عنوان مقاله [English]
In this paper, we will study the lexical aspect in Persian deadjectival complex predicates. Hence, we firstly review different kinds of aspect. Then, we will succinctly review three common viewpoints in the study of aspect in Persian complex predicates. According to the first viewpoint, light verbs play the major role in the telicity of the complex verbs; the second considers preverb to be determinant and regards all of the deadjectival complex predicates to be telic; and finally, the third viewpoint, although pointing out to the non-homogeneity of Persian complex predicates, does not provide us with an explanation behind such inconsistency. It is argued in this paper that approaches based on the scalar structure of the verb, in which the lexical properties of the base adjective is considered to be of great importance, stand in a better position in accounting for the aspectual properties of Persian deadjectival complex predicates.
Abusch, D. 1986. “Verbs of Change, Causation, and Time,” Report CSLI-86–50, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Beavers, J. 2002. Aspect and the distribution of prepositional resultative phrases in English. LinGOWorking Paper #2002-7, CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford.
_____________. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. PhD dissertation. Stanford University.
____________. 2008. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, and M. Schäfer, (eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, pp. 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
_____________. 2011. On affectedness. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 29:335-370.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folli, R. H. Harley, S. Karimi. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates, Lingua 115:1365-1401.
Hay, J. 1998. "The Non-Uniformity of Degree Achievements," presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the LSA, New York, NY.
Hay, J. Ch. Kennedy, B. Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In: Mathews, T. Strolovitch, D. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT IX. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp. 127-144.
Karimi, S. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology 3 (2): 273–318.
Karimi-Doostan, Gh. 1997. Light Verb Constructions in Persian. PhD Dissertation, University of Essex.
Kearns, K. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117:26–66.
Kennedy, Ch. 1999. Gradable adjectives denote measure functions, not partial functions. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29:65–80.
_____________. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics & Philosophy, 30: 1–45.
Kennedy, Ch. and B. Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally and Ch. Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, Ch. and L. McNally. 1999. ‘From Event Structure to Scale Structure: Degree Modification in Deverbal Adjectives’. In T. Mathews and D. Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of Salt 9, 1999. Ithaca, NY: CLC, Cornell University.
_____________. 2005. The syntax and semantics of multiple degree modification in English. Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1999. “Two Structures for Compositionally Derived Events” SALT 9, Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 199–223.
_____________. 2005. Argument Realization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pantcheva, M. 2008. Noun preverbs in Persian complex predicates. In P. Svenonius and I. Tolskaya, (eds.), Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 35, Special issue on Complex Predication, pp. 19–45. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. Available at http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/nordlyd/
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. ‘The syntax of event structure’, Cognition 41: 47–81.
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, pp. 13-42, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin. 2002.“Change of State Verbs: Implications for Theories of Argument Projection,”BLS 28, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, 269–80.
Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.
_____________. 2008. Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect. John Benjamins Publishing company.
Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Van Hout, A. 2003. Acquiring telicity crosslinguistically: On the acquisition of telicity entailments associated with transitivity. In M. Bowerman and P. Brown (eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Van Valin, R. and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wechsler, S. 2005. “Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity,” In: The Syntax of Aspect. N. Erteschik-Shir and T. Rapoport (eds.), pp. 255-273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.