Cross-linguistic analysis of finite raising in Persain

Author
R. Motavallian Naeini
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
10.29252/LRR.12.4.6
Abstract
This article provides and examines empirical data from different languages showing that long A-movement of the subject of the embedded finite clause to the subject position of the main clause is indeed possible in many languages of the world. However all kinds of raising out of finte clause are not the same and have obvious differences from each other.In present article we introduce and acoount four kinds of finite raising including hyper raising, super raising further raising and copy raising in different languages. Finally we try to determine the position of Persian in cross-linguistic analysis of raising.



1. Introduction

The possibility of raising out of nonfinite clauses has been approved generally. In fact because of the defectiveness of infinitives, it is impossible for the subject to be asigned case in such clauses. Subsequently, the embedded subject has to move to the subject position of the matrix clause to check its nominative case. Based on this view raising is not permitted out of finite clauses because the nominative case of subject can be checked in the embedded clause. In general, in the present article, we seek to find the answer to the question of whether it is possible to raise the subject of the embedded finite clause in Persian.



2. Literature Review

Those who deny the existence of raising structure in Persian (Hashemipour, 1989; Ghomeshi, 2001; Karimi, 1999; Dabir Moghaddam, 1369), provide evidences showing such structures in Persian are only some kind of topicalization.

First, the predicate in the embedded clause of raising is typically represented by a subjunctive form which is a kind of finite clause and it has tense and agreement features that enable it to license nominative case on its subject. Therefore, the subject NP/DP of the embedded clause assigned nominative case. Since there is no need for the embedded subject to move out of the subordinate clause, it can remain in situ. Second, there is no agreement between the matrix verb and the moved embedded subject, The subject agrees with the embedded verb in these cases. Furthermore, any other phrasal element from the embedded clause may move into the matrix clause in these. Based on these pieces of evidence, it has been argued in the literature that Persian lacks raising constructions.

Contrary to opponents' view, Darzi (1993) clearly distinguishes between the raising and control structures with arguments such as idiom chunks, selective restrictions, the ambiguity of the scope of quantifiers, and negative polar elements. He also provides evidences with arguments such as the floating quantifiers, the distribution of the naked reflection-emphatic pronoun "xod", and the scope of the general quantifiers that such structures are the result of the raising of the subject to the subject position and in fact a movement to argument (A) position. ( For more information, see: Darzi, 2010).



3. Methodology

To answer the question whether raising is possible in Persian, with the method of cross-linguistic analysis, we examine different types of raising out of finite cluses in different languages, Then the position of Persian language in this classification should be specified.



4. Results

This article provides evidence for an A-movement analysis of subject raising in Persian based on a number of tests, including , idiom chunk raising, scopal amibiguity , not changing the semantic reading despite of the passivisation of the embedded clause , etc.



5. Discussion

According to standard assumptions about Raising structures, Raising out of finite clauses, which have tense and agreement features and which are considered to be non-defective, is neither necessary nor permitted. However, contrary to this assumption, there are empirical data that show A-movement out of finite complement clauses is indeed possible in many pro-drop languages. But all kinds of these raising structures are not the same and have obvious differences from each other:

Hyper raising: The embedded subject in pro-drop languages cannot get case inside the finite clause, hence it stays active and raises into the main clause where its case and phai features valued.Then in hyper raising structures raised subject is in agreement with the verb of the main clause (Ura 1994).

Copy raising: Hyper raising and copy raising structurs are identical in all crucial respects, with the main difference being that the pronominal resumptive copy is a full lexical pronoun in the latter languages, whereas it is a null pronoun in languages with Hyperraising.

Super raising: In this kind of raising, the NP/DP (the object of the sentence) passes from the position of the subject that has already been occupied and moves to the position of the subject of the higher clause, that is, the non-local argument position.

Further raising: In these constructions, the DP moves to the specifier of the embedded Tense, with which it agrees, and then satisfies the EPP in a higher position, where it gets its Case-F deleted. Contrary to hyper raising, the raised subject is in agreement with the verb of the embedded clause ( Fernández-Salgueiro, 2005, 2008 & 2011) .



6. Conclusion

It is quite clear that the process of raising in Persian, like Galician, Spanish, Portuguese, European and Italian, is of the Further raising type, because in this language, as in the languages ​​mentioned, the raised subject is not in agreement with the verb of the main clause.

ânhâ be-nazar mi-yâd (ke) e faghir bashan.

They to view dur-comes (that) poor be-3pl

‘They seem to be poor.’

In this construction, the DP moves to the specifier of the embedded Tense, with which it agrees, and then satisfies the EPP in a higher position, where it gets its Case-F deleted.

Keywords

Subjects

• Abney, S. (1987). Extraction and pseudo-objects. In Berber. In M. Guersel & K. Hale, ed., Studies in Berber Syntax: Lexicon project working papers 14, 21-23. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL.
• Adesola, O. (2005). Pronouns and null operators-A bar dependencies and relations in Yoruba. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The State University of New Jersey.
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Micheal & J.Uriagereka ,eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of H.Lasnik (89-155). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1995). The theory of principles and parameters. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Chomsky,N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in linguistics1.
• Chomsky,N. (1994). Bare phrase structure. In Gert Webelhuth, ed., Government and Binding and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Collins, C. (1995). Serial verb constructions and the theory of multiple feature checking. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
• Coopmans, H. (1994). Comments on the Paper by Ouhalla, In D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein ,eds., Verb Movement, 73−85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1990). On "ra" in Persain. Linguistics, 1, 2-60. [In Persian]
• Darzi, A. (1993). Raising in Persian. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference (81-92). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
• Darzi, A. (1993). Raising in Persian. In Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference (81-92). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
• Darzi, A. (2009). Case and agreement in raising structure within the Finite sentences. Journal of Archaeological Studies 60 (189), 73-109. [In Persain]
• Darzi, A. (2010). Syntactic Argumaentation.2nd edition.Tehran: SAMT . [In Persian]
• Déprez, V. (1992). Raising construction in Haitian Creole. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 191-231.
• Epstein, S., & Seely, D. (2002). Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In S. Epstein & D. Seely (eds.) Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (65–89). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Fernández-Salgueiro, G. (2005). Agree, the EPP-F and further-raising in Spanish. In Gess, Randall and Edward J. Rubin ,eds., Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt Lake City.
• Fernández-Salgueiro, G. (2008). The case-F valuation parameter in Romance. In Theresa Biberauer ,ed., The limits of syntactic variation (Linguistics Today 132), (295-310). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Fernández-Salgueiro, G.(2011). Against “Pure” EPP checking : Evidence from further-raising. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics: 9(1), 123-131.
• Ferreira, M. (2004). Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47, 57–85.
• Frantz, D. (1978). Coping from complements in Blackfoot. In E.-D. Cook& J. Kaye,eds., Linguistic Studies Native Canada (89-109). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
• Fujita, K. (1995). Generalized attract and economy of derivation. Ms., Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.
• Ghomeshi, J. (2001). Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46, 9-40.
• Grosu, A., & Horvath, J. (1984). The GB theory and raising in Rumanian. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 348-353.
• Hashemipour, P. (1989). Pronominalization and control in modern Persian. Doctoral dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
• Karimi, S. (1999) Is scrambling as strange as we think it is?’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 159-190.
• Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: evidence from Persian. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ladusaw, W., & England, N. (1987). Control and complementation in Kusal. In Current Approaches to African Linguistics 4, 239-246. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Lappin, S. (1984). Predication and raising. Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS) 14, 236-352.
• Lasnik, H., & Saito, M. (1992). Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Moore, J. (1998). Turkish copy-raising and a chain locality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 149-189.
• Motavallian, R. (2017a). Syntactic representation of modal verbs “Bayestæn, Šodæn” in Persian, Language Related Research, 7 (2017), 125-150. [In Persian]
• Motavallian, R. (2017b). Furthur raising in Persian, Journal of Researches in Linguistics , 8 (2017), 1-20. [In Persian]
• Ouhalla, J. (1994). Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In Verb Movement, ed. D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein, 41-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Perez, C. (1985). Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. Unpublished PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• Perlmutter, D. M. (1971). Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Postal, P. (1974). On raising: One rule of English and Its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Rodrigues, C.A.N. (2004). Impoverished morphology and a-movement out of case domains. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
• Soames, S., & Perlmutter, D.M. (1979). Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
• Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, aspect and negation in Persian. John Benjamins Publishing.
• Uchibori, A. (2001). Raising out of CP and C-T relations. In M. C. Cuervo, D. Harbour,K. Hiraiwa & S. Ishihara eds., Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3(FAJL3): MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (41, 145-162). Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
• Ura, H. (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
• Ura, H. (1998) Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo, Linguistic Analysis, 28, 67−88.
• Ura, H. (1994). Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics #7, Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
• Zeller, J. (2006a). Raising out of finite clauses in Nguni: The case of Fanele Southern. African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24(3), 255-275.
• Zeller, J. (2006b). Raising out of finite clauses and expletive constructions in Zulu. Unpublished manuscript, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.
• Zwart, C.J. (1997). Morphosyntax of verb movement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Language Related Research
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 64
September and October 2021
Pages 165-198