Multi Dominance Structure in the Object-Object Relative Clause in Persian Language

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
S. M. Sadati Nooshabadi 1
M. Sabzevari 2
N. B. Sabouri 3
M. Anoushe 4
1 PhD. Candidate in Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran
10.52547/LRR.13.1.23
Abstract
In this paper the structure and the symmetric merge of a noun phrase in the matrix and dependent clauses of the object-object relative clause in Persian language was studied based on the notions of symmetric merge and multi dominance proposed by Citko (2011b) and the results of study by Riemsdijk (2006a). Different examples of relative clauses in Persian language were analyzed based on the notion of symmetric merge proposed by Citko (2011b). These analyses showed that the classification of relative clauses in Persian language into two groups of headed and free relative is not completely compatible with what has been proposed by Citko (2011b) since in Persian language if we use the wh-word as the head of free relative clause, it would contribute to making the sentence as a wh-question one which is against the findings of Citko (2011b) in English language. Moreover, the results of this research showed that the observed properties of the shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses of the object relative clause in Persian language namely as having the same case, syntactic function, and thematic roles proveed that this noun phrase is merged simultaneously between the two clauses and is a shared constituent between two lexical verb heads in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. This approach provides a clear and cost-free explanation for the characteristics of the shared element in the object relative clause in Persian language.

In this paper the structure and the merge of a noun phrase in the matrix and dependent clauses of the object-object relative clause in Persian language is studied based on the notions of symmetric merge and multi-dominance proposed by Citko (2011b) and the results of study by Riemsdijk (2006a). Chomsky (2001) proposed two kinds of merge namely as external merge and internal merge. Citko (2000, 2003, 2005 and 2011b) based on the practical evidence and properties of these types of merge proposed the third kind of merge operation namely as Parallel merge (symmetric merge) which is similar to External Merge in that it takes two distinct objects as its input and is also like Internal Merge in that it combines one with a subpart of the other.

The object-object relative clause (object relative clause) is a kind of free relative clause of which the nucleus has the syntactic role of objects in both the matrix and dependent clauses. In symmetric merge a constituent is merged simultaneously in two operations and is c-commanded by two different maximal projections.

The main question upon which this research was done was whether there is any evidence in support of symmetric merge of a constituent in structure of the object relative clause in Persian language. In this regard, different examples of relative clauses in Persian language were analyzed based on the notion of symmetric merge of a noun clause in the object relative clause proposed by Citko (2011b).

Citko (2011b, p.95) proposed that there are two kinds of relative clauses in English: headed and free relative clauses. This difference is illustrated in sentences one and two; the relative clause in sentence one is headed by the DP “the woman”, whereas the free relative in sentence two appears to either lack the head entirely or to be “headed” by the wh-phrase itself.

1. We hired the woman who (m) Mary recommended. headed relative

2. We hired whom Mary recommended. free relative

There are two views on the structure analysis of free relative clauses as the Comp Account and the Head Account. On the Comp Account, the head position is empty and the wh-phrase is in [Spec, CP], as argued by Caponigro (2003), Gračanin-Yüksek (2008), Groos and Van Riemsdijk (1981), Grosu (1994, 1996), and Grosu and Landman (1998), among many others (sentence 3). On the Head Account, the [Spec, CP] position is empty and the wh-phrase occupies the head position, as shown in (142b), as argued by Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978), Bury (2003), Citko

(2000, 2002, 2008b), Donati (2006) and Larson (1987, 1998), among others (sentence 4).

Mary eats [DP O [CP what(ever) i [TP Bill cooks t i]]] Comp Account
Mary eats [DP what (ever) i [CP [TP Bill cooks t i]]] Head Account

Citko (2011b, p.96) classified the free object relative clauses into two groups based on the status of their head. Headed object relative clause in which the relative clause has a DP as the head (sentence 5) and the second one, the free object relative clause in which the relative clause has no head or a wh-phrase is its head (sentence 6).

5. We hired [the woman that Mary Recommended].

6. We hired [whom Mary recommended].

Citko (ibid) proposed that we have two kinds of free object relative clause namely as standard free relative and transparent free relative. After studying their internal structure, Citko (2011b, p.99) concluded that there is a symmetric merge in the structure of the standard and transparent free relative. In the standard free relative clause, the wh-phrase is shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses but in the transparent free relative clause, the semantic nucleus is a shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses.

Based on the findings of Citko (2011b) the relative clauses in Persian language analyzed and their properties were studied. These analyses showed that the classification of relative clauses in Persian language into two groups of headed and free relative is not completely compatible with what has been proposed by Citko (2011b) since in Persian language if we use the wh-word as the head of free relative clause, it would contribute to making the sentence as a wh-question one which is against the findings of Citko (2011b) in English language. The result of this research showed that the observed properties of the shared constituent between the matrix and dependent clauses of the object relative clause in Persian language namely as having the same case, syntactic function, and thematic roles proved that this noun phrase is merged simultaneously between the two clauses and is a shared constituent between two lexical verb heads in the hierarchical structure of the sentence. This approach provides a clear and cost-free explanation for the characteristics of the shared element in the object relative clause in Persian language.


Keywords

Subjects

بهرامی، کاوه. (1392). بررسی رده‌شناختی راهبردهای ساخت بند موصولی در زبانه‌ای فارسی و آلمانی. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی در زبان‌های خارجی. 3(1)، 61-76.
doi: 10.22059/jflr.2013.53763
پورفرد، احسان هادی؛ رضایی، عباسعلی (1387). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد درباره نقش مؤلفه معنایی جانداری در پردازش بندهای موصولی مفعولی در زبان فارسی. دانشگاه تهران: تهران.
خوردبین، سارا؛ گلفام، ارسلان (1393). ساخت بند موصولی در زبان فارسی: رویکردی شناختی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
ساداتی نوش‌آبادی، سید مهدی؛ سبزواری، مهدی؛ صبوری، نرجس بانو؛ انوشه، مزدک (1399). ادغام متقارن در نحو زبان فارسی براساس شواهدی از جمله‌های هم‌پایه‌ پرسش‌واژه‌ای دارای حرکت موازی. زبان پژوهی، 12(36)، 7-36.
doi: 10.22051/jlr.2020.26101.1699
سجادی، شهره سادات، صحرایی، رضامراد (1397). سلسله‌مراتب دسترسی گروه اسمی: فراگیری بندهای موصولی در زبان فارسی. پژوهش‌های زبانی. 1(9)، 21-38.
doi: 10.22059/jolr.2018.66648
صادقی، شهره، رقیب‌دوست، شهلا (1399). نقش مقوله دستوری گروه اسمی درونی در پردازش بندهای موصولی فاعلی و مفعولی در زبان فارسی. علم زبان
doi: 10.22054/ls.2020.41533.1216
صلح‌جو، علی (۱۳۸۶)، نکته‌های ویرایش، تهران: نشر مرکز، چاپ چهارم.
محمودی، سولماز (1392). ساخت نحوی بدل و بند موصولی توضیحی در زبان فارسی. زبان و زبان شناسی دوره نهم پاییز و زمستان 1392 شماره 18.
محمودی، سولماز (1394). بررسی نحوی بندهای موصولی در زبان فارسی: فرایند حرکت بند. جستارهای زبانی، مرداد و شهریور 1394، شماره 3، 241-269.
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1388). دستور مفصل امروز. تهران: سخن.
علیزاده، علی، خالقی‌زاده، شراره (1394). به‌کارگیری بندهای موصولی فاعلی - فاعلی و فاعلی - مفعولی: مقایسه‌ی نوشتار فارسی‌آموزان عربی‌زبانِ سطح میانی و پیشرفته. پژوهش‌نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، 4 (شماره یک - پیاپی 9)، 59-78.
کریمی، یادگار؛ واعظی، هنگامه (1397). ادغام موازی، اشراف چندگانه و ساختار هم‌پایگی پرسش‌واژه‌ای. پژوهش‌های زبانی، سال 9، شماره‌ 1، بهار و تابستان 1397، 39-58.
ماهوتیان، شهرزاد (1996). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه رده‌شناختی. ترجمه مهدی سمائی. تهران: نشر مرکز.
نعمت‌زاده، شهین، روشن، بلقیس، غیاثیان، مریم‌السادات و غفاری، مهران (1392). سطوح پیچیدگی بندهای موصولی فاعل - فاعل و فاعل - مفعول در کودکان فارسی‌زبان 3 تا 6 ساله. جستارهای زبانی 4 (16)، 221-244.
Abney, Steven (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect, Doctoral dissertation. MIT. Cambridge: USA.
Anderson, R.(2009). Grammar Teaching Unit –Relative Clauses. English 215C, Helt, CSUS.
Annas, V.(2004). Relative Clauses: Introducing Relative Clause Types According to Order of Difficulty and Frequency. Retrieved from: tailieudayhoc.com/download.aspx?id=1667478&type=-1.
Baker, Mark C. (1988): Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
Bresnan, Joan, and Grimshaw, Jane (1978). “The syntax of free relatives in English,” Linguistic Inquiry 9:331–91.
Bury, Dirk (2003). “Phrase structure and derived heads,” PhD thesis, University College London.
Caponigro, Ivano (2003). “Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically,” PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D.(1999).The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course. Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle.
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan.
Chomsky, Noam (2001). ‘Derivation by Phase’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1–52.
Citko, Barbara (2000). “Parallel merge and the syntax of free relatives,” PhD thesis, Stony Brook University.
Citko, Barbara (2002). “(Anti)reconstruction effects in free relatives: a new argument against the comp account,” Linguistic Inquiry 33:507–11.
Citko, Barbara (2003). ATB wh-questions and the nature of Merge. In Kadowaki and Kawahara (eds.), Proceeding of the 33rd North East Linguistic Society. Amherst: GLSA Publication, 87–102.
Citko, Barbara (2005). ‘On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 475–96.
Citko, Barbara (2008a). “Small clauses reconsidered: not so small and not all alike,” Lingua 118:261–95.
Citko, Barbara (2011b). Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B.(1996). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Donati, Valentina (2006). “On wh-head movement,” in Cheng and Corver (eds.), pp. 21–46.
Douglas-Brown, Denise (1996). In search of syntactic symmetry: on the parallels between clausal and nominal hierarchical structure (PhD thesis). University of Durham. Durham: UK.
Epstein, Samuel; M.Groat, Erich; Kawashima, Ruriko; and Kitahara, Hisatsugu (1998). A derivational approach to syntactic relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gartner, Hans-Martin (1999). Phrase linking meets minimalist syntax. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D.Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 159–169.Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Gračanin-Yüksek, Martina (2007). About sharing (PhD thesis). MIT. Cambridge: USA.
Gračanin-Yüksek, Martina (2008). “Free relatives in Croatian: arguments for the COMP Account,” Linguistic Inquiry 39:275–94.
Groos, Anneke and van Riemsdijk, Henk)1981). “Matching eff ects in free relatives: a parameter of core grammar,” in Belletti, Brandi and Rizzi (eds.), pp. 171–216.
Grosu, Alexander ( 2003). “A unified theory of ‘standard’ and ‘transparent’ free relatives,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:247–331.
Grosu, Alexander and Landman, Fred (1998). “Strange relatives of the third kind,” Natural Language Semantics 6:125–70.
Grosz, Patrick (2009). Movement and agreement in right-node raising constructions (unpublished manuscript) MIT. Cambridge: USA.
Hiraiwa, Ken (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture (PhD thesis). MIT. Cambridge: USA.
Johnson, Kyle (2000). ‘Few Dogs Eat Whiskas or Cats Alpo’, in K. Kusumoto and E. Villalta (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 23: Issues in Semantics. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, 59–82.
Johnson, Kyle (2007). “LCA+Alignment=RNR,” Handout of a talk presented at the Workshop on Coordination, Subordination and Ellipsis, Tubingen, June 2007. (ed.) 2008. Topics in Ellipsis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kayne, R. (1994). The anti-symmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keenan, E. L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar, Linguistic inquiry, 8(1), 63-99.
Larson, Richard (1987). “Missing prepositions and the analysis of English free relative clauses,” Linguistic Inquiry 19:239–66.
Larson, Richard (1998). “Free relative clauses and missing P’s: reply to Grosu,” manuscript, Stony Brook University.
Riemsdijk, Henk van (1998). “Trees and scions – science and trees,” manuscript, Fest-Web-Page for Noam Chomsky.
Riemsdijk, Henk van (2000). “Free relatives inside out: transparent free relatives as grafts,” Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English.
Riemsdijk, Henk van (2006a). “Free relatives,” in Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Syntax: Vols I–V. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing., pp. 338–82.
Schelfhout, Carla, Coppen, Peter-Arno and Oostdijk, Nelleke ( 2004). “Transparent free relatives,” in Blaho, Vicente and de Vos (eds.), pp. 81–90.
Starke, Michal (2001). Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality (PhD thesis). University of Geneva. Geneva: Switzerland.
Vonk; Mak, W. M & Schriefers, H. (2006). Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 466–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.01.001.
Wilder, Chris (1999a). Transparent free relatives. In Shahin, Blake, and Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 685–99, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Wilder, Chris (1999b). Right node raising and the LCA. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 586–598.Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Wilder, Chris (2008). Shared constituents and linearization. In Topics in Ellipsis, ed. by Kyle Johnson. pp. 229-258.
Windfuhr, G.L.(1979). Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. Mouton Publisher, USA.
Zhang, Niina (2004). Move is Remerge. Language and Linguistics, 5 (1).189-209.
Language Related Research
Volume 13, Issue 1 - Serial Number 67
March and April 2022
Pages 747-783