Typological hierarchies and object omission in Persian

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 5, Volume 14, Issue 1 - Serial Number 26, April 2022, Pages 135-157   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2022.74853.1084

Authors

Faezeh Salimi¹; Vali Rezai^{* 2}; Mohammad Amouzadeh²

¹PhD student in Linguistics, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran

²Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Object omission construction is a valency-reduction process in which a transitive verb appears without its object and is used as an intransitive one. However, the addressee is able to understand the meaning of the objectless sentence. The considered type of object omission in this paper is context-independent, in which the reference of the omitted object is not mentioned in previous context and the context does not provide any clue to recover the deleted object. Among different factors which can affect object omission, in this research we attempt to determine the nature of the deleted object based on some important typological hierarchies such as animacy, referentiality, definiteness and number which can be used to determine the tendency of language in choosing the prototypical object in the sentence. It seems that an object is omissible when it has different features compared to the present object in the sentence. The findings prove this claim and reveal that the reference of the omitted object is located in the lower levels of the aforementioned typological hierarchies. Moreover, the findings indicate that an element such as 'number' which makes no difference in morpho-syntactic presentation of the direct object in the sentence has no effect on the possibility of object omission.

Keywords

language typology; typological hierarchies; object omission; transitivity alternation; valency-reduction

References

1. راسخ‌مهند. محمد(1396). نحو زبان فارسی: نگاهی نقشی-رده‌شناختی. تهران: نشر آگه.
2. رضایی، والی و فاطمه بهرامی. (1394). مبانی رده‌شناسی زبان. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
3. قیاسوند، مریم. (1398). تناوب‌ها و طبقات فعلی در فارسی. پایان‌نامه دکتری رشته زبان‌شناسی همگانی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا.
4. هوشمند، مژگان. (1393). تعدی در زبان فارسی: تحلیلی نقشی-رده‌شناختی. پایان نامه دکتری رشته زبان‌شناسی همگانی، دانشکده زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه اصفهان.
5. Aissen, J (2003), “Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(1): 435–483
6. Belloro, A. V (2007), Spanish Clitic Doubling: A Study of the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface, PhD thesis, University of New York at Buffalo, Department of Linguistics.
7. Comrie, B (1989), Language typology and linguistic universals. syntax and morphology, Oxford: Blackwell.
8. Cennamo, M (2017), “Object omission and the semantics of predicates in Italian in a comparative perspective”. In L. Hellan, A. Malchukov and M. Cennamo (Eds.), Introduction: Issues in contrastive valency studies (pp. 251-273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
9. Croft, W (2003), Typology and universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Dabir-Moghaddam, M (1992), “On postposition ra in Persian”, Iranian Journal of Linguistics. 7(1): 2-60.
11. Dixon, R. M. W. and A. Y Aikhenvald (2000), Changing valency: case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Enç, M (1991), “The semantics of specificity”, Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1): 1-25.
13. Fillmore, C. J (1986), “Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora”, Proceeding of twelfth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, PP: 95-107.
14. Glass, L (2020), “Verbs describing routines facilitate object omission in English”, Proceedings of the linguistic society of America, No. 5. PP: 44-58.
15. Goldberg, A (2001), “Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution”, Language Sciences, 23(4): 503-524.
16. Graf, E., A. Theakston, E. Lieven and M. Tomasello (2015), “Subject and object omission in children’s early transitive constructions: A discourse- pragmatic approach”, Applied Psycholinguistics, No. 36. PP: 701- 727.
17. Karimi, S (2003), “On scrambling in Persian”, In S. Karimi (ed.), word order and scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
18. Kemmer, S (1993), The Middle Voice. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
19. Key, G (2008), “Differential object marking in a Medieval Persian text”, In S. Karimi et. al. (eds.), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, PP: 227-248.
20. Kittila, S (2002), Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology, D. dissertation, university of Turku: Abo Akademis Tryckeri.
21. Liu, D (2008), “Intransitive or Object Deleting: Classifying English Verbs Used without an Object”, Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4): 289-313.
22. Luraghi, S (2004), “Null objects in Latin and Greek and the relevance of linguistic typology for language reconstruction”, Journal of Indo- European monograph series, No. 49. PP: 234- 256.
23. Nᴂss, A (2007), Prototypical transitivity, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
24. Paul, D (2008). “The individuation function of the Persian indefinite suffix”, In Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, Karimi et. al. (eds.). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 309-328.
25. Tsimpli, I. M. and D. Papadopoulou (2006), “Aspect and argument realization: A study on antecedentless null objects in Greek”, Lingua, 116(10): 1595- 1615.
26. Velasco, D. G. and C. P. Munoz (2002), “Understood objects in functional Grammar”, Working paper in functional grammar, 76(1): 1-24.
27. Weissenrieder, M (1995), “Indirect object doubling: saying things twice in Spanish”, Hispania ,78(1): 169-177.
28. Zyzik, E. C (2008), “Null objects in second language acquisition: Grammatical vs. performance models”, Second Language Research, No. 24. PP: 65-110