Secondary Predicative Structures in Persian

Authors
A. shahssavari 1
M. Dabirmoghadam 2
1 Ph.D. Student of General Linguistics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor of General Linguistics, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Although the research on small clauses ages over 30, the syntactic nature of small clauses is still a challenging and controversial issue among linguists. In this paper, we start with a brief discussion of the background of the works and approaches related to the nodes governing small clauses. We continue with some arguments in rejecting or accepting some of these approaches. Finally, we describe the construction of secondary Predicative Structures (small clauses) in Persian based on Bower's Minimal Approach (1993, 2001). Based on this approach, these structures consist of [NP XP] and are Tense-less, and their XP is non-verbal. This study assumes a binary-branching structure for small clauses. According to the authors' analyses, in all languages,​​ small clauses which include the subject and the predicate are the functional projections of the predicate, and their difference is only in the concept of the predicate head and its characteristics.

Keywords

Subjects

• Aarts, B. (1992). Small clauses in English: The nonverbal types. Topics in English Linguistics. Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
• Alhorais, N. (2013). The categorical status of the small clause node: A minimalist approach. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Newcastle, United Kingdom.
• Anvari, H. & H. Ahmadi Givi (1995). Persian Grammar 2. Second ed. Vol. 12, Tehran: Fatemi Publications. [In Persian].
• Balazs, J. E.(2012). The Syntax of Small Clauses. M.A dissertation, Cornell University.
• Bateni, M. R. (1991). A Description of the Grammatical Structure of the Persian Language. Tehran: Amir Kabir [In Persian].
• Bowers, J. (1993). “The Syntax of Predication”. Linguistic Inquiry, 24.Pp. 591-652.
• Bowers, J. (2001). “Predication”. in M. Baltin and C . Collins (Eds) The Handbook of cotemporary Syntactic Theory .Pp.299-333 , Blackwell Publishers Inc.
• Bowers, J. (2002). “Transitivity”. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183-224.
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2005). On Phases. Ms., MIT.
• Chomsky, N. (2006). Approaching UG from below. Ms., MIT.
• Dabbir Moghaddam, M. (1990). “On“Ra” in Persian language”. Linguistics Magazine. Year 7, No. 1.Pp. 13-67 [In Persian].
• Dabbir Moghaddam, M. (2004). Theoretical Linguistics: Genesis and Evoloution of the Generative Linguistics. Second ed., Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
• Hiraiwa, K. (2001). “ Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese” . MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Pp. 67 – 80.
• Hornstein, N. & D. Lightfoot (1987). “Predication and PRO”. Language, 63-86.
• Hornstein, .N & D. Lightfoot (1984). Rethinking Predication. ms.
• Karimi, S. (2003). “ On object position , specificity and scrambling in Persian”, In s. Karimi(ed), word order and Scrambling Blackwell publishing Oxford.Pp.91-124.
• Khayampour, A. R. (1996). Persian Grammar. Vol. 10, Tehran. [In Persian].
• Kitagawa, Y. (1985). “Small but clausal”. Papers from the Twenty-first Regional Meeting of the Maryland. Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 21. 210 – 220.
• Meshkato-dini, M. (1994). The Persian Language Grammar Based on Transformational Theory. Vol. 3, Mashhad: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad [In Persian].
• Raasekh-mohanad, M. (2005). “Exploring the Characteristics of “Tameez” in the Persian Language”. Naame ye Farhangestan. No. 27. Pp. 47-54 . [In Persian].
• Shahsavari, A. & E. Mohammadi (2015). “ predication phrase and small clauses in persian language”. Scro Research Annual Report. Vol. 3. Pp. 1-4. ISSN: 1494-7617.
• Shariat, M. J. (2000). Simple Grammar of the Persian language. Tehran: Asatir [In Persian].
• Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
• Stowell, T. (1983). Subjects Across Categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285 – 312.
• Tabib-zadeh, O. (2001). “Analysis of verbal syntactic complementes in the Persian language based on Lexical Capacity Theory”. Linguistics, Year 16, no. 1(31 in sequence). Pp 43-76 [In Persian].
• Williams, E. (1974). “Small clauses in English”. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press.
• Williams, E. (1975). “Small Clauses in English”. In J. Kimball, cd., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 4, Academic Press.
• Williams, E. (1980). “Predication”. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol 11, No. 1. Pp. 203-238.
• Williams, E. (1983). “Against Small Clauses”. Linguistic Inquiry, 14.Pp. 203-238.
• Williams, E. (2013). “The Size of Small Clauses”. Seminar Talk on Jan. 25, Department of Linguistics. Princeton University.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 4 - Serial Number 46
September and October 2018
Pages 181-200