Exploring the Subject Surface Position in Persian: A Psycholinguistic Study

Authors
A. Darzi 1
M. Abbasi 2
1 Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Ph.D. in Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The question of whether the subject stays in its base position within the vP or moves to its derived position at Spec TP/IP is difficult to answer with respect to free word order languages such as Persian, because the surface constituent orders in these languages do not necessarily provide sufficient information to determine syntactic positions (Koizumi & Tamaoka, 664:2010). The discussions in this regard has led to formulating two competing analyses: One is that the subject in canonically ordered sentences in Persian obligatorily moves from its base position within vP to its derived position at Spec TP/IP for the purpose of Nom Case or EPP checking (Anushe, 2008; Darzi, 1996; 2006; 2009; Tafakori R. 2007; Darzi & Beiraqdar, 2007). The other one, however, is that the subject does not have to move out of vP and stays in its base position within it (Karimi, 2005). In the present study we test these analyses by performing two off-line experiments, involving a sentence completion task and a grammaticality judgment task. Analyzing the data obtained from the sentence completion task revealed that in %90.89 of the experimental sentences, completed by participants, subjects were located in Spec TP/IP. It also revealed that in %9.11 of the experimental sentences, produced by participants, subjects were located within vP. Furthermore, studying the data gained from the grammaticality judgment task divulged that the sentences with their subjects within vP took longer to process than the sentences with their subjects in Spec TP/IP; It took 2.871 and 3.801 seconds for the participants to process these two groups of sentences respectively. These results present psycholinguistic evidence for the analysis according to which the subject must move to Spec TP/IP in canonically ordered sentences in Persian.

Keywords

Subjects

• Adger, D. (2004). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Anoushe, M. (2008). The Structure of Sentence and its Functional Projections - A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tehran .[In Persian].
• Anoushe, M. (2010). “Topicalization and focus movement in Persian: A feature-based approach.” Language Research, 1, 1. Pp. 1-28 .[In Persian].
• Chomsky, N. (1991). “Some notes on the economy of derivation and representation.” In R. Freidin (ed). Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press. Pp. 417-454. [Reprinted in Chomsky (1995)].
• Chomsky, N. (1994). “Bare phrase structure.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. 5.
• Clifton, C. & Odom, P. (1966). “Similarity relations among certain English sentence constructions”. Psychological Monographs. 80.Pp. 1–35.
• Dabir Moghaddam, M. (1990). “On postposition rà in Persian”. Iranian Journal of Linguistics. 7. pp. 2-60 [In Persian].
• Darzi A. & R. Mehdi Beyraghdar, (2010), “Exploring the position of topic in Persian - A Minimalist Approach”. Language Research. 2.Pp. 1-18. [In Persian].
• Darzi A. & V. Sadeghi, (2015), The Syntactic and Phonetic Correlates of Topicaliztaion and Raising Construction in Persian. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian].
• Darzi A. (1993). “Raising in Persian.” In the Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Pp. 81-92.
• Darzi A. (1996). Word Order, NP Movement and Opacity Conditions in Persian. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
• Darzi A. (2006). “The necessity of distinguishing between raising and topicalization in Persian”. Dastur. 2. Pp.161-187. [In Persian].
• Darzi A. (2009). “Case and agreement in the raising structure from within the finite sentences”. Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities. University of Tehran. 189. Pp. 73-109 .[In Persian].
• Fodor, J. A.; T. G. Bever & M. F. Garrett, (1974), The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Fodor, J. A. & M. Garrett, (1967), “Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity.” Perception and Psychophysics. 2.Pp. 289-296.
• Ghomeshi, J. (2001). “Control and thematic agreement.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 46.Pp. 1-2.
• Harley, T. A. (2014). The Psychology of Language (4th edn). Hove. UK: Psychology Press.
• Hornstein, N.; J. Nunes & K. Grohmann, (2005), Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Just, M. A. & P. A. Carpenter, (1971), “Comprehension of negation with quantification.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 10. Pp. 244–253.
• Kanduboda, A. B. P. & K. Tamaoka, (2009), “Priority information in determining canonical word order of colloquial Sinhalese sentences.” Proceedings of the 139th Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. 1: 32-37.
• Kanduboda, A. B. P., & Tamaoka, K. (2010). “Priority information for canonical word order of written Sinhala sentences.” Proceedings of the 140th Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. Pp. 358-363.
• Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter.
• Koizumi, M. & T. Katsuo, (2010). “Psycholinguistic evidence for the VP-internal subject position in Japanese.” Linguistic Inquiry. 41. Pp. 663-680.
• Larson, R. K. (1988). “On the double object construction.” Linguistics Inquiry. 19. Pp. 335-391.
• Lasnik, H. (2001). “Derivation and representation.” In M. Baltin and Ch. Collins (eds). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 62-88.
• Marantz, A. (2005). “Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language.” The Linguistic Review. 22. Pp. 429-445.
• Mehrabi, M. (2014). “Lexical information of Persian transitive verbs during Sentence comprehension”. Language Related Research. 1. Pp. 271-295. [In Persian].
• Miller, G. A. & K. O. McKean (1964). “A Chronometric study of some relations between sentences.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. 16. Pp. 297–308.
• Sarokhani, B. (1994). Research Methods in Social Sciences-principles and Foundations. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian].
• Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistics methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
• Tafakkori Rezaie, Sh. (2010). Extended Projection Principle, Expletive and Agreement in Persian. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tehran [In Persian].
• Tamaoka, K.; A. B. P. Kanduboda & H. Sakai, (2011), “Effects of word order alternation on the sentence processing of Sinhalese written and spoken forms.” Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. 1. Pp. 24-32.
• Ura, H. (2001). “Case.” In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Pp. 334-373.
• Zagona, K. (1982). Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. Seattle.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 3 - Serial Number 45
July and August 2018
Pages 203-225