A Functional Reanalysis of Object Clitic Doubling in Persian

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 9, Volume 11, Issue 1, September 2019, Pages 227-259   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2019.28775

Author

Farhad Moezzipour^*

Shahrood University of Technology

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Nichols's (1986) typological parameterization of languages as head versus dependent marking opened a horizon in language typology and linguistic research. Dependent-marking languages are those which morphologically encode dependency between verb and its argument(s) by grammatical markings on the latter. In head-marking languages, on the other hand, the dependency is displayed via bound forms hosted by the verb. This parameterization is not categorical however, as some languages utilize both strategies to encode grammatical relations, which is referred to as double marking or locus. Persian exhibits head- and dependent-marking features at the clause level, situating itself then within the category of double-marking languages. In close connection with this, Persian allows the possibility of co-occurrence between a ra-marked direct object and a cross-referencing bound form, which is tentatively called clitic doubling. The study sought to argue that the co-occurrence of a ra-marked object and a co-referential clitic can be representative of two information-structurally distinct structures. One is referred to as clitic doubled-object construction and the other as left-dislocated object construction. Diachronically, it is assumed that the latter sets the stage for the appearance of the former, and the two constructions co-exist in modern Persian.

Theoretical Framework

Object clitics optionally appear on transitive verbs in Persian. This resurrects the classical controversy concerning the agreement versus argument status of bound forms on a par with their controlling reference phrases. Haspelmath (2013) presented four dominant views in the literature with reference to this issue: the virtual agreement view, the bound-argument view, the dual nature view, and the double-expression view. Under the virtual-agreement view, bound forms are uniformly considered purely as agreement markers even if their controllers are absent. This is normally taken in generative approaches under the rubric of “pro-drop” or “null subject”. Under the bound-argument view, bound forms are treated in any event as true arguments; no matter their controllers are present, in which case they hold an appositive/adjunct status to the verb. The presence or absence of controllers are the key solution to the agreement or argument status of bound forms in the dual-nature view. Eventually, the dual-expression view allows an argument to be expressed twice. In line with Haspelmath (2013), we regard bound forms to perform as pro-indexes, cross-indexes or gramm-indexes. Pro-indexing is defined in terms of the complementary distribution of bound forms with their corresponding RPs, such that they never occur within the same clause. This implies that a bound form can co-occur with its controlling RP within the same sentence, in which case the RP is a dislocated topic. Bound forms and their optional controlling reference phrases are authorized to be in the same clause under a cross-indexing view, leading to the consideration of reference phrases as co-nominals. Gramm-indexing is akin to what Siewierska (1999) terms as grammatical agreement, where the obligatory presence of a co-nominal to bind a gramm-index within the same clause is vital (e.g. -s in English).

Method

This study is a theory-based investigation that tackles the role of information structure in the formation of the clitic doubled-object and left-dislocated object construction. Hence, some random sentences and question-answer pairs are presented from colloquial Persian in order to fathom out how the topic-focus articulation of an utterance characterizes the information structure in the given constructions.   

Results and Discussion

It becomes clear that first, clitic doubling terminologically is a misnomer and can be representative of two distinct grammatical constructions, following Haspelmath's nomenclature. The pro-indexing construction is identified when the controlling reference phrase is outside the boundary of the clause, either within the same sentence or in the preceding discourse. The cross-indexing construction is recognizable when the controlling reference phrase/co-nominal and the clitic, indexing its feature bundles, are allowed to occur in the same clause. Second, the pro-indexing construction is topicality-motivated in the sense that, the controlling reference phrase needs to be a topic of the sentence/discourse. We maintain that pro-indexing is incompatible with the trifold focus taxonomy in Lambrecht (1994) and occurs only when the object referent constitutes part of the pragmatic presupposition. In contrast, the cross-indexing is a focus-driven operation and can be accounted for in the light of laying extra-emphasis an object with referential properties. Third, we argue that the cross-indexing construction historically evolves from the pro-indexing construction in the following fashion: a) The object referent as a dislocated nominal separate via hanging-topic constructions from the clause by an intonational pause whilst being pro-indexed by a co-referential clitic inside it; b) -Ra starts appearing on the dislocated object by analogy of its use with oblique and possessor roles, dating back to Middle Persian (Hopper & Traugott, 2003); c) The intonational pause disappears and the dislocated object incorporates into the clause, leading to the emergence of the cross-indexing construction. This explains why the pro-indexing and the cross-indexing constructions co-exist in modern Persian from a synchronic perspective.

Conclusion

We conclude that first, the simultaneity of the pro-indexing and cross-indexing construction confirms the reanalysis of the Persian -ra as an object marker. -Ra as a topic marker appeared initially on dislocated objects in the pro-indexing formats, which concomitantly paved the way for its companionship with clause-internal objects in cross-indexing formats. This is by no means new and cross-linguistically attested. Second, the birth of the cross-indexing construction out of the pro-indexing construction lends further credence to the emphatic nature of the former on the grounds that, the presence of a controlling reference phrase and its corresponding cross-index in the same clause is viewed as providing additional information helping to identify the referent in case the indications given by the cross-index and by the context are not sufficient (Siewierska, 1999; Creissel, 2001). Third, the co-existence of the pro-indexing and cross-indexing mediates the two opposing views in the literature. Some researchers favor object doubling (Rasekh Mahand, 2006) and some, on the contrary, defy it and support the view that those sentences which seem to contain instances of object doubling indeed represent what can be conveniently taken as object dislocation (Ghomeshi, 1997). 
 

Keywords

Clitic-Doubling; Left-Dislocation; Clitic; object; Clause; sentence

References

1. بهرامی، فاطمه و والی رضایی. (1393). ”تبیین دستوری نمایه‌سازی مفعول در زبان فارسی“، پژوهش‌های زبانی، س. 6، ش. 2(11)، صص. 1-18.

2. -----------، رضایی، والی و عادل رفیعی، (1392). ”معرفگی و نمایه سازی مفعول در زبان فارسی“، پژوهش‌های زبانی، س.4، ش. 2. صص. 2-19.

3. جهان‌پناه، سیمین‌دخت. (1380). ”ضمیر متصل ”-ش“ و ”داشتن“، دو گرایش تازه در فارسی گفتاری امروز تهران“، زبان‌شناسی، ش. 31، صص. 19-42.

4. دبیرمقدم، محمد، (1384). ”پیرامون «را» در زبان فارسی“، تجدید چاپ‌شده در دبیرمقدم، پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناختی فارسی، صص.83-146، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.

5. راسخ‌مهند، محمد. (1385). ”پی‌بست‌های ضمیری در زبان فارسی“، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ ادبیات دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، ش. 11-12، صص. 9-38.

6. ---------------. (1389). ”واژه‌بست‌های فارسی در کنار فعل“، پژو‌هش‌های زبان‌شناسی، ش. 2، صص. 75-85.

7. --------------. (1392). ”واژه‌بست‌ها به عنوان نشانۀ مطابقۀ فاعلی در فارسی“، مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش ملی واژه‌بست در زبان‌های ایرانی، به کوشش محمد راسخ‌مهند، انجمن زبان‌شناسی ایران، تهران: نشر نویسۀ پارسی، صص. 61-78.

8. گلچین‌عارفی، مائده، (1390). ”بررسی ساخت غیرشخصی در زبان فارسی“، دستور، ش. 7، صص. 162-182.

9. مزینانی، ابوالفضل، کرد زعفرانلو کامبوزیا، عالیه و ارسلان گلفام، (1392). ”پی‌بست‌های ضمیری فارسی میانه و ظهور ضمیرگذاری تکراری در این زبان“، مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش ملی واژه‌بست در زبان‌های ایرانی، به کوشش محمد راسخ‌مهند، انجمن زبان‌شناسی ایران، تهران: نشر نویسۀ پارسی، صص.99-122.

10. ------------- و شهلا شریفی، (1394). ”بررسی نظام واژه‌بستی ضمیری در زبان فارسی و علل تحوّل آن“، جستار‌های زبانی، ش. 4 (25)، صص. 275-305.

11. مفیدی، روح‌الله، (1386). ”تحوّل نظام واژه‌بستی در فارسی میانه و نو“، دستور، ش. 3، صص. 133-152.

12. Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text Representation Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 29-87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

13. Belloro, Valeria. 2015. To the Right of the Verb: An Investigation of Clitic Doubling and Right Dislocation in three Spanish Dialects. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

14. Boyce, Mary. 1964, Some middle Persian and parthian construction with governed pronouns". In Dr. J.M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay. 48-56.

15. Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63 (4), 741-782.

16. Brunner, Christopher. 1977. A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian Languages. Caravan.

17. Capone, Alessandro. 2003. Theories of presuppositions and presuppositional clitics. In Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, Peter Kühnlein, Hannes Rieser & Henk Zeevat (eds), 111–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

18. ---------------------------. 2013. The pragmatics of pronominal clitics and propositional attitudes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3): 459-485.

19. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Holland: Foris Publications.

20. Creissels, Denis. 2001. A typology of subject marker and object marker systems in African languages. Paper presented at International Symposium: Typology of African Languages, Koln, 21-24 May.

21. David, Oana. 2015. Clitic doubling and differential object marking. Constructions and Frames 7(1), 103–135.

22. Foley, W. 2007. A typology of information packaging in the clause. In Language Typology and Syntactic description, Timothy Shopen (ed), vol 1, 362-446. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23. Gabriel, Christoph & Rinke, Esther. 2010. Information packaging and the rise of clitic doubling in the history of Spanish. In Diachronic Studies on Information Structure Language Acquisition and Change, Gisella Ferraresi & Rosemarie Lühr (eds), 63-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

24. Ganjavi, Shadi. 2007. Direct Objects in Persian. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.

25. Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102 (2-3): 133-167.

26. Givon, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed), 149-188. New York: Academic Press.

27. Guentcheva, Zlatka. 2008. Object clitic doubling constructions and topicality in Bulgarian. In Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 203-223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

28. Gutierrez-Rexach, Javier. 1999. The formal semantics of clitic doubling. Journal of Semantics 16 (4), 315-380.

29. Haig, Geoffrey. 2018a. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics 56(4), 781–818.

30. ---------------------. 2018b. Grammaticalization and inflectionalization in Iranian. In Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 57-79. OUP.

31. ---------------------. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

32. Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Languages Across Boundaries, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 197-226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

33. Hill, Virginia & Tasmowski, Liliane. 2008. Romanian clitic doubling: A view from pragmatics-semantics and diachrony. In Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 135-163. Amsterdam: John benjamins.

34. Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.

35. Jügel, Thomas. 2016. Enclitic pronouns in Middle Persian and the placeholder construction. Journal of Language and Inscription 1(1), 41-63.

36. Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

37. Jügel, Thomas. 2009. Ergative Remnants in Sorani Kurdish. Orientalia Suecana 58, 142-158.

38. Jügel, Thomas & Samvelian, Pullet. (to appear). The evolution of verbal agreement in Iranian languages. In Proceedings of the First North American Conference in Iranian Linguistics, Stony Brook University.

39. Kallulli, Dalina. 2008. Clitic doubling, agreement and information structure: The case of Albanian. In Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages, Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 209-248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

40. Kallulli, Dalina. 2000. Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 209–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

41. Kazeminejad, Ghazaleh. 2014. Pronominal Complex Predicates in Colloquial Persian. MA Thesis, University of Kentucky.

42. Key, Gregory. 2008. Differential object marking in a Medieval Persian text. In Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds), 227-249. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

43. Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32 (2), 593-634.

44. Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 1-44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

45. Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. Dislocation. In Language Universals and Language Typology: An International Handbook, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Osterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1050-1078. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

46. -----------------------. 2000. When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 24 (3), 611-682.

47. -----------------------. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.

48. Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

49. --------------------. 1992. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Mazda Publisher.

50. --------------------. 1963. La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane. Paris: C. Klincksieck

51. Mahootian, Shahrzad & Gebhardt, Lewis, 2018. Revisiting the status of -eš in Persian. In Trends in Iranian and Persian Linguistics, Alireza Korangy & Corey Miller (eds), 263-276. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

52. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62 (1), 56-119.

53. Nikolaeva, Irene & Dalrymple, Mary. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. CUP.

54. Paul, Ludwig. 2013. A Grammar of Early Judaeo-Persian. Reichert Verlag

55. ----------------. 2008. Some remarks on the Persian suffix -ra as a general and historical linguistic issue. In Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds), 329-337. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

56. ------------------. 2003. Early Judaeo-Persian in a historical perspective: The case of the prepositions be, u, pa(d), and the suffix -ra. In Persian Origins: Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian, Ludwig Paul (ed), 177-194. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

57. Samvelian, Pollet & Tseng, Jesse. 2010. Persian object clitics and the syntax-morphology interface. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed), 212-232. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

58. Schick, Ivanka P. 2000. Clitic doubling constructions in Balkan-Slavic languages. In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages, Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 259-292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

59. Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: CUP.

60. ----------------------. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don't make it. Folia Linguistica 33 (1-2), 225-251.

61. van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. OUP.

62. Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP.

63. Vazquez Rozas, Victoria & Garcia Salido, Marcos. 2012. A discourse-based analysis of object clitic doubling in Spanish. In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New reflections, Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 271-298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.