Document Type : Research

Authors

1 M.A. in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This study aims at the investigation of ellipsis in Persian coordinative constructions. Langacker (2012) speaks of ellipsis in cases where an expression that is not a clause itself, receives a clause-like interpretation by analogy to one that is. Most of the research on ellipsis in coordination regarding Persian have adopted a Generative Grammar approach. Generative linguists seemingly do not hold a unified opinion about ellipsis coordination or what they call  right node raising. Shabani (2013) has mentioned that constituency or non-constituency of the omitted part is a subject of controversy among different generative linguists. On the one hand, linguists, such as Postal (1974), Bresnan (1974), Williams (1990), and Larson (1990) claim that right node raising only works on the elements forming a constituent. On the other hand other linguists, including Abbott (1976), Wilder (1995), Duman (2003), Kluck (2007), Wyngaerd (2007), Ince (2009), and  Alzaidi (2010) argue that right node raising targets non-constituents as well as constituents, and this means that right node raising violates constituency condition.  Having this in mind, it seems that the fixed and rigid constituency defined by Generative Grammar has caused some challenges for this kind of constructions description. Hence, adopting Cognitive Grammar approach, which is meaning-based instead of syntax-oriented and investigates language with all aspects of it, has rendered new and different results.
Langacker (2009) argues that meaning includes not only conceptual content but also construal: our ability to conceive and portray the same situation in alternate ways. In order to have a uniform way of referring to (conceptual) content, the term domain (base) is adopted in cognitive grammar. One dimension of construal is the prominence conferred on conceptual elements, and one kind of prominence – profiling- is of central importance in coordination. This is how meaning plays a significant role in our analyses. Langacker (2012) introduces differential and anti-differential as the coordinands of an elliptic coordinative construction. He defines differential and anti-differential in the framework of a model named as Access and Activation Model. Based on this model, on a given time scale processing takes place in successive windows. A window provides the extensionality required for multiple entities to be represented and connected with one another. Canonically, the content subsumed in a window is thereby integrated to form a coherent structure organized around a single focus, or salient entity (Langacker, 2012). In the same work, Langacker refers to the windows coinciding with clauses as "clause-sized windows". Langacker (2012) employs Access and Activation model as an alternative metaphor for compositionality.  As he  puts it, the linguistic notion of composition is based on the metaphor of building something out of smaller pieces. While it is unavoidable, useful, and valid up to a point, the compositional metaphor has its limitations and is deleterious if pushed too far. In this alternative metaphorical model, a moving window of attention provides serial access to a complex conception. Portions of this target conception appear in the window at each processing stage until it is deemed to have been covered sufficiently for communicative purposes. Differential is defined as the content appearing in one clausal window that does not appear in the prior window. The anti-differential consists of any previously active content that the differential conflicts with and suppresses (Langacker, 2012). Based on Langacker's research carried out on English, it was expected for cognitive grammar to manage to describe ellipsis in Persian, considering differential and anti-differential as the coordinands of the coordinative constructions.

Keywords

  1. Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 639–642.
  2. Alzaidi, M. S. (2010). Gapping and right node raising: An LFG approach (Master thesis). University of Essex, Essex, England.
  3. Anvari, H., & Ahmadi-Givi, H. (2011). Persian grammar 2. Tehran: Fatemi.([in Persian)
  4. Azar, B. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar. New York: Pearson education.
  5. Bahrami-Khorshid, S. (2020). Cognitive grammar: Theoretical foundations, and application in Persian. Tehran: SAMT.(in Persian)
  6. Bresnan, J. W. (1974). The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure, Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 614-619.
  7. Duman, B. (2003). Right node raising & Turkish (Master thesis). Tilburg University, University, Netherlands.
  8. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  9. Ghaderi Najafabadi, S. (2016). Natural and accidental coordination in Persian. Comparative Linguistic Research, 6 (11), 19-33. (in Persian) https://doi.org/ 10.22084/rjhll.2016.1520
  10. Gharib, A., Homaee, J., Yasemi, R., Bahar, M., & Fourozanfar, B. (1987). Panj ostad Persian grammar. Tehran: Ashrafi. (in Persian)
  11. Hartmann, K. (2000). Right node raising and gapping: interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  12. Haspelmath, M. (2007). Coordination. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions (Vol 2. pp. 1-51). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Ince, A. (2009). Dimensions of ellipsis: Investigations in Turkish (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
  14. Kluck, M. (2007). The perspective of external remerge on right node raising. In N. Hilton, R. Arscott, K. Barden, A. Krishna, S. Shah, & M. Zellers (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth University of Cambridge postgraduate conference in language research (pp. 130-137). Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research (CILR).
  15. Kord Za'feranloo Kambozia, A., Sha’bani , M., Aghagolzadeh, F., & Golfam, A. (2010). Coordination and its determination in Persian. Adabpazhuhi, 4 (13), 131-156. (in Persian)
  16. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. CA: Stanford university press.
  17. Langacker, R. W. (2009). The conceptual basis of coordination. In R. W. Langacker (Ed.), Investigations in cognitive grammar (pp. 341-374). Berlin/Newyork: Mouton de Gruyter.
  18. Langacker, R. W. (2012). Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 555-599. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/cog-2012-0017 
  19. Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. New York: oxford university press.
  20. Larson, R. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 589-632.
  21. Madarshahyian, S. (2015). “Verb ellipsis” within the cognitive linguistics framework. Journal of Language Research, 10(16), 101-134. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2015.2092
  22. Meshkat Al-Dini, M. (1987). An Introduction to Persian Transformational Syntax. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University Press. (in Persian)
  23. Naghzguy-Kohan, M., & Ahmadkhani, J. (2015). Conjunctive coordination in Persian. Comparative Linguistic Research, 5 (10),  197-217. (in Persian)
  24. Natel-Khanlari, P. (1973). Persian grammar. Tehran: Bonyad Farhang Iran. (in Persian)
  25. Postal, P. (1974). On raising. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  26. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
  27. Rasekh-Mahand, M. (2011). A functional account of ellipsis in Persian co-ordinate sentences. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 3 (5), 35-45. (in Persian)
  28. Sha’bani, M. (2013). Right node raising in Persian. Adab Pazhouhi, 7 (24), 149-170. (in Persian).
  29. Swan, M. (1996). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford university press.
  30. Vahid, A. (2019). The analysis of coordination ellipsis in Persian In the framework of the parallel architecture of grammar (Doctoral dissertation) Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran (in Persian)
  31. Wilder, C. (1995). Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. Geneva Generative Papers, 2 23–61. https://doi.org/:10.1075/la.13.04wil
  32. Williams, E. (1987). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review, 6 (3), 265-279. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/tlir.1987.6.3.265
  33. Wyngaerd, G. van den. (2007). Gapping constituents: A revised version of 1998 version. Ms.FWO/KU Brussel, retrieved from <http://lirias.hubrussel. be/handle/123456789/2332.>
  34. Zhang, N. (2009). Coordination in syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.