir
2
Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
اسحاقی، مهدیه (1399). ظهور و زایایی فعل سبک و نقش آن در ساخت رویدادی، رساله دکتری دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
1
بیجنخان، محمود (1397). پیکرۀ طرح جویشگر بومی، مرکز تحقیقات مخابرات ایران.
2
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1384). فعل مرکب در زبان فارسی. پژوهشهای زبانشناختی فارسی، مجموعه مقالات، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
3
خانلری، پرویز (1373). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، انتشارات توس.
4
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1373). فعل مرکب و ساختمان آن، تهران، آشنا.
5
Acquaviva,P. 2008 . Roots and lexicality in distributed morphology. In A.Galani, D. Redinger and N.Yeo (EDs). Special issues of York working papers in linguistics.(pp.1-21) NewYork:University of New York.
6
Baayen, H. and Lieber, R.1991. Productivity and English derivation: a corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. pp 801-843.
7
Baayen, H. 1993. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G..
8
BarDal,J. 2008.Productivity. Amesterdom: Jhon Benjamin publication.
9
Bijankhan, M. 2018. Corpus of Persian search engine program .ICT research institute, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
10
Bobaljik, J. 2015. Distributed Morphology.ReVEL,13, 24. University of Connecticut.
11
Bobaljik, J. 1994.What does adjacency do? In: The morphology syntax connection. The MIT working papers in Linguistics,22,1-32.
12
Borer, H. 2014 . The category of roots. . In R.Alexiadou, H. Borer and F. Schafer (EDs). The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. (pp.112-149).Oxford:Oxford university Press.
13
Borer, H. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexicon. In J.C.Moore and M. Polinsky (Eds). The nature of explanations in linguistic theory. (pp. 37-67). Chicago: Chicago university Press.
14
Dabir-moghaddam, M. 2005. Compound verb in Persian. Persian Linguistic Research: A Collection of Articles. University Publishing center, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
15
Embick, David. 2015. The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
16
Embick,D & Marantz, A. 2006 . Architecture and blocking. Ms,University of Pennsylvania and MIT.
17
Eshaghi, M. 2020. The Emergence and Productivity of Light Verb and its role in Event structure. PhD thesis, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
18
Farshidvard, Kh. 1994. Compound verb and its structure. Ashena publication center, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
19
Folli, R., Harley, H. & Karimi, S. 2004.Determinant of event type in Persian complex predicates.Lingua, 115,10:1365-140.
20
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, A. (1988). Light verbs and q-theory. Linguistic Inquiry 19:205-232.
21
Halle, M. 1990. An approach to morphology. North eastern linguistic society 20(1).pp. 150-184.
22
Halle, M & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of Inflection. In K, Hale and S. J. Keyser (EDs). The View from Building . pp.117-176. Cambridge: MIT Press.
23
Harley, H. 2014. On the Identity of Roots. Theoretical Linguistics ,40 (3).pp.225-276.
24
Harley, H. 2009. Roots and Locality. Handout from root workshop. Stuttgart University.
25
Harley, H. & Noyer. R. 2000. Formal versus encyclopedic properties of Vocabulary: Evidence from nominalizations. In B. Peeters (ED).Lexicon-Encyclopedic Interface. pp.349-374.Amesterdam:Elsevier Press.
26
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27
Jespersen, O. 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (5). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
28
Karimi, S. 1997. Persian Complex Verbs: Idiomatic or Compositional. Lexicology 3, 273–318.
29
Karimi-Doostan,G. 2008. Event Structure of verbal nouns and light verbs. In S.Karimi, V.Samiian and D. Stilo (EDs). Aspects of Iranian linguistics. (pp.206-226). NewCastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
30
Karimi- Doostan,G. 2005.Light verb and structural case. Lingua. Vol.115(12).
31
Karimi-Doostan, G. 1997. Light verb constructions in Persian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex.
32
Khanlari, p. 1994. Persian Grammar. Toos publication center, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].
33
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago University Press.
34
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. 1998. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. In A. Zwicky and A. Spencer (Eds). Handbook of Morphology. (pp. 248-271). Blackwell, Oxford.
35
Levinson, L. 2014.The ontology of roots and verbs. . In R.Alexiadou, H. Borer and F. Schafer (EDs). The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. (pp.208-230).Oxford:Oxford university Press.
36
Marantz,A.2013.Verbal argument structure: Events and participants.Lingua 130:152–168.
37
Marantz, A. 2009. Roots, re- and affected agents: Can roots pull the agent under little v. Workshop roots: Word formation from perspective of “core lexical elements. Stuttgart university.
38
Marantz, A. 2000. Roots: The universality of roots and pattern morphology. Conference on Afro-Asiatic Language. Paris University.
39
Marantz, A. 1997.No escapef from syntax : Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A.Dimitriadis et al. University of Pensylvania working papers in linguistics. (pp. 201-225). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia.
40
Marantz, A. 1988. Clitics, Morphological merger and the mapping to phonological structure. New York: Academic Press.
41
Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
42
Megerdoomian,K. 2001. Event Structure and Complex Predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics(46).pp. 97-125
43
Panagiotidis, P. 2015. Categorial features: A general theory of Word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
44
Panagiotidis, P. 2011. Categorial features and categorizers. The linguistic review 28(3). Pp. 325-346.
45
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The Syntax of Event Structure. In B. Levin and S. Pinker (EDs). lexical and Conceptual Semantics .(pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Blackwell.
46
Robdeutscher, A. 2014. When roots license and when they respect semantico-syntactic structure in verbs. In R.Alexiadou, H. Borer and F. Schafer (EDs). The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. (pp.282-310).Oxford:Oxford university Press.
47
Samvelian, P. and Faghiri, P. 2013. Persian Complex Predicates: How Compositional are They? Semantics-Syntax Interface 1, pp. 43-74.
48
Siddiqi, D. 2009. Syntax Within word: economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. Amesterdom:John Benjamins.
49
Sorace, A.2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection in intransitive verbs.Language. PP. 859-890.
50
Stevenson,S.& Fazly,A.& North,R. 2004. Statistical measure of semi-productivity of light verb constructions. In: Proceedings of ACL’04 workshop on multiword expressions. pp. 1-8.
51
Trias, P.S. 2010. Complex Word formation and the morphology-syntax interface. Doctoral dissertation: Barcelona University.
52
Yim, Ch. 2018. Categorization in distributed morphology: A split analysis of verbalization. Korean journal of language and linguistics (18). pp. 173-193.
53
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Speech Rhythm Measures: Acoustic Cues for Speaker Identification
Rhythmic characteristics of speech based on consonantal and vocalic intervals as well as syllabic intervals vary between speakers of the same language. Nonetheless, the rhythmicity of a speech signal is not solely dependent on the durational variability of phonetic intervals but it is also associated with the variability of the intensity patterns as well. Acoustic parameter of intensity is largely determined by the articulatory behaviors of the speech organs such as lip movement or mouth aperture. Therefore, it is plausible that speaker idiosyncrasy in movement of speech articulators and anatomical differences in individual’s vocal tracts may influence the energy distribution across a speech signal which subsequently leads to the variability in the values of the intensity measures. Using experimental phonetics tools and from an explicitly speaker-specific perspective, the present research attempts to explore potential speaker-specific acoustic parameters of speech rhythm which are extracted from the intensity contours across Persian speakers. This research aims to discover whether intensity-based measures of speech rhythm are able to discriminate between speakers in Persian. Two types of acoustic rhythmic measures based on the mean syllable intensity (stdevM, varcoM, rPVIm, nPVIm) and peak syllable intensity (stdevP, varcoP, rPVIp, nPVIp)) were selected for this study. Speech data from 12 Persian male speakers were recorded non-contemporaneously in laboratory environment on two different occasions separated by one to two weeks. Speech tokens were acoustically measured with PRAAT version 5.2.34 and statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS version 21 and R version 3.3.3. Results of the study indicated that speech rhythm measures based on intensity fluctuations play an important role in between-speaker rhythmic variability. In addition, discriminatory power of intensity-based measures is not affected by the language-dependent characteristics of Persian. The results also showed that the peak syllable intensity measures carry more speaker-specific information compared to the mean syllable intensity measures
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_79274_87fd75d7f4cce3252cb096f127c29151.pdf
2022-02-20
29
49
10.22059/jolr.2021.304539.666624
Experimental phonetics
intensity-based measures
speaker identification
speech rhythm
between-speaker variability
Homa
Asadi
hama_asadi68@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Batool
alinezhad
b.alinezhad@fgn.ui.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
AUTHOR
Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
1
Arvaniti, A. 2012. The usefulness of metrics in the quantification of speech rhythm. Journal of Phonetics, 40(3), 351–373.
2
Asadi, H., Nourbakhsh, M., He, L., Pellegrino, E. and Dellwo, V. 2018. Between-speaker rhythmic variability is not dependent on language rhythm, as evidence from Persian reveals. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 25(2), 151-174.
3
Asadi, H., He, L., Pellegrino, E. and Dellwo, V. 2017. Between-speaker rhythmic variability in Persian. The 26th annual conference of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA). Split, Croatia.
4
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. 2013. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. http://www.praat.org, Accessed 13 July 2013.
5
Chandrasekaran, C., Trubanova, A., Stillittano, S., Caplier, A. and Ghazanfar, A.A. 2009. The natural statistics of audiovisual speech. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(7), e1000436.
6
Dellwo, V. 2010. Influences of speech rate on the acoustic correlates of speech rhythm: An experimental phonetic study based on acousticand perceptual evidence. PhD dissertation, Bonn University.
7
Dellwo, V., Leeman, A. and Kolly, M. 2015. Rhythmic variability between speakers: Articulatory, prosodic, and linguistic factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137:1513-1528.
8
Erickson, D., Kim, J., Kawahara, S., Wilson, I., Menezes, C., Suemitsu, A. and Moore, J. 2015. Bridging articulation and perception: TheC/D model and contrastive emphasis. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), 1–5. Glasgow, UK.
9
Fuchs, R. 2016. Speech rhythm in varieties of English. Singapore: Springer.
10
Garnier, M., Wolfe, J., Henrich, N. and Smith, J. 2008. Interrelationship between vocal effort and vocal tract acoustics: a pilot study. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH, 2302-2305. Brisbane, Australia.
11
Grabe, E. and Low, E. L. 2002. “Durational variability in speech and rhythm class hypothesis”. In N. Warner & C. Gussenhoven (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7, 515-543, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
12
He, L. and Dellwo, V. 2016. The role of syllable intensity in between-speaker rhythmic variability. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. Vol 23, 243-273.
13
He, L., and Dellwo, V. 2014. Speaker idiosyncratic variability of intensity across syllables. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH, 233-237. Singapore.
14
IBM Corp. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 21.0). Armonk, NY: International Business Machines Corporation.
15
Leemann, A., Kolly, M.-J., and Dellwo, V. 2014. Speaker-individuality insuprasegmental temporal features: implications for forensic voice comparison. Forensic Science International, 238, 59-67.
16
Loukina, A., Kochanski, G., Rosner, B., Keane, E. and Shih, C. 2011. Rhythm measures and dimensions of durational variation in speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(5),3258–3270.
17
Nespor, M., Shukla, M. Mehler, J. 2011. Stress-timed vs. syllable- timed languages. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, (pp. 1147–1159).
18
Perrier, P. 2012. Gesture planning integrating knowledge of the motor plant’s dynamics: a literature review from motor control and speech motor control. In S. Fuchs, M. Weirich, D. Pape and P. Perrier (eds) Speech Planning and Dynamics 191–238. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
19
Pike, K. L. 1946. Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
20
R Core Team 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing(version3.3.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http: // www.Rproject.org, Accessed 20 November 2016.
21
Ramus, F., Nespor, M. and Mehler, J. 1999. Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition, 73, 265-292.
22
Tilsen, S. and Arvaniti, A. 2013. Speech rhythm analysis withdecomposition of the amplitude envelope: Characterizing rhythmic patterns within and across languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(1), 628–639.
23
White, L., Mattys, S.L. 2007. Calibrating rhythm: First language and second language studies”, Journal of Phonetics, 35(4), 501–522.
24
Wiget, L., White, L., Schuppler, B., Grenon, I., Rauch, O., and Mattys, S. L. 2010. How stable are acoustic metrics of contrastive speech rhythm? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(3), 1559–156.
25
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Mukri Pronominal Clitics in Prepositional Phrase: An Optimality Theorectic
Historical linguistic studies on words lead to the genesis of clitics. Clitics function like independent words but they are phonologically dependent and in order to be pronounced they attach to neighboring elements. Clitics’ attachment to their hosts can appear in different forms: proclitic, mesoclitic, endoclitics and enclitic. They are very important because clitics are where morphology, syntax, and phonology meet. Mukri Kurdish clitics which are highly mobile can be hosted by different categories including prepositions. Two groups of adpositions are found in Mukri which appear as both preposition and postposition. MacKenzie recognizes two kinds of prepositions in 'Mukri: simple prepositions and absolute forms. The prepositions of the first group occur immediately before a noun (or a noun phrase) and a pronoun which they govern, while the absolute forms which are fewer in number cannot occur before an independent noun, a noun phrase or an independent pronoun and can take only clitics as their complements. Besides the aforementioned ones, compound prepositions and circumpositions are also found in Mukri. Circumpositions can be both simple and complex. Simple circumpositions can take only nominal complements but the complex circumpositions can take both clitics and full forms as their complements. The present article tries to investigate the interaction of different kinds of Mukri adpositons with pronominal clitics using Optimality Theory constraints in Prepositional Phrase (PP). The constraints which play a role in clitic placement within PPs are NonInitial (cli, PP), Integrity (PP) and LeftMost (cli, L, PP). Data analysis against Optimality Theory constraints showed that constraints NonInitial (cli, PP) and Integrity (PP) dominate LeftMost (cli, L, PP). Finally it was concluded that Mukri Kurdish pronominal clitics appear in the second position. The research method of this article is descriptive – analytic and fieldwork. To collect the data the main author’s intuition as the native speaker of Mukri, 20 hours recorded speech, Mukri Kurdish sites and newspapers have been used.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_85473_6bebb7882f7d62212399f3e76b3a3fec.pdf
2022-02-20
51
76
10.22059/jolr.2022.329760.666742
Mukri Kurdish
Pronominal clitics
Adpositions
constraints
Optimality Theory
Ghader
Allahweisiazar
esirwan@gmail.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate of in Linguistics, Department of English language and Literature, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.
AUTHOR
Vahid
Gholami
vahidgholami20@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Department of English language and Literature, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Omid
Varzandeh
omid_varzandeh@yahoo.com
3
Assistant Professor, Department of English language and Literature, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.
AUTHOR
علینژاد، بتول و محمدیبلبانآباد، صادق (1392). واژهبستهای ضمیری در گویش کردی سورانی: تعامل با حروف اضافه، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی زبان و ادب فارسی، دانشگاه آزاد سنندج. سال ششم، شمارۀ 18، 76-94.
1
Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2
Anderson, S.R. 1993. Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology and the syntax of second position, Language 69, 68-98.
3
Anderson, S.R. 1994. How to put your Clitics in their Place or Why the Best Account of SecondPosition Phenomena May be a Nearly Optimal One, GLOW Workshop in Vienna.
4
Anderson, S. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics, Oxford & New York, Oxford University Press.
5
Crystal, D. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.), London: Blackwell.
6
Boersma, P., J. Deckers & J. van de Weijer (2000). “Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition”, Pdf format.
7
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 2008. On agent clitics in Balochi. In Carina Jahani, Agnes Korn & Paul Titus (eds.), The Baloch and others. Linguistic, historical and socio-political perspectives on pluralism in Balochistan, 83–101. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
8
Haig, G. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: a construction grammar approach, (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 37). Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
9
Halpern, A. 1992. Topics in the Placement and Morphology of Clitics, Doctoral Dissertation Stanford University
10
Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11
Mackenzie, D. N. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies. Oxford University Press.
12
Mohammadirad, Masoud, 2020, Pronominal clitics in Western Iranian languages: Description, mapping, and typological implications, Doctoral dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
13
Öpengin, E. 2013. Clitic-Affix Interactions: A Corpus-based Study of Person Marking in the Mukri Variety of Central Kurdish. Doctoral dissertation,Université Sorbonne Nouvelle and Universität Bamberg.
14
Samvelian, P. 2007a. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In, Frederic Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Teodorescu Alexandra & Jessica White (eds.), Texas Linguistic Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages, 263-283. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
15
Samvelian, P. and Bonami, O.2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement, 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna
16
Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17
Wackernagel, J.1892. “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischenWortstellung”, Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.
18
Zwicky, A.1977. on Clitics.Bloomington: Indiana University, Linguistics Club.
19
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Merge Position of Floating Quantifier "Hame" in Persian
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.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_82161_ce6c0306500fc42e7409d57ab957f9b3.pdf
2022-02-20
77
100
10.22059/jolr.2021.291976.666554
floating quantifier “hame”
θ-position
negation
quantifier scope
scope interaction
Safa
Sadeghi Ashrafi
sadeghi.safa@ymail.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate General Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ali
Darzi
alidarzi@ut.ac.ir
2
Professor of General Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
انوشه، مزدک (1387). ساخت جمله و فرافکنهای نقش نمای آن در زبان فارسی: رویکردی کمینهگرا، رسالۀ دکتری زبانشناسی،دانشگاه تهران.
1
انوشه، مزدک (1396). جایگاه فرافکن نفی و مجوزدهی به هیچواژهها در زبان فارسی بر پایۀ نظریۀ صرف توزیعی، پژوهشهای زبانی، سال هشتم، شماره 1، بهار و تابستان، 1-20.
2
بحرالعلوم، دانوب (1388). ارتقا سور در زبان فارسی، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران.
3
بیجنخان، محمود (1392). نظام آوایی زبان فارسی، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.
4
صادقی، صفا (1395). بررسی گروههای مصدری در زبان فارسی، پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران.
5
صادقی، علی اشرف، و ارژنگ، غلامرضا (1359). دستور سال دوم آموزش متوسطه عمومی، تهران: وزارت آموزشوپرورش.
6
قدیری، لیلا (1393). کمیتنماها در زبان فارسی، پژوهشهای زبانی، سال پنجم، شمارۀ 1، بهار و تابستان، 95-108.
7
معظمی، آرزو (1385). نحو گروه حرف تعریف در زبان فارسی، رساله دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
8
Adger, D. 2003. Core syntax: a minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
Anushe, M. 2008. Sentence structure and its functional projections in Persian: a minimalist approach, Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran. [In Persian]
10
Anushe, M. 2017. The position of NegP and licensing N-words in Persian: a distributed morphology approach, Language Research, 8(1): 1-20. [In Persian]
11
Aoun, J, E. Benmamoun, and D. Sportiche 1994. Agreement and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic, Linguistic Inquiry, 25:195 – 220.
12
Bahrololoum, D. 2009. Quantifier raising in Persian, MA thesis, University of Tehran. [In Persian]
13
Baltin, M. 1995. Floating Quantifiers, PRO and Predication,.Linguistic Inquiry, 26: 199-248.
14
Belletti, A. 1982. On the Anaphoric Status of the Reciprocal Construction in Italian. The Linguistic Review. 2: 101-138.
15
Benmamoun, E.. 1999. The Syntax of Quantifiers and Quantifier Float, Linguistic Inquiry, 30: 621-642.
16
Bijankhan, M. 2013. Phonetic system of the Persian language, Tehran: SAMT. [in Persian]
17
Bobaljik, J. 2003. Floating Quantifiers: Handle with Care, L. Cheng and R. Sybesma (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book (107–148), Berlin: Mouton.
18
Boškovic, Z. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22: 681-742.
19
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20
Cirillo, R. 2009. The syntax of floating quantifiers: stranding revisited. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
21
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
22
Dowty, D. and B. Brodie. 1984. A Semantic Analysis of Floated Quantifiers in Transformationless Grammar, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 3. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford University.
23
Ghadiri, L. 2014. Quantifiers in Persian, Language Research, 5(1): 95-108. [In Persian]
24
Giusti, G. 1990. Floating quantifiers, scrambling, and configurationality. Linguistic Inquiry. 21: 633–641.
25
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd Edition. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
26
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2003. Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21: 333-379.
27
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: OUP.
28
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2017. Negation is low in Persian: evidence from nominalization, Proceedings of the annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.
29
Karimi, S. 2000. A minimalist approach to scrambling: evidence from Persian, University of Arizona.
30
Karimi, S. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: evidence from Persian, The Hague: Mouton.
31
Kayne, R. 1981. On certain differences between French and English, Linguistic Inquiry, 12: 349-371.
32
Kwak, S, and A. Darzi, 2006. The syntax and semantics of Persian NCI, hič-phrase. Proceeding of the 2nd workshop on the Persian language and computer, 55-69. Tehran Uni.
33
Lebeaux, D. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar, doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
34
Miyagawa, S. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese, San Diego: Academic Press.
35
May, R. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT.
36
Mo’azzami, A. 2006. The syntax of DP in Persian, Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran. [In Persian]
37
Sadeghi, A.A. and Gh. Arzhang. 1980. Persian Grammar: 2nd Grade, Tehran: MoE. [In Persian]
38
Sadeghi Ashrafi, S. 2016. Gerund phrases in Persian, MA thesis, University of Tehran. [In Persian]
39
Samiian, V. 1983. Origins of phrasal categories in Persian: an X-Bar analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
40
Sato, Y. and S. Karimi, 2016. Subject-object asymmetries in Persian argument ellipsis and the anti-agreement theory. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 1: 1-3.
41
Shlonsky, U. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew, Lingua, 84: 159–180.
42
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (3): 425-449.
43
Taleghani, A. 2006. The interaction of modality, aspect and negation in Persian. Doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona.
44
Zubizarreta, M. L. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge/Londen: The MIT Press.
45
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Possessor-Raising and Figure-Raising Constructions in Persian:
a Distributed Morphology Analysis
In Persian, much research focuses on the syntax-morphology interface in DM, but research on the syntax-semantics interface is generally absent from DM literature. The aim of this study is to account for possessor raising and figure raising constructions in Persian which demands the review of the distinction between possessor and figure as thematic roles in double object and ditransitive constructions based on Wood and Marantz (2017). By the former, we mean the double object and to-dative expression of transfer of possession and by the latter, we mean ditransitive predicates that select for a locatume argument and a location argument. If i* combines with DP, it projects a D*P and takes a DP specifier. If i* combines with pP, it projects a p*P and takes a DP specifier. Semantically i* assigns to the DP specifier the theta-role of possessor and figure respectively. They involve one structure, varying in terms of what vP takes as a complement. The thematic interpretation is derived by interpretive rules defined on the syntactic structure and is constrained by “Full Interpretation”. Therefore, the syntactic properties are derived from structural environment and conceptual content of roots. We dealt with possessor raising and figure raising in this paper. Possessor raising generates two other kinds of thematic dependencies, including clausal possession and change-of-state vPs. Figure raising requires the considerations of natural reflexive vPs in ditransitive constructions and their corresponding inchoatives. The interpretation of an external argument depends on a theta-role introduced somewhere lower in the structure. Figure raising involves an external argument that bears a figure role introduced inside a lower pP; clausal possession involves an external or applied argument bearing a possessor role introduced inside a lower DP. This also requires the consideration of change-of-state semantics. The basic structure of a change-of-state vPs involves one v head which takes a DP complement. Possessor raising construction combines properties of both clausal possession and change-of-state semantics.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_83894_cf12d30385f95743a11582799e819be3.pdf
2022-02-20
101
122
10.22059/jolr.2021.328361.666734
Key words: change-of-state vPs
clausal possession
interpretive semantics
figure raising
natural reflexive vPs
possessor raising
Vida
Sadrolmamaleki
sadrolmamaleki.vi@ut.ac.ir
1
Academic Member / Islamic Azad University, Ardabil. Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Acedo-Matellan, V. & J. Mateu (2013). Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: a syntactic approach, Probus 25, 227-265
1
Beavers, J., E. Ponvert & S. Wechsler. (2009). Possession of controlled substanrives: Light ‘have’ and other verbs of possession. MS, UT Austin
2
Bruening, B. (2010). Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2). 287–305.
3
Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at Large. Cambridge, MA: MIT Doctoral dissertation.
4
Gruber, J.S. (1979). Lexical Structure inSyntax and Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
5
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.
6
Harley, H. & S. Miyagawa (2018) Syntax of Ditransitive. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics.
7
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
8
Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.
9
Larson, RK. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguist. Inq.19: 335-92
10
Lasnik, H. (1981). Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study. In N. Herrnstein and D. Lightfoot, (eds) Explanations in Linguistics: London
11
Myler, N. (2018). Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1)
12
Oblishevska, O. (2005). Locative Alternation in Slavic. University of Ottawa.
13
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
15
Rappaport, H. & B. Levin (2008). The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. J. Linguist. 44: 129-67
16
Wood, J. & A. Marantz (2017). The Interpretation of External Arguments. The Verbal Domain. Print ISBN-13: 97801987678
17
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Pragmatic Aspects of Mægær (‘unless’/’but’) as a Discourse Marker in Persian
Discourse marker is a functional-pragmatic category, not affecting truth conditions of the sentence. These linguistic elements encode procedural rather than representative or propositional meanings. Discourse markers have been the subject of increasing attention in recent years, and have been investigated in different theoretical frameworks. Among the vast variety of approaches toward interpreting the role of discourse markers, one major approach is rooted in Grice's suggestion. By elaborating the concept of conventional implicature along the previously well-known concept of conversational implicature, Grice (1989) treats some discourse markers as being instances of the former. He also conceptualized the concept of non-central or higher-level speech acts to account for the contribution of these discourse markers to the meaning of their host sentence. In this article, we will initially describe the characteristics of the discourse marker "magar" (‘unless’/’but’) in terms of prototypical characteristics of discourse markers proposed by Brinton (1996) and Heine (2013). We then present a diachronic exposition of its semantic development from having a propositional meaning to a word with a textual and expressive function in contemporary Persian. This explanation is in accordance with Traugott’s (1986) analysis of semantic change toward more subjectification. Ultimately, we have applied a Gricean interpretation to this Persian discourse marker, as a higher-level speech act. It is argued that "magar" (‘unless’/’but), in addition to its function as a connective element (which connects two textual units or encrypts the connection between the propositional content of an utterance and its previous context), can help with the performance of a non-central speech act with the illocutionary force of indicating opposition. Given the fact that speech acts, in Searl's terms, are the subject of the quadruple felicity conditions, namely Preparatory, Sincerity, Propositional content and Essential conditions we have shown how these conditions can be actualized (or applied) when it comes to higher-level speech acts.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_83817_5e532d67f1da8fba4f59e549df078eaa.pdf
2022-02-20
123
146
10.22059/jolr.2021.323183.666712
Discourse marker
Conventional Implicature
speech act
illocutionary force
Felicity Conditions
grammaticalization
Shahin
Shirzadi
shaahin.shirzaadi@yahoo.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate in General Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
AUTHOR
Mohammad
Amouzadeh
amoozadeh@yahoo.com
2
Professor of General Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Seyed Alo
Kalantari
seyedali.kalantari@gmail.com
3
Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
AUTHOR
Vali
Rezai
vali.rezai@fgn.ui.ac.ir
4
Associate Professor General Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
AUTHOR
حسندوست، محمد (1393). فرهنگ ریشهشناختی فارسی، تهران، فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی.
1
دهخدا، علیاکبر (1377). لغتنامه، ج 14، چاپ دوم از دورۀ جدید، تهران، مؤسسة لغتنامه دهخدا.
2
نجفی، ابوالحسن (1378). فرهنگ فارسی عامیانه، تهران، نیلوفر.
3
4
Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers. Edinburgh University
5
Press.
6
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford university press
7
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts.
8
MIT Press.
9
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
10
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
11
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and
12
pragmatics of discourse markers (Vol. 99). Cambridge: Cambridge university
13
press.
14
Blakemore, D. 2006. Discourse markers. The handbook of pragmatics, 221-240.
15
Bordería, S. P. 2006. A functional approach to the study of discourse
16
markers. Approaches to discourse particles, 77-100.
17
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and
18
discourse functions (Vol. 19). Walter de Gruyter.
19
Foolen, Ad, 1991. Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative
20
conjunctions. Multilingua 10 (1/2), 79–92.
21
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190.
22
Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge:
23
Cambridge University Press, 40 West 20th St., New York, NY 10011-4211..
24
Grice, H. P. 1975. " Logic and conversation" In Cole, P., and Morgan,
25
J.(Eds.). Syntax & Semantics, 3.
26
Grice, H. P.1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
27
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The function of discourse particle: A study
28
with special reference to spoken Standard French. Amsterdam &
29
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
30
Heine, B. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization,
31
or something else?. Linguistics, 51(6), 1205-1247.
32
Heine, B. 2018. Are there two different ways of approaching
33
grammaticalization?. New Trends on Grammaticalization and Language
34
Change. Amsterdam, Philadelpha: Benjamins, 23-54.
35
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University
36
Press.
37
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and relevance (Vol. 86). John Benjamins
38
Publishing.
39
Izutsu, M. N. 2008. Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a
40
comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4),
41
646-675.
42
Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (Eds.). 1998. Discourse markers: Descriptions and
43
theory (Vol. 57). John Benjamins Publishing.
44
König, E. (1986). Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas
45
of contrast, overlap and neutralization. On conditionals, 229246. Cambridge:
46
Cambridge University Press.
47
Lakoff, R. 1971. If's, and's and but's about conjunction. In: Fillmore, C.J.,
48
Langendoen, D.T. (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics. Holt, Rinehart
49
and Winston, New York, pp. 114–149
50
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51
Partridge, E. (2006). Origins: A short etymological dictionary of modern English.
52
Routledge.
53
Redeker, G. 2006. Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse
54
transitions. Approaches to discourse particles, 1.
55
Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3-4), 227-265.
56
Searle, J. R., & Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of
57
language (Vol. 626). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
58
Searle, J. R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Speech acts (pp. 59-82). Brill.
59
Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings:
60
Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Perspectives on
61
historical linguistics, 245-271.
62