1
Graduate student in linguistics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
2
Professor of Linguistics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
3
Assisstant Professor of Linguistics, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
Abstract
In this research, we examine the Impersonal Constructions in Guilaki within the framework of Minimalist theory. The purpose of this research is to determine the nature of preverbal element. We will show how the case of DP at the clause-initial position of these constructions, is checked. Also we will discuss the merge position of this DP and where it moves in overt syntax. Examining Guilaki data reveals that the impersonal construction involves a compound verb and the verb is unaccusative. The preverbal element as the head of the predicate assigns experiencer theta role to the DP at the initial position of the constructions under study. This DP is in fact the complement of rā which is a postposition, so they form a prepositional phrase (PP). This PP is merged in the specifier position of the predicate phrase (or Spec of VP). We apply subjecthood tests to the DP and it does not pass any of these tests. So it does not move into the specifier position of tense phrase. Hence, we conclude that the PP has been topicalized and Guilaki lacks quirky subject.
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1376). «فعل مرکب در زبان فارسی». مجلۀ زبانشناسی. س 12. ش 1 و 2. صص 2-46.
درزی، علی (1388). «حالت و تطابق در ساخت ارتقاء از درون جملات ناخودایستا». مجلۀ علمی- پژوهشی دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران. ش 189. صص 73-109.
درزی، علی و مریم دانای طوسی (1383). «ساخت غیر شخصی در گویش گیلکی شهرستان لاهیجان». مجلۀ گویششناسی. د 2. صص 17-36.
واحدی لنگرودی، محمدمهدی (1385). «بررسی ساختهای غیر شخصی (قالبی) در چهار گونۀ زبانی». مجلۀ دستور. د 2. صص 34-70.
Belletti, A. (1988). “The Case of unaccusatives”. Linguistic Inquiry. 19. pp. 1-34.
Belletti, A. & L. Rizzi (1988). “Psyche verbs and theta theory”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 6. pp. 291-352.
Braðdal, J. & Th. Eythórsson (2003). “The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects”. The Journal of Linguistics. 39. pp. 439-472.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax, A Government and Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge/ London: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eythórsson, Th. (2000). “Dative vs. nominative: changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic“. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics. 8. pp. 27-44.
Ghomeshi, J. (1996). Projection and Inflection: A Study of Persian Phrase Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Haegeman, L. and J. Guéron. (1999). English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford & Malden: Blackwell.
Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, Events, and Licensing. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Karimi, S. (1990). “Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions”. Linguistic Analysis. 20 (3/4). pp. 139-191.
Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. The Hague: Mouton.
Rastorgueva, V.S. & et. al. (2012). The Guilaki Grammar. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Sigursson, H. A. (2000). “To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Islandic”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax. 66. pp. 1-32.
Sigursson, H. A. (2004). “Icelandic non-nominative subjects”. Non-nominative Subjects. 2. pp. 137-159.
Language Related Research