On the (In)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition -rá in Persian

Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad

doi:10.1515/9783110881196.549

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Persian is an Iranian SOV language (Dabir-Moghaddam 1982, Karimi 2005 belonging to the Indo-Iranian subbranch of the eastern branch of the Indo-European language family. This language is classified as a "stress-accent" language along with English, German, Dutch, Greek, Italian, Spanish, European Portuguese, Lebanese Arabic, and Bininj Gun-wok (a Northern Australian language) by Jun (2005).…”

Section: Background On Persian: Stress Prosodic Structure and Nuclementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The negative marker ne-/nae-, the subjunctive/imperative prefix be-, and the durative prefix mi-attract the stress in verbs (nǽ-pors-id-aen "They didn"t ask"). Compound verbs, which consist of a nonverbal element and a verb combined to denote a single predicate (Dabir-Moghaddam 1997, Folli et al 2005, and Ghomeshi and Massam 1994, have their stress on the nonverbal element, as illustrated in (3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 The enclitic -ra marks an object noun phrase for specificity and is conversationally pronounced as ro (and mostly o after consonants). For different analyses of -ra see, e.g., Dabir-Moghaddam (1992), Ghomeshi (1997b), and Karimi (1996Karimi ( , 2003.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Intonation Patterns of Interrogatives in Persian

Sadat‐Tehrani¹

2011

Linguistic Discovery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Background On Persian: Stress Prosodic Structure and Nuclementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Intonation Patterns of Interrogatives in Persian

Sadat‐Tehrani¹

2011

Linguistic Discovery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…* ki-o fahmidi ke Ali ----dide ast? In these sentences (7)(8)(9)(10)(11) all the formal structures are the same; however the extraction of wh-phrase shows different degree of acceptability. Examples (8b-11b) have lower degree of acceptability and grammaticality than sentence (7).…”

Section: B Criticism Of Formal Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed Approach in Syntax: Evidence from Persian

Vaezi¹

2015

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper sheds new light on Persian Linguistics; meanwhile to criticize the traditional trends pushed theoretical linguistics formal approach) and applied linguistics (Functional approach 1 ) part; as well as welcome the evidence and opportunities that this mixed approach provide for bringing them together. This model of analysis will be known as a mixed model that can achieve more comprehensive responses for Persian diversities than considering each approach in isolation. They're both are vital for Persian syntactic analyses; they are complementary. Relying on each approach is misleading. The main objective is to support this claim by evidence from Persian Language. The Persian evidence shows the constraints and varieties in this language is not only originated from syntactic principles, but also they are greatly motivated by pragmatic considerations. Therefore the variety of syntactic structures such as wh-constructions, sluicing, ditransitive verbs and obligatory adjuncts can not be determined or stipulated by the absolute formal constraints. As an evidence the first group of constructions will be discussed.Index Terms-formal approach, functional approach, mixed approach, Persian language

show abstract

“…The proper analysis of rā is a contentious issue (see for instance Karimi 1990, Dabir-Moghaddam 1992, Ghomeshi 1997b, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2005, and the references they contain for a variety of different approaches). I expect that, with further investigation, the optionality that it displays in the above example will find an explanation.…”

Section: (35)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wh-movement and the syntax of sluicing

Toosarvandani¹

2008

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sluicing – the elliptical construction in which all of a constituent question goes missing except for the interrogative phrase – is commonly analyzed as involving movement of the interrogative phrase to Spec-CP followed by deletion of TP (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001). In this paper, I examine how well the movement-plus-deletion analysis extends to Farsi, a wh-in situ language that, surprisingly, has a sluicing construction nearly identical to its English counterpart. I argue that the interrogative phrase in Farsi sluicing escapes deletion not by wh-movement as in English but by a type of focus movement. This operation, which normally applies very generally and is optional, is restricted in sluicing contexts in two ways: (i) it is obligatory, and (ii) it only applies to interrogative phrases. I propose a formal implementation that integrates these two properties into the licensing requirement on deletion, advancing the current understanding of the syntax of sluicing.

show abstract

On the (In)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition -rá in Persian

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

The Intonation Patterns of Interrogatives in Persian

The Intonation Patterns of Interrogatives in Persian

Mixed Approach in Syntax: Evidence from Persian

Wh-movement and the syntax of sluicing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About