Adjacency Condition and Specificity in Persian: Interface between Syntax and Semantics

Author
E. Rezapour
Assistant Professor of General Linguistics, University, Semnan, Iran
Abstract

Adjacency condition is one of the syntactic constraints on case assignment in many languages such as English, Dutch, Turkish and Hindi. Many linguists studied adjacency condition in some languages and some of them including Chomsky (1981) and Stowell (1981) confirmed the role of this condition in generative grammar and some linguists including Johnson (1991) rejected it in generative grammar. Opponents of this hypothesis believe that adjacency condition can be replaced by projection principle and binary branching condition. In this research, we try to investigate the role of adjacency condition in Persian. Data analysis indicates that assigning structural case to subject by inflection head and also assigning structural case to definite direct object by verb are not subject to adjacency condition. In fact, the position of definite direct object and inflection head is in the specifier of inner verb phrase core and at the end of sentence, respectively which they are not adjacent to each other. However, assigning structural case to noun phrase by preposition and also assigning structural case to indefinite direct object by verb are subject to adjacency constraints. Therefore, there is a direct relationship between adjacency condition and specificity.

Keywords

  • دبیرمقدم، محمد (1383). زبان شناسی نظری: پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی. تهران: سمت.

  • دبیرمقدم، محمد (1383ب). «زبان فارسی و نظریه های زبانی: در جستجوی چارچوبی برای تدوین دستور جامع زبان فارسی». ویژه‌نامه فرهنگستان. ش4. صص 93-129.

  • دبیرمقدم، محمد (1388). پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی فارسی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.

  • درزی، علی و مزدک انوشه (1389). «حرکت فعل اصلی در فارسی(رویکردی کمینه گرا)». دوفصلنامۀ علمی ـ پژوهشی زبان‌پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا(س). س2. ش3. صص 21-55.

  • راسخ‌مهند، محمد (1389). «مفعول نمایی افتراقی: نگاهی دیگر به «را»»، مجلۀ زبان‌شناسی و گویش‌های خراسان دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد. ش2. صص 1-13.

  • راسخ‌مهند، محمد (1391). «ارتباط قلب نحوی و تاکید در زبان فارسی». قابل‌دسترسی در آدرسِ: . http://profs.basu.ac.ir/rasekhmahand/upload_file/art.426.pdf

  • کرباسچی، رزا و علی درزی (1388). «جایگاه هستۀ گروه تصریف زبان فارسی». دوفصلنامۀ علمی ـ پژوهشی زبان‌پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا(س). س1. ش1. صص 99-141.


 



  • Bowers, J. (1993). “The syntax of predication”. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 24. No. 4. pp. 591-656.

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: Mass MIT Press.

  • Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Emonds, J. (1970). Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT. Cambridge. Massachusetts.

  • Emonds, J. (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.

  • Folli, R.; H. Harley & S. Karimi (2005). “ Determinants ofevent type in Persian complex predicates”. Lingua 115 (10). pp. 1365–1401.

  • Fukui, N. & Y. Takano (1998). “Symmetry in syntax: Merge and demerge”. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7. pp. 27–86.

  • Greenberg, J. H. (1963). “ Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements”. In Joseph Greenberg (Ed.). Universals of Language. (pp. 73–113). Cambridge: MA MIT Press.

  • Johnson, K. (1991). “ Object positions” . Natural Language and LinguisticTheory. Vol.9. No. 4. pp. 577-636.

  • Karimi, S. (1990). “Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions”. Linguistic Analysis. 20. pp. 91-139.

  • Karimi, S. (2003). “On object positions, specificity, and scrambling in Persian” In S. Karimi (Ed.). Word Order andScrambling. (pp. 91-124). Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. The Hague: Mouton.

  • Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Koizumi, M. (1995). Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. MIT dissertation. Cambridge: MA MITWPL.

  • Marantz, A. (1997). “No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon”. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark & A. Williams (Eds.). Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 4 (2). (pp. 201–225). Philadelphia. PA: Penn Linguistics Club.

  • Mohammad, J. & S. Karimi (1992). “Light verbs are taking over complex verbs in Persian”. Proceeding of WECOL. pp. 195-212.

  • Muller, S. (2010). “Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses”. Journal of Linguistics. No. 46. pp. 601–655.

  • Pantcheva, M. (2008). “Noun preverbs in Persian complex predicates”. Tromsø Working (Ed.). Papers on Language & Linguistics. pp. 19-45.

  • Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 20. pp. 365-424.

  • Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structures. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge.

  • Vahedi Langrudi, M. M. (1992). Clausal and Verbal Structures in Farsi. M.A. Dissertation. University of Ottawa.

  • Riemsdijk, H. V. (1998). “Head movement and adjacency”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. Vol. 16. No. 3. pp. 633-678.

  • Vazquez, E. (1997). “Case assignment in double object constructions”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses. Vol.10. pp. 209-220.

  • Wilkins, W. (1980). “Adjacency and variables in syntactic transformations”. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 11. No. 4. pp. 709-758.

Language Related Research
Volume 6, Issue 6
November and December 2015
Pages 163-183