The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization in the Old and Middle Persian, A Study Based on Generative Grammar

Authors
S. M. SADATI NOOSHABADI 1
S. M. SADATI NOOSHABADI 1
N. B. Sabouri 2
1 PhD. Candidate for Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
In this paper, the movement of constituents of sentences in the old and middle Persian is studied based on the theoretical foundations of the Minimalist Programme (Chomsky 1995). According to the Copy Theory of Movement, the moved element leaves a copy and moves to the new location in the sentence and the moved element and its copy form a chain. The formed chain has only one element to be pronounced in the PF. The deletion of all elements in the formed chain except the head of chain based on the Chain Reduction Principle proposed by Nunes (1995) prepares the appropriate condition for realization of Linearization Principle. The selection of elements for deletion is done by the Economy Principle. By considering the fact that in the formed chain, the head of the chain has less formal features compared to the other elements (copies), so the deletion of the copies is more economical. The main purpose of doing this diachronic research is to study the feasibility of applying the principles of the Copy Theory of Movement and the Chain Reduction Principle for explaining the movement of the constituents in the Old and Middle Persian sentences. Studying of the word order and the moved constituents and also their pronunciations in the sentences of the Old and Middle Persian by considering the foundation of the Minimalist programme (Chomsky 1995 and Nunes 1995) shows that these notions are capable to explain the movement of constituents. The Persian language has free word order and the constituents can move to other locations in the sentences based on topicalization or focus movement. Having uninterpretable features of [uTpoic] or [uFocus], the moved elements can have their features checked and deleted under sisterhood by moving to the topic or focus phrase in the sentence but the remained copies have their [uTpoic] or [uFocus] features unchecked. According to the Economy Principle in Language derivation and the Chain Reduction Principlesuggested by Nunes (1995), the remained copy of the moved constituent in the sentencethe Old and Middle Persian should be deleted in the PF since it has more features than the moved element. The results of this study show that the explanations provided by the Linear Axiom Principle, Copy Theory of Movement, and the notion of Chain Reduction Principle help us to explain the syntactic phenomenon of movement and linearization and phonetic realization of constituents in the sentences of Old and Middle Persian appropriately.

Keywords

Subjects

• Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax, A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Anushe, M. (2010). “Topicalization and focus movement in Persian: A feature-based approach”. Language Research. 1(1).Pp: 1-28.[In Persian].
• Arda-Viraf-nameh. (1978). Gignoux, Ph. Translated by Jaleh Amouzegar, (2003), Tehran: Moeen&InstitutFrançais de Recherche en Iran .[In Persian].
• Bailyn, J. (1999). “On scrambling: A reply to Boskovic and Takahasi”. Linguistic Inquiry. 30. Pp:825-831.
• Boškovic, Z. (2002 c). “Scrambling and left branch extraction”. Paper Presented at the Nazan workshop on Scrambling. Nanzan University. Pp: 1-57.
• Brody, M. (1995). Lexico-Logical Form: A Radical Minimalist Theory. MITPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Browning, M. & S. Karimi, (1994). Scrambling to Object Position in Persian. In N. Crover and and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies in scrambling: movement and non-movement approaches to free word order phenomena (pp. 61-100). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
• Bundaheshn. Translated by Mehrdad Bahar (1990). Tehran: Tous [In Persian].
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.
• Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, New York.
• Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds), the View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1-52. [Reprinted in Chomsky (1995)]
• Chomsky, N. (1994). Bare Phrase-Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5.
• Chomsky, N. (1995).The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Pp: 89-155.
• Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik , (1993), Principle and Parameters Theory. In J.Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.): Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 506-569. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
• Darzi, A. (2006). “The necessity for distinction between topicalization and focus in Persian Language”. Grammar. 2 (2).Pp:161-187. [In Persian].
• Fukui, N. (1993). “Parameters and optionality”. Linguistic Inquiry. No. 24. Pp: 399-420.
• Golamalizadeh, Kh. (1993). Movement Processes in Persian Language. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tehran. [In Persian].
• Greenberg, J. H.(1963). “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements”. In Universals of Language, J. H. Greenberg (ed), Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Pp: 73-113.
• Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government & Binding Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, second edition.
• Haegeman, L. & Gueron Jacqueline, (1999), English Grammar: A Generative Perspective, first Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Heidari, A.& A. Rouhi, (2014). “Scrambling in Azari-Turkish based on probe-goal model of minimalism”. Language Related Research. 5(No.1 (Tome 17)), Pp: 27-44 [In Persian].
• Hornstein, N., J. Nunes, & K. K. Grohmann, (2005), Understanding Minimalism, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
• Karimi, S. (1990), “Obliqueness, specificity and discourse functions: Ra in Persian”'. Linguistic Analysis. 20. Pp: 139-191
• Karimi, S. (1997). “Complex verbs in Persian”. Lexicology, 3,1. Pp: 274-316.
• Karimi, S. (1999), “A note on parasitic gaps and specificity”. Linguistic Inquiry. 30.Pp: 704-713
• Karimi, S. (2001). Word Order and Scrambling. A Talk Presented in Workshop at Persian Linguistics, Allame Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
• Kayne, R. (1994). The Anti-symmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Kent, R.G. (1953). Old Persian. New Heaven.
• Khormayi, A. (2001). A Discursive--Syntactix Approach toward Topicalization of Noun Phrases in Persian Language. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tehran [In Persian].
• Kuroda, S. Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In W. Poser (ed.). Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax. Pp: 43 - 103.
• Lasnik, H. (1993). Lectures on Minimalist Syntax. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1.
• Lee, E. (2007). “Minimalist limits on predicate scrambling”. The LinguisticAssociation of Korea Journal. No. 15 (3). Pp: 65- 88
• Mahajan, A. (1994). Toward a Unified Theory of Scramblin. In Corver and van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on Scrambling, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin;
• Miyagawa, S. (2001). The EPP, Scrambling, and Wh-in-situ. In M. Kenstowicz(Ed.). Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
• Nemoto, N. (1995). “Scrambling in Japanese, AGROP, and Economy of Derivation”. Lingua. 97.Pp:257-273
• Nunes, J. (1995). The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalistprogram. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
• Radford, A. (2006). Minimalist Syntax, Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
• Rasekh Mahand, M. (2003). Scrambling in Persian Language. P.D. Dissertation. AllamehTabataba'i University. [In Persian].
• Rezaei Baghbidi, H. (2009). The History of Iranian Languages. Tehran: Centre for Great Islamic Encyclopedia. [In Persian].
• Rezapour, A. (2015). “Scrambling in Mazandarani Dialect”. Language Related Research. 5 (No.5 (Tome 21)). Pp: 95-115. [In Persian].
• Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. [Published 1986 as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.]
• Saito, M. (1985). Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. MIT Dissertation. Cambridge: M.A.: MITWPL.
• Sekerina, I. (1997). The Syntax and Processing of Scrambling Constructions in Russian, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New York.
• Takano, Y. (1998). “Object shift and scrambling”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. No. 16. Pp. 89 –817.
• Vizidagiha-ye Zadesparam (2006). Rashed, M.T. Tehran: Islamic Humanitarian Science and Cultural Research. [In Persian].
• Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 50
May and June 2019
Pages 147-170