The so-called non-canonical subject construction

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Shahrood University of Technology

Abstract

This paper investigates the so-called non-canonical subject construction where an experiencer non-canonically agrees with the verb via a clitic hosted by the pre-verbal element. A recurring theme in the literature is that the overt experiencer is a detached topic resulting from the left-dislocation of the state NP possessor. However, coached within an RRG framework, this paper explains that the overt experiencer is not a detached topic, but an internal argument for the psychological predicate. The overt experiencer, being an argument, is free to serve as the topic or focus depending on the context. It is further argued that the overt experiencer is not a subject in line with the characterization of syntactic relations in RRG because undergoer is the only macrorole the overt experiencer takes on. Historical evidence substantiates the claim that no underlyingly genitive association is traceable between the state NP and the clitic surfacing as experiencer.

Keywords

References

-  دبیرمقدم، محمد (1384). پیرامون «را» در زبان فارسی، تجدید چاپ‌شده در دبیرمقدم، پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی فارسی، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، 146-83.
-  راسخ­مهند، محمد (1392). «واژه‌بست‌ها به‌عنوان نشانۀ مطابقۀ فاعلی در فارسی»، مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش ملی واژه‌بست در زبان‌های ایرانی، به کوشش محمد راسخ‌مهند. تهران: نشر نویسۀ پارسی، 61-78.
-  گلچین‌عارفی، مائده (1390). «بررسی ساخت غیرشخصی در زبان فارسی»، دستور، شمارۀ 7: 162-182.
-  ناتل خانری، پرویز (1365). تاریخ زبان فارسی، جلد دوم، تهران: نشر نو.
-  ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1372). دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی. تهران: انتشارات توس.
-  واحدی لنگرودی، محمد­­مهدی (1385). «بررسی ساخت­های غیرشخصی (قالبی) در چهار گونۀ زبانی»، دستور، شمارۀ 1: 70-34.
-  Barjasteh, Darab (1983). Morphology, syntax and semantics of Persian compound verbs: a lexicalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
-  Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad (1995). “Compound verbs in Persian”, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences,27 (2): 25-59.
-  Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad (2018). Non-Canonical Subject Construction in Endangered Iranian Languages: Further Investigation into the Debates on the Genesis of Ergativity. In Endangered Iranian Languages, S. Gholami (ed), 9-40.
-  Dowty, David (1976). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Springer.
-  Fleischhauer, Jens & Neisani, Mozhgan (2019). “Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions”, Journal of Linguistics, 56 (1): 45-85.
-  Foley, Willam; Van Valin, Robert (1977). “On the viability of the notion of subject in universal grammar”, BLS, 3: 292-320.
-  Foley, William; Van Valin, Robert (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.
-  Ghomeshi, Jila (1996). Projection and inflection: a study of Persian phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.
-  Ghomeshi, Jila (2018). Other approaches to syntax. In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, A. Sedighi & P. Shabani-Jadidi (eds), 205-225.
-  Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa & Huumo, Tuomas (2015). Canonical and Non-canonical Subjects in Constructions: Perspectives from cognition and discourse In Subjects in Constructions – Canonical and Non-Canonical, M. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (eds), 1-12. 
-  Jügel, Thomas. & Samvelian, Pollet (2020). Topic agreement, experiencer constructions, and the weight of clitics. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics, R. Larson, S. Moradi & V. Samiian (eds), 137-153.
-  Karimi, Simin (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Karimi, Yadegar (2013). “Possessor raising and the structure of impersonal complex predicates in Persian”, Lingua, 135 (1): 112-131.
-  Kazeminejad, Ghazaleh (2014). Pronominal complex predicates in Colloquial Persian. MA thesis, University of Kentucky.
-  Keenan, Edward (1976). Towards a universal definition of "subject". In Subject and Topic. Ch. Li (ed), 303–333.
-  Klaiman, Miriam (1988). Affectedness and control: a typology of voice systems. In Passive and Voice, M. Shibatani (ed), 25-84.
-  Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.
-  Lambrecht, Kund (2000). “When subjects behave like objects”, Studies in Language, 24 (3): 611-682.
-  Samvelian, Pollet (2018). Specific features of Persian syntax: The Ezafe construction, differential object marking, and complex predicates. In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, A. Sedighi & P. Shabani-Jadidi (eds), 226-273.
-  Sedighi, Anoush (2001). Quirky subjects: do they exist in Persian? MA thesis, University of Ottawa.
-  Sedighi, Anousha (2010). Agreement Restrictions in Persian. Leiden University Press.
-  Van Valin, Robert (1993). A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, R. Van Valin (ed), 1-164.
-  Van Valin, Robert D (2000). Functional linguistics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, M. Aronoff & J. Ress‐Miller (eds), 319-336.
-  Van Valin, Robert. & LaPolla, Randy. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP.
-  Van Valin, Robert (1977). “Ergativity and the universality of subjects”, CLS, 13: 689-706.
-  Van Valin, Robert (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.
-  Vendler, Zeno (1967). Linguistics and philosophy. Cornell University Press.
-  Windfuhr, Gernot (1979). Persian Grammar: History and State of Its Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics