Topics in Persian VPs

Ghomeshi, Jila

doi:10.1016/s0024-3841(97)00005-3

Cited by 56 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Karimi (2003) suggests two distinct underlying object positions: the nonspecific object is base-generated as a sister to the verb, and the specific one in the Spec of VP. The structure in (5) differs from that proposal in that the specific object and its nonspecific counterpart are both base generated in the same position (as in the analysis of Browning and Karimi, 1994;Ghomeshi, 1997b). The two proposals have one important property in common: the specific object receives its interpretation in its surface position, that is in a position preceding the indirect object.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates

Folli

Harley

Karimi

2005

Lingua

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we analyse the interdependence of Persian nonverbal (NV) elements and the light verb (LV) in determining the syntactic properties, the event structure, and the alternation possibilities of the entire complex predicate (CP). We argue that these properties provide strong evidence for a constructionalist approach to such phenomena, like that of Keyser (1993, 2002), and that the combination of compositionality and syntactic independence effects observed in these constructions, are difficult, if not impossible, to deal with in a projectionist approach. #

show abstract

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates

Folli

Harley

Karimi

2005

Lingua

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the clitic is most often realized as an enclitic to Third, objects, but not subjects, may carry the clitic =râ. The distribution of =râ is quite complex, and it may appear on non-object constituents, but it never attaches to a subject (Karimi 1996, Ghomeshi 1997, Samvelian 2006. When attached to an object, it marks it as definite/specific.…”

Section: Grammatical Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian

Bonami

Samvelian

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern Persian conjugation makes use of five periphrastic constructions with typologically divergent properties. This makes the Persian conjugation system an ideal testing ground for theories of inflectional periphrasis, since different types of periphrasis can be compared within the frame of a single grammatical system. We present contrasting analyses of the five constructions within the general framework of a lexicalist constraintbased grammatical architecture (Pollard & Sag 1994) embedding an inferential and realizational view of inflectional morphology (Stump 2001). We argue that the perfect periphrase can only be accounted for by assuming that the periphrase literally fills a cell in the inflectional paradigm, and provide a formal account drawing on using valence for exponence. On the other hand, other periphrastic constructions are best handled by using standard tools of either morphology or syntax. The overall conclusion is that not all constructions that qualify as periphrastic inflection from the point of view of typology should receive the same type of analysis in an explicit formal grammar.

show abstract

“…A kind-level noun (Karimi 2005) is unspecified for number, and nonreferential (also called categorial (Göksel & Kerslake 2005) 2 Marking of indefinites is claimed to be based on the specificity of the object (Enç 1991for Turkish, Karimi 2005 for Persian). However, not all authors are in agreement on this, nor indeed on the proper characterization of 'specificity' (see Ghomeshi 1997, von Heusinger & Kornfilt 2005. Given the difficulty of characterizing specificity independently in either language, I will not address it in the present cross-linguistic study.…”

Section: The Turko-persian Pattern Of Differential Object Marking (Dom)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Object Marking in Turkic and Persian as a Contact Phenomenon

Key¹

2012

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Despite the absence of genetic affiliation, Turkish (SW Turkic) and Persian (SW Iranian) have nearly identical differential object marking patterns. Herein it is proposed that this is due in part to contact between Persian and Azerbaijanian, which is closely related to Turkish, and that Iranian Azerbaijan is an isogloss for this feature. The tableau of evidence is a large puzzle only a few pieces of which have been filled in. In this work, I present several of those pieces. Part 1 contains synchronic evidence of object marking patterns in various languages both inside and outside the proposed isogloss, while Part 2 contains the result of a study comparing object marking in Old Anatolian Turkish and Classical Persian manuscripts.</p>

show abstract

Topics in Persian VPs

Cited by 56 publications

References 7 publications

Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates

Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates

The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian

Differential Object Marking in Turkic and Persian as a Contact Phenomenon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About