Persian Language, a Language without Parasitic Gap

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 1, Volume 12, Issue 1 - Serial Number 22, January 2021, Pages 1-29   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2021.48456.0

Authors

SEYYED MAHDI SADATI NOOSHABADI^{* 1}; Mehdi Sabzevari²; Narjes Banou Sabouri³; Mazdak Anoushe⁴

¹PhD. Candidate for Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran

²Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran

³Associate Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e-Nour University, Tehran, Iran

⁴Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In this paper the parasitic gap in Persian language is explained by using the explanations provided by two proposed approaches in the Minimalist Programme namely as “Sideward Movement” and “Symmetric Merge”. In “Sideward Movement” the parasitic gap is considered as a NP which after valuing its uninterpretable feature in the adjunct clause, moves to the main clause to value its uninterpretable feature again and then moves to the specifier of the CP. This explanation is problematic since the uninterpretable features are checked and deleted after being valued. In the “Symmetric Merge” approach the parasitic gap is considered as a shared NP between the adjunct and main clauses by having the same case feature in two clauses. This approach cannot explain the parasitic gap in Persian language since in some example the moved NP has two different case features. After reviewing other examples from the old, middle, and new Persian languages and finding that the parasitic gap has particular characteristics such a grammaticality of the sentence even when we have pronoun in the situation of the real gap, it is concluded that the Persian language is a language without parasitic gap.

Keywords

Parasitic gap; Minimalist Programme; Sideward Movement; Symmetric Merge

References

1-     ابوالقاسمی، محسن (1389). تاریخ زبان فارسی، تهران: سمت.

2-     ارداویراف‏نامه (1382). فیلیپ ژینیو، ترجمه ژاله آموزگار، تهران: معین و انجمن ایران‌شناسی فرانسه.

3-     رضائی باغ بیدی، حسن (1388). تاریخ زبان‏های ایرانی. مرکز دایره‏المعارف بزرگ اسلامی: تهران.

4-     ساداتی نوش‌آبادی، سید مهدی؛ صبوری، نرجس بانو (1397). بررسی حرکت نحوی پرسش­واژه‏ها در فارسی میانه زردشتی بر اساس «اصل نگارش بند» (پژوهشی بر پایه دستور زایشی). جستارهای زبانی. ۱۳۹۷; ۹ (۶) :۶۹-۹۱.

5-     ساداتی نوش‌آبادی، سید مهدی؛ صبوری، نرجس بانو (الف1398). بررسی پدیده حرکت سازه‌های جمله بر اساس «نظریه کپی حرکت» و «اصل خطی شدگی» در زبان‌های فارسی باستان و فارسی میانه (پژوهشی بر پایه دستور زایشی). جستارهای زبانی .1398؛ 10 (2): 147-170.

6-     مینوی خرد (1379). ترجمه احمد تفضلی، تهران: توس.

7-     وزیدگی‏های زادسپرم (1385). ترجمه و تحقیق محمدتقی راشد محصل، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.

8-      Adger, David. (2003).Core Syntax, A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press

9-      An, Duk-Ho. (2007(. Syntax at the PF interface: Prosodic mapping, linear order, and deletion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs

10-   Bosˇkovic’, Zˇ. (1994). "D-structure, theta criterion, and movement into theta positions," Linguistic Analysis 24, 247–86.

11-   Bresnan, J. (1977)."Variables in the Theory of Transformations," in Culicover, P. W., Wasow and A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, 157-196.

12-   Browning, M. A. (1987). Null operator constructions, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge: USA.

13-   Chomsky, Noam. (1982).Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland.

14-   Chomsky, Noam. (1986b). Barriers. MIT Press: Massachusetts

15-   Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

16-   Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.

17-   Chomsky, Noam (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.

18-   Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A'-Dependencies (PhD thesis). MIT. Cambridge: USA.

19-   Citko, Barbara (2005). On the Nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 36, Number 4, Fall 2005, 475-496.

20-   Citko, Barbara (2011b). Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move, and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21-   Culicover, Peter W. (2001). Parasitic gaps: A history. In Parasitic Gaps, eds. P. Culicover and P. Postal, 3-68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

22-   Enç, Murvet (1991).The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1): 1-25.

23-   Engdahl, Elisabet (1983). Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6: 5-34

24-   Epstein, Samuel; M.Groat, Erich; Kawashima, Ruriko; and Kitahara, Hisatsugu (1998). A derivational approach to syntactic relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

25-   Gartner, Hans-Martin (1999). Phrase linking meets minimalist syntax. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed.by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D.Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 159–169.Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.

26-   Grosz, Patrick (2009). Movement and agreement in right-node raising constructions (unpublished manuscript) MIT. Cambridge: USA.

27-   Hageman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

28-   Hageman, L. (2006). Thinking Syntactically. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher

29-   Haık, Isabelle (1985). The syntax of operators (PhD Thesis).  MIT. Cambridge: USA.

30-   Hiraiwa, Ken (2005).  Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture (PhD Thesis).  MIT. Cambridge: USA.

31-   Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.

32-   Hornstein, N., J. Nunes, and K. K. Grohmann (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press

33-   Karimi, Simin. (1999b). A note on parasitic gaps and specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (4): 704-713.

34-   Karimi, Simin. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Mouton De Gruyter.

35-   Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 223-249.

36-   Kayne, R. (1994). The anti-symmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. Cambridge: MIT Press.

37-   Lasnik, Howard. (1995). Last Resort and Attract F. In Papers from the 6th Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid- America, vol. 1, ed. by Leslie Gabriele, Debra Hardison, and Robert Westmoreland, 62–81. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

38-   Munn, Alan. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures (PhD thesis). University of Maryland, College Park.

39-   Niinuma, Fumikazu (2010). Across-the-Board and Parasitic Gap Constructions in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 41, 161-169

40-   Nissenbaum, Jonathan. (2000). Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement (PhD thesis). MIT. Cambridge: USA.

41-   Nunes, Jairo (1995). The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program (PhD thesis). University of Maryland, College Park.

42-   Nunes, Jairo (2004). Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

43-   Nunes, Jairo; C. Zocca. (2005). "Morphological identity in ellipsis," Leiden Papers in Linguistics, 2.2, 29–42.

44-   Pesetsky, David (1982). Paths and categories (PhD thesis). MIT. Cambridge: USA.

45-   Postal, Paul (1993). Parasitic gaps and the across-the-board phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry, 24:735–754.

46-   Ross, J. R. (1967).Constraints on Variables in Syntax (PhD thesis). MIT. Cambridge: USA.

47-   Starke, Michal (2001). Move dissolves into Merge: A theory of locality (PhD thesis). University of Geneva.

48-   Taraldsen, T. (1981). “The Theoretical Implications of a Class of Marked Extraction”. In Belleti et al. eds. Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.

49-   Williams, Edwin (1990). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review, 6:265–279.

50-   Zhang, Niina (2004). Move is Remerge. Language and Linguistics, 5 (1).189-209.