Object Complement in Persian

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Maryam Khamse Ashari ¹
• Rezvan Motavallian ²
• Vali Rezai ²

¹ Ph.D. student of Linguistics, Department of linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jlkd.2023.82778.1168

Abstract

Object complement construction as one of the most important and challenging categories of grammar has been noticed by linguists and grammarians from past to present. The present study investigates the Object complement construction based on three basic hypotheses: Small Clause Theory, Predication Theory, and Complex Predicate Theory. Most of the linguists and grammarians who have studied Object complement construction in the Persian language have presented a similar view of the Predication theory. The findings of this study revealed that the analysis of the Object complement construction within the framework of Predication Theory is incompatible with the principles of the Government and Binding theory and Minimalist Program, such as the Theta criterion, Projection principle, and Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH). The analysis of the mentioned construction based on the complex predicate theory on the one hand ignores the principle of linguistic economy and productivity process by increasing the number of compound verbs in Persian, and on the other hand, it ignores the propositional relationship between the Object complement construction and the preceding noun phrase. In the following, based on small clause theory and arguments such as argument alternation, selection restriction, the ambiguity of the interrogative complex sentences, occurrence in different syntactic contexts, idiom chunk, agreement, paraphrasing, sentence fragment, scrambling, gapping pronominalization,  and the distribution of NP-types as subjects of small clause construction was shown Object complement together with the preceding noun phrase should be considered a single constituent as a small clause. 

Keywords

• Object complement
• Small Clause Theory
• Predication Theory
• Complex Predicate Theory

Main Subjects

• Syntax

References

ارژنگ، غلامرضا. (1387). دستور زبان فارسی امروز. تهران: قطره.

 انوشه، مزدک. (1400). صرف در نحو از کمینه­گرایی تا صرف توزیعی. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

انوری، حسن. احمدی گیوی، حسن. (1374). دستور زبان فارسی 2. تهران: فاطمی.

تفکری رضایی، شجاع. و تابعی، رؤیا. (1397). وضعیت سازه­بودگی زنجیره­های شبه­خرده­جمله در گونه موکریانی، مطالعات زبان­ها و گویش­های غرب ایران، 6 (20). صص43-23.

حیدرپور نجف آبادی، ندا. (1400). در باب متمم مفعول در دستور زبان فارسی؛ صورت، ماهیت و اصطلاح شناسی آن، جستارهای زبانی، 12 (3). صص 153-131.

 خیامپور، عبدالرسول. (1344). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران: کتاب­فروشی تهران.

راسخ مهند، محمد. (1384). بررسی ویژگی­های متمم مفعول در زبان فارسی، نامه فرهنگستان، 27. صص 47-54.

راسخ مهند، محمد. (1399). وابسته­های مشارکت محور در زبان فارسی، پژوهش­های زبان­شناسی تطبیقی. 10(20)، صص 79-99.

صیادی، احمد رضا. و احمدی، مصطفی. (1387). نکته­ها و ناگفته­هایی درباره متمم مفعول، دستور(ویژه نامه فرهنگستان)، 4، صص 209-215.

 طبیب زاده، امید. (1388). نقدی بر نقد متمم مفعول، دستور، 207-215.

 طبیب زاده، امید. (1391). ظرفیت فعل و ساخت­های بنیادین جمله در فارسی امروز. تهران: نشر مرکز.

 علوی مقدم، سید بهنام. (1388). جمله های سببی و دومفعولی در دیدگاه حاکمیت و مرجعیت گزینی و کمینه گرایی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی (باهنر کرمان) 25 (22)، صص 157-141.

 غلامعلی­زاده، خسرو. (1374). ساخت زبان فارسی. تهران: احیاء کتاب.

فرشیدرود، خسرو. (1382). دستور مفصل امروز بر پایۀ زبان­شناسی جدید. تهران: سخن.

کریمی دوستان، غلامحسین. تجلی وحیده. (1398). نگاهی نو به قید حالت در فارسی. جستارهای زبانی. 10 (4)، صص 281-259.

مشکو_ة­الدینی، مهدی. (1386). دستور زبان فارسی بر پایة نظریة گشتاری، مشهد: انتشارات دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.

 وفایی، عباسعلی. (1395). دستور زبان فارسی(1). تهران: نشر علمی.

Aarts, B.  (1992). Small Clauses in English: The Nonverbal Types.   Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bach, E. W. (1979). Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic    Inquiry, 10: 515-531.

Bailyn, J. (2003). Does Russian Scrambling Exist? In S. Karimi (ed.), Word Order and Scrambling, (156-176), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.

Beck, S., & Johnson, K. (2004), Double Objects Again. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–123.

Bowers, J. (1993). The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 591-652.

Bowers, J. (2002). Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 33: 183-224.

Bowers, J. (2010). Arguments as relations. London: The MIT Press.

Bresnan, J.W (1974). The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure, Linguistic Inquiry 5: 614-619.

Bresnan, J. W. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar, In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, (1-59), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Cardinaletti, A. & Guasti, M. T. (1995). Syntax and Semantics: small clauses. London: Academic Press.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague, Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum, (the publicated version the 1955 manuscript)

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Foris

Chomsky, N.  (1986a). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Structure. New York: Praeger.

Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Contreras, H. (1987). Small clauses in Spanish and English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5(2): 225–243.

Darzi, A. (1996). Word Order, NP Movement and Opacity Conditions in Persian. Ph. D Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.

Darzi, A. (2006). Small Clauses in Persian. J. Humanities.13 (1):13–30.

Den Dikken, M. (2006). The Syntax of Predication, Predicate    Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Den Dikken, M and Dékány, É.  (2021). On the Internal and  External Syntax of Depictive Secondary Predication. In: The International Workshop on Secondary Predication 2021, Tokyo.

Dowty, D. (1978). Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague Grammar, Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3): 393–426. 

Haegeman, L. (2006). Thinking Syntactically. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.

Harley, H, & Jung, H.k. (2015), In Support of the PHAVE Analysis of the Double Objec Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 46, 703–730t.

Hedberg, N., & Potter, D. (2010). Equative and predicational copulas in Thai. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 36 (1): 144-157.

Hoekstra, T. (1992). Small clause theory. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 7: 125–51.

Irimia, M. A. (2012). Secondary predicates. PhD Dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Karimi, S. (1999). “Is scrambling as strange as we think it is?”, MIT Linguistics Working Papers, 159-190.

Karimi, S. (2003). On object position, specificity and scrambling in Persian, In S. Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling (91-124), Blackwell Publishing.

Kawakami, M. (2018). Double Object Constructions Against the Small Clause Analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 45. 208-226.

Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.

Kim, J. (2013). On the existence of small clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics, 19: 67-88.

Larson, R. (1988). “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 335–391.

McNulty, E. M. (1988). The syntax of adjunct predicates. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Connecticut.

Napoli, D., J. (1987). Predication Theory: A Case Study for Indexing Theory, Cambridge: New York Cambridge University Press.

Postal, P. (1974). On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Potts, C., & Roeper, T. (2006). The narrowing acquisition path: from expressive small clauses todeclaratives, In L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles and E. Barton (eds.), The syntax of nonsententials: multi-disciplinary perspectives, (183–201), Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Progovac, L. (2015). Evolutionary Syntax. Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Rothstein, S. (1983). Syntactic forms of Predication. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.

Rothstein, S. (1995). Small clauses and copular constructions, In A. Cardinaletti and M. Teresa Guasti (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Small clauses.Vol.28. (27–48), San Diego: Academic Press.

Roy, I. (2013). Nonverbal predication: Copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saito, M. (1989). Constraint on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Schein, B. (1995). Small clauses and Predication, In A. Cardinaletti and M. Teresa Guasti (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Small clauses.Vol. (49-76), San Diego: Academic Press.

Stowell, T. (1981). Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts: MIT.

Stowell, T. (1983). Subjects across Categories. The Linguistic Review, 2: 285–312.

Williams, E. (1975). Small clauses in English. In J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4. (249-273), Academic Press.

Williams, E. S. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11: 203– 238.

Williams, E. S. (1983). Against Small Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry,   14(2): 287–308