Does the Syntax of Modern Persian Allow the locative Verbs to Participate in Alternation?

Masoume Yakhabi, Ahmadreza Lotfi

Abstract


Some locative verbs enjoy the possibility of appearing in more than one syntactic pattern. There is, however, controversy on whether locative verbs in modern Persian can participate in alternation or not. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the issue, analyzing basic syntactic word order of double object constructions in Persian, syntactic and semantic features of specific and nonspecific objects in Persian and syntactic word formation process. The point that the basic word order in Persian allows only one thematic object (either specific or non-specific object) and the fact that the non-specific objects in double object constructions can join the verb and create one syntactic and semantic unit that saturates one argument position, all indicate that locative verbs cannot alternate in this language. The main argument here is that when the non-specific object joins the verb, it becomes a part of the verb and is not anymore a participant in the action of the verb. All the evidence provided are in favor of the absence of alternating locative verbs in Persian.

 


Keywords


Locative verbs, specific object, bare object, alternation, non specific object

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bley_Vroman, R; Joo, H. R. (2001). The acquisition and interpretation of English locative constructions by native speakers of Korean. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 207-219.

Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments, University of Massachussettes Occasional Papers, 17, 19-47.

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Halle, M; Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K and Keyser, S (eds.), The View from Building 20 (111-176). Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.

Karimi Doostan, GH; Safari, A. (2011). Holistic reading in Persian locative alternation, Researches in Linguistics, 3(1), 77-100.

Karimi, S. (2003). Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford/Berlin: Blackwell Publishers.

Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Levin, B. and M. Rappaport (1988). Non-event --er nominals: a probe into argument structure, Linguistics, 26, 1067-1083.

Levin, B; Raappaport, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marantz, A. (1997). A Theory of Grammatical Relations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mohammad, J; Karimi, S. (1992). Light verbs are taking over: complex verbs in Persian. The Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics, 5, 195-212.

Olbishevska, O. (2005). Locative Alternation in Slavic: The Role of Prefixes. The 2004 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.

Rezai, M, J; Avand, S. (2008). The acquisition of English locative constructions by Persian speakers: Syntax-semantic interface. Iranian EFL Journal, 3 (1), 255-274.

Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Van Hout, A. (1996). Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. TILDIL Dissertation Series.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.5p.255

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.