The Argument structure of Ditransitive Vebs and their Corresponding Nouns in Hawrami Kurdish

Authors
G. Karimi Doostan 1
Y. Karimi 2
J. Mirani 3
1 Professor of Linguistics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Kurdistan University Kurdistan, Iran
3 Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The realization of the argument structure of nouns corresponding with ditransitive verbs is a complicated subject since those nouns involve categorical, morphological, syntactic and semantic features of both nouns and verbs. The aim of this article is to survey the argument structure including categorization, syntactic structure and phonetic and semantic realization of main ditransitive verbs and their corresponding nouns in Hawrami Kurdish-a north western Iranian language. Dividing and describing the nouns into possessive and agentive nominals, this article analyzes and contrasts them with corresponding verbs under the framework of MP/DM. The results show that syntactic structure of main verbs and their corresponding nouns involve verbal category (VP) to introduce theme and low ApplP to introduce benefective goal or location. The subject of the sentence merges as the possessor in EzafPposs of possessive nouns and as the same agent in VoiceP of agentive nouns. The heads of the TP and CP select vP in statements; hence, the heads of PEP and DP choose nP in nominals. The root in possessive and the whole VP features in agentive nominal move to np and PEP to value their nominal and Ezafe features. Agentive nouns have more nominal properties and take plural, (in) definiteness, possessive and adjectival markers and also do not take manner adverbs. Therefore, argument structure analysis of nouns corresponding with ditransitive verbs using the MP/DM approach shows that syntactic structure is the driving engine for the categorization, syntactic structure and phonetic and semantic realization of possession and location transfer of ditransitive verbs and their corresponding nouns in Hawrami.

Keywords

Subjects

• Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals, Nominalization and Ergativity, Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Alexiadou, A. (2010a). “Nominalizations: A Probe into the architecture of grammar. Part I: The Nominalization puzzle”. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7).Pp. 496–511.
• Alexiadou, A. (2010b). “Nominalizations: A Probe into the architecture of grammar. Part II: The Aspectual Properties of Nominalizations, and the Lexicon vs. Syntax Debate". Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7). Pp. 512–523.
• Anousheh, M. (2010). “Projections of Aspect and Tense in compound Subjective Adjectives based on Distributed Morphology”. Language Related Research. 65(5).Pp: 49 – 72. [InPersian].
• Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Borer, H. (2005b). The Normal Course of Events, Structuring Sense. Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Borer, H. (2013). “Derived nominals and the domain of content”. Lingua. Pp. 1–26. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2013.10.007.
• Bošković, Ž. (2007). “On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory". Linguistic Inquiry. 38. Pp. 589-644.
• Bowers, J. (2011). “Non-event nominals and argument structures”. Lingua. 12(1). Pp. 1194-1206.
• Chomsky, N. (1970). “Remarks on nominalization”. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by A.J. Roderick and P.S. Rosenbaum. Ginn,
• Darzi, A. & M. Anousheh (2010). “Main Verb Movement in Persian, A Minimalist Approach”. Zaban-pazhuhi. 2(3). Pp. 21-55.[InPersian].
• Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MIT Press.
• Harley, H. (2009). The Morphology of Nominalizations and the Syntax of vP, Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. edited by Monika Rathert and Anastasia Giannadikou. Oxford: OUP, PP. Pp. 320-342.
• Harley, H. (2012). Semantics in Distributed Morphology, In Claudia Maienborn, Paul Portner & Klaus von Heusinger, (eds.), Semantics: International Handbook of Meaning. Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Heim, I. & A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Genrative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Hovav, R. & B. Levin (2008). “The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity". Journal of Linguistics, 44. Pp. 129-167.
• Karimi, Y. (2015). “Remarks on ergativity and phase theory”. Studia Linguistica /a-n/a. Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015.
• Karimi-Doostan, G. & J. & Mirani (2017). “Argument Structure of Ditransitive Verbs in Hawrami. Persian”. Persian Language and Iranian Dialects.1 (2). Pp. 67-91. [InPersian].
• Karimidoostan, Gh. & R. Bagheri (2011). “Ezafe Construction in Iranian languages. Tehran: Sokhan publication. [InPersian].
• Maienborn, C. (2011). “Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning; Volume 1. Chapter: Event Semantics”. Publisher: Mouton de Gruyter, Editors: Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner. Pp. 802-829.
• Modarresi, B. & N. Zowghi (2016). “Surveying article phrase in Persian based on Minimalism Program”. Language Related Research.7(2). Pp. 222 – 207. [InPersian].
• Pylkkanen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
• Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument selection in Distributesd Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Waltham, MA.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Serial Number 44
May and June 2018
Pages 227-250