Explanation of Deleted Internal Argument in Persian Verb Phrase Based on Dynamic Approach of Phase Theory

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
E. vasegh 1
R. Beyraghdar 2
A. Najafian 3
M. Anushe 4
1 Linguistics PhD, Department of linguistics and foreign languages, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Iran
10.48311/LRR.15.2.435
Abstract
This paper trys to explain, based on the framework of the dynamic phase theory, how to eliminate the internal object of the verb in Persian. At first, in order to determine whether deleted internal argument in Persian verb phrase is the result of argument ellipsis (AE) or verb stranding verb phrase ellipsis (VSVPE), we apply some common diagnostic criteria in the previous studies such as verb movement out of verb phrase, verbal identity, deletion of prepositional phases as intrnal arguements, coordination structure, order of adverbs of state and objects and scrambling. Because of incapability of the mentioned diagnostic criteria in the previous literature, we resort to the dynamic approach of phase theory (Bošković: 2005, 2013, 2014). Based on this approach, we conclude that what is deleted in the verb phrase is either a phase or the complement of a phase. Accordingly, this approach can provide the readers up with a more comprehensive and economical explanation of the mentioned structure in Persian.



1. Introduction

The present essay, based on the framework of minimalist program and dynamic phase theory (Beshkovich, 2005, 2013 and 2014), is an attempt to explain the elimination of the internal argument in the structure of Persian simple sentences. Realizing the nature of the unpronounced subject as pro in various languages such as Italian (Chomsky, 1981; Rizzi, 1982) attracted the attention of some linguists, especially in the field of generative syntax, to identify the syntactic identity of these unpronounced objects. Consequently, there are two different approaches in the previous literature with regard to the nature of these objects. One of them believes in the existence of the pro in the place of such internal arguments, and the other believes in their deletion. Based on Karimi's (2016 ) idea, there is no pro in place of unpronounced internal arguments in the Persian intended structures. On the other hand, based on the second view; that is, deletion, we consider six major criteria common in different previous studies to determine the category of the deleted element. But based on these citeria, there is no consensus view in this regard. Some researchers believe in argument ellipsis (AE), while others believe in verb stranding VP-ellipsis (VSVPE) in the intended structures. Because of the duality and some cotradictions in the findings of these two views, resulted from the incapability of the mentioned diagnostic criteria in the previous literature, we resort to the dynamic approach of phase theory (Bošković, 2005, 2013, 2014).

Research Question(s)

What is the process resulted in the deletion of the internal argument in Persian simple sentences?
How can the dynamic phase approach provide us up with a comprehensive explanation of the process of deletion in the intended structures?



2. Methodology

This study, from the point of view of purpose and nature is theoretical and explanatory and from the point of view of method is documentary. Considering that one of the paradigms raised in generative syntax is that the data should be analyzed based on the intuition of the native speakers, in this research, the data were analyzed based on the intuitions of the authors. The process of deletion in Persian language has not been investigated based on the dynamic phase approach so far. On these account, one can argue that the present study has opened a new line of research in this field.

Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) definition of phasehood is understood as a rigid concept; that is, phasal status of a category does not depend on its syntactic context. Accordingly, CPs and VPs are always taken to be phases. This runs counter to the spirit of the Minimalist predecessor of phases; barriers (Chomsky, 1986). In the barriers system, whether a particular category is a barrier or not depends on its syntactic context. Consequently, sometimes CP is a barrier and sometimes it is not, depending on its syntactic context. In other words, while phases are defined rigidly, barriers are defined contextually.

Because of some inadequacies, a number of generative linguists have recently argued that phasehood should also be defined contextually. One of them is Bošković (2005, 2013, 2014). He argues for a particular contextual approach whereby the highest projection in the extended projection of a major (i.e., lexical) category functions as a phase. This approach is flexible as the amount of structure (including the highest phrase) projected by major categories can differ not only in different lanuages but also within a single language.



3. Results

Applying six criteria common in previous studies, we try to investigate the deletion process of unpronounced internal argument in Persian simple sentences. The findings indicate that these critera cannot attain a unanioumous explanation with regard to the syntactic process involved in the intended structures.

As a result, we resort to the dynamic phase approach (Beshkovich, 2005, 2013, 2014). The findings of this research indicates that what is deleted in the intended structures is neither the result of argument ellipsis (AE) nor verb stranding VP-ellipsis (VSVPE). Rather, the deleted constituent is a phase or the complement of a phase.

Accordingly, this study provides the readers up with a comprehensive, and consequently an econemical analysis instead of the contradictory findings of previous studies, considering the intended stuctures as a result of either argument ellipsis (AE) or Verb stranding VP-ellipsis (VSVPE).

Keywords

Subjects

•Aelbrecht, L., & Harwood, W. (2013). To be or not to be elided: VP ellipsis revisited. Ms, Ghent University.
•Anoushe, M. (2008). The Structure of Sentence and its Functional Projections in Persian A Minimalist Approach. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran.
•Bateni, M. (2019). Description of Persian grammatical structur, Amirkabir press.
•Bošković, Ž. (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59:1–45.
•Bošković, Ž. (2013).Phases beyond clauses.In:Schurcks,L., Giannakidou,A, Etxeberria,U., Kosta,P.(Eds.),The nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond De Gruyter,Boston,pp.75--128.
•Bošković, Ž (2014). Now I am a phase, now I am not a phase: on the Variability of Phases with Extraction and Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 45, number 1, winter 2014, 27- 89.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris
•Chomsky, N. (2000b) Minimalist inquiries: the framework, In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89-155.
•Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Cambridge MA, MIT Working Paper in Linguistics.
•Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•Cyrino, S., & Lopes, R. (2016). Null objects and ellipsis in Brazilian Portuguese. The Linguistic Review 33:483–502.
•Darzi, A., & Anoushe, M (2010). Main verb movement in Persian, A minimalist approach .Linguistic Studies. 2(3).Pp.21-55. [In Persian].
•Gribanova, V. (2013a). A new argument for verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44:145–157.
•Gribanova, V. (2013b). Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31:91–136.
•Goldberg, Lotus M. (2005). Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.
•Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Volume55, Issue1.
•Johnson, K. (2006). “Gapping”. In: M. Everaert and H. V. Riemsdijk (EDs). The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (II: 405-435). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
•Kahnemuyipour, A. (2001). On wh-questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46: 41-61.
•Karimi, S. (2003a). Focus movement and uninterpretable features. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & Mary Willie (eds.), Formal approaches to functional forces: Festschrift for Eloise Jelinek, 297–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ la.62.21kar.
•Karimi, S. (2003b). Object positions, specificity and scrambling. In Simin Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 91–125. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/9780470758403.ch5.
•Karimi, S. (2005) A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian, The Hague: Mouton.
•Karimi, Y., & H. Azmoudeh (2013). Verb phrase ellipsis in Persian: The structural question. Journal of Language Researches 3(2). pp. 77-94 [In Persian].
•Landau, Idan. (2018). Missing objects in Hebrew: Argument ellipsis, not VP ellipsis. Glossa 3(1):76.
•Landau, Idan. (2020). On the Nonexistence of Verb-Stranding VP-Ellipsis. the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1- 20.
•Matos, G. (1992). Constru@o˜es de elipse do predicado em portugueˆs: SV nulo e despojamento. Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de Lisboa.
•Merchant, J., (2013). Voice andellipsis.Linguist.Inq.44,77--108.
•Merchant, Jason. (2018). Verb-stranding Predicate Ellipsis in Greek, Implicit Arguments, and Ellipsis-internal Focus. In A Reasonable Way to Proceed: Essays in Honor of Jim McCloskey. Jason Merchant, Line Mikkelsen, Deniz Rudin and Kelsei Sasaki (eds.), 229–270. Santa Cruz, CA: University of Santa Cruz.
•Müller, Gereon. (2011). Constraints on Displacement. A Phase-Based Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
•Oku, Satoshi. (1998). A theory of selection and reconstruction in the Minimalist perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
•Rasekhi, Vahideh. (2018). Ellipsis and information structure: Evidence from Persian. Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.
•Rizzi, Luigi. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1515/9783110883718.
•Ross, J. R. (1970). “Gapping and the order of constituents”. In: M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (EDs). Progress in linguistics (249–259). The Hague: Mouton.
•Sato, Y., & Karimi, S. (2016). Subject-object asymmetries in Persian argument ellipsis and the anti-agreement theory. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1: 1-31.
•Sakamoto, Y. (2017). Escape from silent syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
•Santos, A. (2009). Minimal answers: Ellipsis, syntax and discourse in the acquisition of European Portuguese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
•Shabani M. (2016). V-stranding VP ellipsis in Persian: A minimalist approach. LRR.; 7 (5) :97-118
•Shafiei, N. (2016). Persian complex predicates: Evidence for verb movement from ellipsis and negation. MA thesis, University of Calgary.
•Takahashi, M. (2011). Some theoretical consequences of Case-marking in Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
•Toosarvandani, M. (2009). Ellipsis in Farsi complex predicates. Syntax, 12(1): 60-92.
Wooseung, L. (2014). Argumental gaps in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Kore Journal 22(1): 1-29.
•Wooseung, L. (2016). Argument ellipsis vs. V-stranding VP ellipsis in Korean: Evidence from disjunction. Linguistic Research 33(1), 1-20.
•Yoshida, M., & Nakao, Ch., & Ortega-S, (2014). The syntax of ellipsis and related phenomena. In: A, Carnie, Y. Sato, and D. Siddiqi (EDs). The Routledge Handbook of Syntax (192-213). NY: Routledge.
Language Related Research
Volume 15, Issue 2 - Serial Number 80
May and June 2024
Pages 435-463