A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Impersonal Constructions

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 4, Volume 8, Issue 14, November 2016, Pages 77-109   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/lj.v8i14.39814

Authors

Rezvan Motavallian Naeini^* ; AliReza Parham

University of Isfahan

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The diversity of impersonal constructions and the different approaches used in studying them have caused different and sometimes contradictory positions about their classification and the explanation of grammatical and semantic roles of their components. This article reveals the necessity of studying them with a new approach which pursues a common basis covering all the possible sorts of impersonal constructions. In the present research the traditional approaches toward studying these constructions, i.e., functional and structural ones, have been conflated and have made a new method in handling the issue. This research deals with the constructions from a perspective that emphasizes subject and its properties. In doing so, first, based on Malchukov and Ogawa (2011), a series of features which is regarded as functional properties of subject prototype is selected (definiteness, topicality, agentivity, referentiality) from Keenan's (1976) viewpoint. Following the idea that any reduction in functional features is reflected in formal appearance of sentences and leads them toward impersonality, the research probes data from different languages and presents a new categorization of impersonal constructions in Persian cross-linguistically.
Keywords: Impersonal Constructions, cross-linguistic analysis, Functional Properties of Subject, Subject Prototype
2. Methodology
The present qualitative research has been carried out to unify different analyses of impersonal constructions in Persian and to give comprehensive accounts. Following Malchukov and Ogawa (2011), we have conflated communicative-functional and structural approaches. The data were collected from different books. Since we are native speakers of Persian language, we relied on our introspective judgments about the well-formedness of these extracted constructions.
3. Discussion
The term impersonal is ambiguous and controversial. From the functional perspective, impersonalization is defined in terms of agent defocusing, and from the structural view, impersonality is related to the lack of subject (or the lack of grammatical features of subject such as inflection of verb) (Malchukov & Siewierska, 2011, p. 2). Current studies of impersonal constructions in Persian are complex, heterogeneous and to some extent not comprehensive. On one hand, traditional classifications confine impersonality to the lack of agreement between subject and verb. On the other hand, the diversity of these classifications poses some complexity. To handle the diversity and to take the first step towards a comprehensive analysis of impersonal constructions in Persian, we pursue new view of impersonality and we follow the methodological point proposing that the study of impersonals should focus on both structural and functional perspectives.
The main question of this research is how we can associate functional and formal varieties of impersonal constructions. The hypothesis we adopt is that deviation from functional features of a prototypical subject is reflected in the formal structure of the sentence. In fact, following Givon (2005) and Malchukov and Ogawa(2011), we take Keenan’s definition of the basic subject and from his 30 linguistic properties including functional, semantic, coding, structural and behavioral properties, we focus on a few functional features applicable cross-linguistically (i.e., definiteness, topicality, agentivity, and referentiality) and study their relation with formal (coding) features in Persian impersonal constructions.
This paper is structured as follows: in section 2, we discuss contradictory views of different linguists about impersonal constructions in Persian. In section 3, we study two different functional and structural approaches to impersonal constructions. In section 4, taking both these approaches, we discuss cross-linguistic variation of impersonal constructions and overview its availability in Persian. Finally, section 5 summarizes the results of this article and gives a new classification from impersonal constructions in Persian.
4. Conclusions
In summary, regarding the relation between functional properties (a decrease in functional properties contributing to subject hood: agentivity, definiteness, etc.), and formal properties of impersonal constructions cross-linguistically, we can propose the new classification of impersonal constructions in Persian as follows:
1- Impersonal constructions with non-referential subjects or weather constructions
a. (Dummy) subjects of weather verbs (bad juri mibare) (It's raining cats and dogs.)
b. “Dummy verb” construction (aftab zade ast) (The sun has risen.)
c. Cognate construction (baran mibare) (It rains.)
d. Weather constructions with a semi-formal subject (i.e., lexical subject with a nominal meaning ‘world’, ‘weather’ or ‘sky’ or mythological subjects(khoda barane rahmatash ra bar ma mibarad)(God’s mercy is rained on us.)
2- Impersonal constructions with indefinite subjects
a. Use of zero pronouns through inflection of verbs (migan inja hame tahsil karde hastand) (they say all the people are educated here.)
b. Use of impersonal pronouns (ma montazerim yeki in moshkel ra hal kone) (We look forwardto somebody solving this problem.)
c. Use of special lexical subjects: man- impersonals (adam bavar nemikone) (no one believes it.)
d. Auxiliary impersonals(bayad gozasht va raft)(We must leave everything behind and go away)
3- Impersonal constructions with non-topical subjects
a. Expressive sentences (ma’lum ast ke anha inja budeand) (It is clear that they have been here.)
4- Impersonal constructions with inanimate subjects (agents)
a. Absence of agreement (in languages in which agreement is controlled by animatearguments(namehayi ke be etmam reside bud ersal shod)(The letters which had been finished were sent.)
5- Impersonal constructions with non-volitional subjects (agents) Experiencer-anticausative constructions or inaccusative languages (delam gereft, Ali bimar shod) (I feel down, Ali became sick.)

Keywords

Impersonal Constructions; Cross-linguistic analysis; Functional properties of subject; Subject prototype

References

انوری، ح. و احمدی گیوی، ح.(1370). دستور زبان فارسی 2. چاپ پنجم. تهران: انتشارات فاطمی

احمدی گیوی، ح. و انوری، ح. (1373). دستور زبان فارسی 1. انتشارات فاطمی. چاپ چهاردهم. تهران.

ارژنگ، غ. ر. (1374). دستور زبان فارسی امروز. نشر قطره. تهران.

باطنی، م. ر. (1370). توصیف ساختمان دستوری زبان فارسی. چاپ چهارم. تهران: امیرکبیر.

دبیر مقدم، م. (1367). ساختهای سببی در زبان فارسی.مجلۀ زبانشناسی. سال 5، شمارۀ 1، 31-46.

دبیرمقدم، م. (1369). پیرامون را در زبان فارسی. مجله‌ی زبان‌شناسی. سال هفتم. شماره‌ی اول. صص 81-92.

دبیرمقدم، م . (1376). فعل مرکب در زبان فارسی. مجله زبان‏شناسی. سال هفتم. شماره اول. صص2-44.

درزی، ع. (1385). ضرورت تمایز میان فرایند ارتقاء و مبتداسازی در زبان فارسی، دستور فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی. جلد دوم، صص 161- 187.

راسخ‏مهند، م. (1376). توصیف افعال مرکب پی‏بستی در زبان فارسی و شیوه‏ی ضبط آنها در فرهنگ‏ها. فرهنگ نویسی. ویژه‏نامه‏ی فرهنگستان. شماره 1. صص 236- 252.

شفایی، ا. (1363). مبانی علمی دستور زبان فارسی. انتشارات نوین. تهران.

صادقی، ع. ا. و ارژنگ،غ .ر. (1356). دستور سال دوم آموزش متوسطه‌ی عمومی، فرهنگ و ادب. تهران: وزارت آموزش و پرورش.

فخر روحانی، م. ر. (1380). ساخت‌های غیرشخصی با شواهدی از گویش مازندرانی. مجله فرهنگ، 37 و 38. صص307- 320.

فشندکی، ش. و حق‏بین، ف. (1389). زبان فارسی و ضمیر پوچ‏واژه‏ای. فصلنامه‏ی پژوهش‏های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی. دوره دوم. شماره 1. صص 101-87.

گلچین عارفی، م. (1390).بررسی ساخت‏های غیر شخصی در زبان فارسی. ویژه نامه‏ی فرهنگستان. شماره‏ی7. صص162-182.

ناتل خانلری، پ.(1377). تاریخ زبان فارسی. جلد دوم. چاپ ششم. انتشارات فردوس.

نجفیان، آ. واحدی لنگرودی، م. م. (1382). دسته‌بندی ساخت‌های غیرشخصی در زبان فارسی. مجله آموزش زبان و ادب فارسی. سال هفدهم. شمارهی 67. صص18-24.

واحدی لنگرودی، م. م. (1385). بررسی ساخت‌های غیرشخصی (قالبی) در چهار گونه‌ی زبانی. دستور. شماره‌ی 2. صص34- 70.

وحیدیان کامیار، ت. (1382). فعل‌های یک‌شناسه. نامه‌ی فرهنگستان. شماره‌ی 22. صص 29-37.

Askedal, J.O. (1986). On ergativity in modern Norwegian. Journal of Nordic Linguistics, 9, 25–45.

Barjasteh, D. (1983). Morphology, syntax and semantics of Persian compound verbs: A lexicalist approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana.

Bauer, B. (2000). Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Creissels, D. (2007). Impersonal and anti-impersonal constructions: A typological approach. MS, Lyon: University of. Lyon2

Dixon, R., Malcolm, W., & Aikhenvald,Y. A. (Eds.). (2000). changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eythorsson, T., & Johanna,B.(2005). Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language, 81(4), 824–881.

Faarlund, J.T. (1990). Syntactic change: Towards a theory of historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Foley, W.A.,Robert, D., & VanValin,R.D.. (1977). on the viability of the notion of ‘subject’ in universal grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 3, 293-320.

Gary, J. O., &Keenan,E. L. (1977). On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In. Cole, P &. Sadock, J (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations (pp. 83-120). New York: Academic Press.

Gast, V., & Florian, H. (2011). On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. In. Malchukov, A & Siewierska, A. (Eds.), Impersonal Constructions:A cross-linguistic perspective (127-166). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ghomeishi, J. (1996). Projection and Inflection: A study of Persian phrases structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.

Ghomeshi, J. (2001). Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46(1/2), 9-40.

Givon, T. (1994). The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In T. Givon (Ed.), Voice and inversion Typological Studies in Language 28], (pp. 3–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Givon, T. (2001). Syntax. A functional–typological introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polanski (Eds.), Causatives and transitivity (pp. 87–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hewitt, B.G. (1979). Abkhaz [Lingua Descriptive Series 2]. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Holmberg, A. (2010). The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I.Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist theory (pp. 200–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jensen, T.J. (2009). Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 41, 1–39.

Johnson, D.E. (1977). On Keenan’s definition of ‘subject of’. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 673-692.

Karimi, S. (1990). Obliquness, specificity: Persian “ra” revisited. Linguistic Analysis, 3-4,173-194.

Karimi, Y. (2013). Possessor raising and the structure of impersonal complex predicates in Persian. Lingua, 135, 112–135. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Keenan, E.L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of subject. InC. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 303–334). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Kittila, S. (2005). A typology of involuntary agent constructions. Word, 56(3), 381–419.

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lambrecht, K. (2000). When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language, 24(3), 611–682.

Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lazard, G. (1994). L’actant H: Sujet ou objet? [Actant H: Subject or Object] Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, 89, 1–28.

Lodrup, H. (1999). Linking and optimality in the Norwegian presentational focus construction. Journal of Nordic Linguistics, 22,205–230.

Malchukov, A. (2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constrainingaco-variation. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. deSwart (Eds.), Studies on case, valency and transitivity (pp. 329–359). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Malchukov, A., & Siewierska,A. (2011). Impersonal constructions:A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Malchukov, A., &Siewierska, A. (2011). Introduction. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Malchukov, A.,&Ogawa, A. (2011). Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. InA.Malchukov& A. Siewierska (Eds.),Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective(pp. 17–54). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Malchukov, A.L. (2008). Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua, 118,203–221.

Mettouchi, A.,&Mauro, T.(2011). Impersonal configurations and theticity. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.),Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, (pp. 307–322). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Platt, J. F. (1971). Grammatical form and grammatical meaning: Atagmemic view of Fillmore’sdeep structure concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Saltarelli, M. (1988). Basque. London: Croom Helm.

Sasse, H.J. (1987). The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25,511–580.

Sasse, H.J. (1995). ‘Theticity’ and VS order: A case study. Sprachtypologie und Univer- salienforschung, 48(1–2), 3–31.

Seefranz Montag, A. (1983). Syntaktische funktionen und wortstellungsveranderung [Syntactic functions and word position alteration]. Munich: Fink.

Shibatani, M. (1977). Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language, 53(4), 789-809.

Siewierska, A. (2008). Introduction, Impersonalization: An agent-based vs. a subject-based perspective.Transactions of the Philological Society, 106(2), 115–137.

Siewierska, A. (2011). Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.),Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 57–90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Lund, Sweden.

Thackthton, M. (1978). An introduction to Persian. Tehran: Sorush.

Tsunoda, T. (1981). Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 19,389–438.

Van Valin, R. D. (1977). Ergativity and the universality of subjects. Proceedings of the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, USA, 689-705.

Van Valin, R. D. (1981). Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language, 5(3), 361-394.

Vikner, S. (1995). Verb movement and expletive subjects in Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Watkins, L.J. (1984). A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Wichmann, S. (2008). Case relations in Tlapanec, a head-marking language. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 797–808). Oxford: Oxford University Press.