Document Type : Research
Author
PhD, Linguistics, Assistant Professor in Department of Linguistics, Faculty member in University of Qom, Iran
Abstract
Under the infinitive constructions in languages like English, the analysis of embedded control constructions, especially prior to the onset of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky & Lasnik, 1993), was typically confined to the study of a special group of English-type infinitival constructions whose subject position was occupied by PRO. Prior to this era, languages that lacked infinitive constructions, and/or alternatively used other constructions to host control and PRO, were considered marginal to the mainstream generative tradition of that era. These otherwise constructions posed challenging questions to the mainstream theory of non-finite control and PRO in infinitives.
Nonetheless, with the advent of Minimalism, other clause types, were put in the agenda. Generally, control construction with PRO could also appear in finite and/or subjunctive clauses (Kapetangianni 2010; Landau, 2004, 2013; Lee, 2009; Roussou, 2001; Spyropulous 2007; Terzi, 1993, 1997).
The aim of present study, however, is to classify Persian control constructions according to the type of embedded clause that can host. More specifically, the results of the current study shows that there are several types of control constructions in Persian: embedded finite subjunctives, with two variant forms in obligatory and non-obligatory control environments, embedded gerundive clauses, hosting both obligatory and non-obligatory environments, and a special group of impersonal constructions hosting only non-obligatory control constructions.
Methodologically, the current study follows the three approaches: a) the reintroduction of the already attested constructions, b) the introduction of new classifications based on the generalizations of the already attested constructions, and c) the probe into other types of embedded clauses that can host control constructions. In what follows, we try to follow the approach above.
A. Obligatory control into finite subjunctives
Similar to indicatives, these constructions appear with their full clausal specifications. Specifically, they have obligatory person and number endings on the verbal element within their TPs. The verbal element additionally receives a subjunctive mood clitic be- to its beginning. Moreover, the embedded clause appears as a CP headed by the complementizer ke. This is shown in (1) below.
(1) Rezai [PROi dus=dar-e] (ke) daneʃgah be-r-e.
Reza appealing =have-3Sg that university Sbj-go-3Sg
“Reza likes to go to the university.”
Therefore, these subjunctive control constructions are analogous to the infinitive control constructions found in other languages that have this mood distinction. This category of embedded clause-typing in control environments was classified based on the relevant literature on Persian control (Hashemipour, 1988, 1989; Ghomeshi, 2001; Karimi, 2005, 2008; Taleghani, 2008; Darzi, 2008; Pirooz, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016; Darzi & Motavallian, 2010; and Ilkhanipour, 2014).
B. Obligatory control into gerundives:
These gerundives are classified based on Darzi (2001) and a few other suggestions appearing marginally in under the category of subjunctive control including Ghomeshi, (2001), and Hashemipour (1989). The verbal element in these constructions undergoes the nominalization process, with the derivational ending -æn appearing to the end of the verbal element. These constructions are analogous to the gerundives in other languages like English, and can appear both in the object position and as prepositional object in (2) and (3) respectively.
(2) Rezai [PROi daneʃgah ræft-an-o] dust=dar-e.
Reza university go-Ger-Acc appealing have-3Sg
“Reza likes to go to a university.”
(3) Rezai [æz [PROi daneʃgah ræft-an]] bizar-e.
Reza from university go-Ger unappeal-be.3Sg
“Reza hates going to a university.”
C. Non-obligatory control into gerundives
This new category almost includes no previous literature. Located in the subject position of the matrix clause, these constructions appear as non-obligatory control with PRO having an arbitrary interpretation. Similar to (2) and (3) above, the verbal element in these embedded clauses obligatorily includes a nominalization ending -æn on the verbal element. The lack of this derivational ending renders the string as ungrammatical.
(4) [PROArb daneʃgah ræft-æn/ *ræft-] xub-e.
PROArb university go-Ger/ go-ø good be-3Sg
“It is good to go to the university.”
D. Non-obligatory control into subjunctives
This group of control constructions is the result of an analogy with the finite subjunctive. However, can the category of obligatory control in Persian subjunctives (i.e. the group A above) be extended to include non-obligatory control constructions in this language as well? The current study finds the answer positive. Therefore, this new category was introduced into Persian for the first time by this study. These constructions appear as a special type of subjunctive clauses in which the verbal paradigm of the embedded clause is restricted to second person singular or third person plural, respecting generic interpretation in both. However, the two verbal endings correspond to the two categories of generic interpretation, as found below:
a) a generic inclusive interpretation with “second person singular ending” on the verbal element,
b) a generic exclusive interpretation with “third person plural ending” on the verbal element.
These categories can be found in (5) and (6) respectively . Phonologically, as it is the case with control construction, the subject position of these embedded subjunctives should be null. Hence, an overt nominal element like to “you” in the subject position of these clauses may render the construction non-control.
(5) [PROArb / *to be-r-i daneʃgah] xub-e. (Including the speaker)
PROArb / you Sbj-go-2Sg university good-be.3Sg
“It’s good if you go /one goes to a university.”
(6) [PROArb / una be-r-æn daneʃgah] xub-e. (Excluding the speaker)
PROArb / they Sbj-go-3Pl university good-is
“It’s good if they/ people go to a university.”
These constructions appear only in the informal register of the language, analogous to the class of gerundive non-obligatory control.
E. Non-obligatory control into impersonal constructions
A special category of impersonal constructions, where the verbal element lacks personal endings, can also host non-obligatory control with an arbitrary interpretation of the PRO.
(7) Bayæd [PROArb daneʃgah ræft].
PROArb.ought university go-ø
“One ought to go to a university.”
These control constructions basically appear marginally in the literature on impersonal constructions in this language.
Keywords
Alboiu, G. (2004). Shared arguments in control. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 53-74.
Alboiu, G. (2007). Moving forward with Romanian backward control and raising. In W. D. Davies & S. Dubinsky (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising (pp. 187-211). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Iordachioaia, G., & Marchis, M. .(2012). In support of long distance agree.In A. Alexiadou, T. Kiss, & G. Müller (Eds.), Local modelling of non-local dependencies in syntax (pp. 85-109). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennenann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 506-5690. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Darzi, A. (2001). Nonfinite control in Persian. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 31(2), 21-31.
Darzi, Ali. (2008). On the vP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 39,103-115.
Darzi, Ali., & Motavallian, R. (2010). The minimal distance principle and obligatory control in Persian. Language Sciences, 32(4), 488-504 [In Persian].
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994). The syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Geber, D., & Tonciulescu, Keren C. (2007). Moody subjects in Romanian. Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Retrieved from < http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/Geber_Tonciulescu.pdf>
Ghomeshi, J. (2001). Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46, 9-40.
Hashemipour, P. (1988). Finite control in Modern Persian. In H. Borer (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics (pp. 115-128). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Hashemipour, M. (1989). Pronominalization and control in Modern Persian.(PhDdissertation). University of California, California, USA.
Hornstein, Norbert. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69-96.
Hornstein, N. (2003). On control. In R. Hendricks (Ed.), Minimalist syntax (pp. 6-81). New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing.
Ilkhanipour, N. (2014). On the CP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(2), 323-331.
Jordan, M. (2009). Loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian diachronic syntax. University of Florida, Florida, USA.
Kapetangianni, K. (2010). The minimalist syntax of control in Greek. (PhD dissertation). University of Michigan, Michigan, USA.
Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Karimi, S. (2008). Raising and control in Persian. In S. Karimi, D. Stilo, & V. Samiian (Eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics (pp. 177-208). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Krapova, I. (1998). Subjunctive complements, null subjects, and case checking in Bulgarian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 73-93.
Krapova, I. (2001). Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek. In M. L. Rivero and A. Ralli (Eds.), Comparative syntax of Balkan languages (pp. 105-126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Landau, I. (2001). Elements of control:Structure and meaning in infinitival consrtructions. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Landau, I. (2004). The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(4), 811-877.
Landau, I. (2013). Control in generative grammar: A companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, K. Y. (2009). Finite control in Korean (PhD dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa, USA.
Meshkatoddini, M. (2000). The stdy of PRO in Persian and some of its theoretical consequences. In M. Dabir Moghadam & E. Kazemi (Eds.), Procedings of the Fifth Conference of Linguistics (pp. 748-759). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press [In Persian].
Moinzadeh, A., & Jahromi, A. M. (2009) PRO in Persian:A possible construction. Journal of Linguistics and Khorasan Dialects, 1, 23-49 [In Persian].
Motavallian Naeini, R. (2011). Finiteness and the empty category in Persian OC constructions. Researches in Linguistics, 2 (3), 85-102 [In Persian].
Motavallian Naeini, R. (2015). Distribution of PRO in Persian OC Constructions. Language Related Research, 6(1), 253-280 [In Persian].
Najafian, A., & Vahedi-Langrudi, M. M. (2003). The classification of impersonal constructions in Persian. Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature. 67, 18-24 [In Persian].
Nematzadeh, S. (1994). An investigation in cognitive science and the Persian syntax processing (PhD dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Oshima, S. (2003). Subjunctives and subject obviation (Part I). Jornal of Inquiry and Research, 78, 1-21.
Oshima, S. (2004). Subjunctives and subject obviation (Part II). Journal of Inquiry and Research, 79, 1-19.
Philippaki-Warburton, I., & Catsimali, G. (1999). On control in Greek. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, & M. Stavrou(Eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax (pp. 153-168). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pirooz, M. (2008). Control constructions in Persian(PhD Dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Pirooz, M. (2010). Interpretive properties of PRO revisited. Journal of Linguistics and Khorasan Dialects, 3 (3), 57-93 [In Persian].
Pirooz, M. (2011). Finite control in Persian. In K. Agnes, G. Haig, S. Karimi, & P. Samvellian, (Eds.), Topics in Iranian Linguistics (pp. 183-196). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag,.
Pirooz, M. (2016). The Case of PRO in Persian. Journal of Language Research, 8 (18), 23-59 [In Persian].
Potsdam, E., & Maria P. (2007). Missing complement clause subjects in Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics, 46, 277-303.
Roussou, A. (2009). In the mood for control. Lingua, 119(12), 1811-1836.
Sevdali, Ch. (2009). Control into CPs: when finiteness doesn't matter. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 57, 251-266.
Sevdali, Christina. (2013). Ancient Greek infinitives and phases. Syntax, 14, 324-361.
Spyropoulos, Vassilios. (2007). Finiteness and control in Greek. In W. Davies & S. Dubinsky (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising (pp.159-183). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Taleghani, A. (2005). Is PROarb the same as pro? Evidence from Persian impersonal constructions. In A. Siddiqi & B. V. Tucker(Eds.), Coyote papers: Working papers in linguistics, Linguistic theory at the University of Arizona (Vol. 14, pp. 144-159). Arizona: University of Arizona Linguistics Circle
Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, aspect and negation in Persian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Terzi, A. (1991). PRO and obviation in Modern Greek subjunctives. In D. Bates (Ed.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 10. pp. 471-482). Standford: CSLI Publications.
Terzi, A. (1992). PRO in finite clauses: A study of the inflectional heads of the Balkan languages(Ph.D. dissertation) City University of New York, New York, USA.
Terzi, A. (1997). PRO and null case in finite clauses. Linguistic Review, 14, 335-360
', './data/jlr/coversheet/141619508803.jpg'))