Split DP in Persian - A Minimalist Approach

Asadimofarah, Tayebeh; Darzi, َAli

doi:10.22059/jolr.2020.281064.666505

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Tayebeh Asadimofarah ¹
َAli Darzi ²

¹ Ph.D. Candidate, Linguistics Department, University of Tehran

² Professor, Linguistics Department, University of Tehran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jolr.2020.281064.666505

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.

Keywords

References

Alexiadou, A. 2014. Multipe Determiners and the Structure of DPs, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Baker, M and N. Vinokurova 2010. Two Modalities of Case
Assignment: Case in Sakha, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28:593–642.

Baker, M. 2015. Case its principle and its Parameters, Cambridge University Press.

Bobaljik, J. D. 2006. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation, Ms. University of Connecticut.

Bobaljik, J. D. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi Theeory: phi-features across interfaces and modules, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. 1995. Categories and Transformations, In the Minimalist Program (chapter4), 219-394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, G. 1994. On the Evidence for Partial N-Movement in the Romance DP, in G,Cinque, J. Koster, J. Pollack, L. Rizzi & R. Zanuttini (eds), Path towards Universal Grammar.Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne, Georgetown University Press, Washengton D.C.

Cinque , G. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study, Linguistic Inquiry, Monograph 57. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Citko, B. 2014. Phase Theory an introduction, Cambridge University Press.

Dabir moghaddam, M. 2003. Zaban e Farsi va Nazariyeha ye Zabani: Dar Jostoju ye Charchubi baraye Tadvin e Dastur Jame e Zaban E Farsi, Pajuheshha ye Zabanshenakhti ye Farsi (Majmue Maghalat), 230-267 [In Persian].

Darzi, A. and S. Kwak. 2015. Syntax and Semantics of Subjunctive Clauses in Persian. Lingua 153, no. 1: 1-13.

Darzi, A. & M. Anoushe. 2010. Harkat e Fe’l e Asli dar Zaban e Farsi, ZabanPajuhi, 2(3),21-55 [In Persian].

Darzi, A. 1996. Word order, NP-Movement and Opacity Condition in Persian,Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois.

Darzi, A. 2006. Small clause in Persian, J. Humanities Vol. 13 (1): 13 - 30.

Darzi, A. 2009. Halat va Tatabogh dar Sakht e Ertegha az Darun e jomalat e Xodista, Majale ye daneshkade ye Adabiyat va Olum e Ensani, Daneshgah e Tehran, 60, 189: 73-109

Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Dikken, M,den. 2006. Relators and Linkers the Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulars, A Bradford Book, the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England.

Fanselow, G. and C. Frey. 2006. Prosodic and Morphosyntactic Aspects of Discountinuous Noun Phrases: A Comparative Perspective. Ms, University of Postdam.

Fuchs, Z. 2017. Movement vs. Base-generation in Georgian Split DPs, Retrieved: https://scholar.harvard.edu.

Ganjavi, Sh. 2007. Direct Object in Persian,Ph.D Dissertation, University of Southern California.

Language Research

Split DP in Persian - A Minimalist Approach

References

References

Volume 10, Issue 2
March 2020
Pages 21-43

Split DP in Persian - A Minimalist Approach

References

References

Volume 10, Issue 2March 2020Pages 21-43

Volume 10, Issue 2
March 2020
Pages 21-43