Search

Abstract:The structural and semantic relationship between the compound infinitive and the corresponding simple counterpart missing light verb is one of the topics of interest in the field of grammar and syntax of the Persian language. This issue is generally based on the assumption that the light verb in the corresponding pair is omitted. This article aims to investigate the syntactic structure of the two constructions so as to evaluate the assumption of the omission of the light verb. Furthermore, it seeks to determine and explain the derivation of the two structures and their probable distinctiveness or correspondence. To this end, the Distributed Morphology approach is employed as the theoretical and analytical approach. As the roots has no category at the beginning phase of the derivation, the dual or multiple behavior of the lexical units can be explained well. The findings suggest that the syntactic structure missing light verb cannot consider a derived form of the compound infinitive by losing the light verb, but the two constructions are completely different in terms of syntactic derivation. The compound infinitive has followed the steps of derivation according to the suggested pattern and acquires all the nominal-verbal characteristics. This is while the constructions lacking light verbs are actually nominal and of course without verbal characteristics. In this regard, we tried to explain the level of transparency and productivity of these two structures and how to take away the usage limitations through the context.Keywords: Compound Infinitive, Missing Light Verb Infinitive, Productivity, Transparency, Distributed Morphology IntroductionOne of the challenging issues in the domain of infinitive constructions concerns with compound infinitives, which typically possess a corresponding simple form that lacks a light verb. The problem is to determine and explain the derivation of the two structures and their probable distinctiveness or correspondence In this connection, despite the omission of the light verb, some scholars argue that simple constructions can be essentially regarded as equivalent to compound infinitive forms, (cf. Batani 1984: 107-108). Consequently, both constructions are deemed to be infinitives.Moreover, the determination of the infinitive category per se as well as its interrelation with other deverbal nominals remains a subject of disagreement among grammarians and linguists. The inherent duality of its nominal and verbal characteristics has led certain scholars to regard it as a noun (Natel Khanlari 1998; Hosseini 2002; Farshidvard 2003; Darzi 2005; Anvari and Ahmadi Givi 2013), while others classify it as a verb (Shariat 1985; Nobahar 1993; Mosffa Jahromi 2014). Simultaneously, others assert that the infinitive exhibits behaviors of both nominal and verbal categories (Shafaei 1984; Rezai 2016).According to Rasekh-Mahand (2014) the categorization of the infinitive cannot definitely ascribed to either noun or verb because it depends on discourse considerations. Consequently, attempts have failed to prove that the infinitive exclusively belongs to either category. Explaining the dual nature of infinitive behavior, Anoushe (2021: 731) posits that the root undergoes a merge operation with the null verbal head, followed by a subsequent merge with the nominal head in order to receive the infinitive affix.There is a huge body of literature examining the infinitives (e.g., to analyze), gerundive nominals (e.g., analyzing), and deverbal nouns (e.g., analysis) in various languages, including English. Chomsky (1970: 215) posits that the merge position of gerundive nominals and deverbal nouns differ; the former is generated within the lexicon, while the latter is generated within the syntax. According to Alexiadou (2005: 139-152), the affix “-ing” can be classified into two categories, namely nominal and aspectual, which diverge in terms of distribution and meaning. The nominal category is derived within the nominal domain, whereas the aspectual category is derived within the participial domain. Emonds (2022) suggests that English gerundive nominals occupy the DP (Determiner Phrase), with their subjects bearing the genitive case. Conversely, infinitives are construed as clauses that can feature an overt subject or PRO (a null pronominal). According to Rouveret (2023: 87), within the framework of Distributed Morphology, the suffix “-ing” in gerundive nominals that encompass argument structure is positioned in the head of vP (verb Phrase). As they assign case to their arguments, Rouveret refers to them as Acc-ing nouns. On the other hand, nominal gerunds lack argument structure and, consequently, do not possess a vP. Instead, they are merged in the head of nP (noun Phrase). Methodology and theoretical basisThe present study aims to investigate the characteristics of the compound infinitive and its simple counterpart in Persian, along with the syntactic structure of both forms. Additionally, it seeks to explore the relationship between the two forms and the assumption of light verb omission in the simple counterpart. Furthermore, by analyzing the syntactic structure and considering some behavioral differences, the study examines the transparency and productivity of compound infinitive constructions and their simple counterparts. It investigates how these two characteristics manifest and why the two constructions do not exhibit similar behavior in these regards.To achieve the aforementioned objectives, the research employs the Distributed Morphology framework (referred to as DM) and the model proposed by Sarkissian et al. (2024) for the Persian infinitive. DM serves as an effective framework due to its treatment of roots as category-less entities, enabling simultaneous explanation of both similarities and differences in the syntactic behavior of the two aforementioned constructions.Morphemes, as primary components, generate non-simple structures through syntactic merging. They can be classified into two types: functional morphemes and roots (Embick 2015). Roots acquire their category by merging with categorizer heads such as n (noun), v (verb), or a (adjective) (Embick & Noyer 2007; Embick 2015; Alexiadou 2016). Discussion and ConclusionsSarkissian et al. (2024) have proposed a hierarchy for Persian infinitive projections. Within the framework of DM, Persian infinitives merge with two categorizer heads, namely v (verb) and n (noun), which accounts for their dual characteristics. This claim is supported by the co-occurrence of adverbs as verbal dependents and adjectives as nominal dependents. The causative and negative forms of infinitives further confirm the existence of causative and negation projections. The presence of NegP (Negation Phrase) substantiates the presence of TP (Tense Phrase), as NegP is positioned above TP in Persian (cf. Darzi 2008). The possibility of Wh-words appearing in infinitive constructions provides evidence for the existence of CP (Complementizer Phrase), which in turn supports the presence of TP (Chomsky 2001; Chomsky 2004). Consequently, the projection hierarchy of Persian infinitives can be presented as follows: CP < (NegP) < TP < InfP < (CauseP) < vP < √P < nP The presence of an adverbial dependent accompanying infinitives provides evidence that the light verb cannot be omitted in compound infinitive constructions. Removing the light verb leads to structurally ill-formed results. This claim is further supported by the negative compound infinitives, which lose their negative interpretation when the light verbs are removed. Additionally, considering the two nominal characteristics of infinitives, namely their ability to take adjectival dependents and serve as complements of prepositional phrases, it becomes evident that constructions lacking light verbs are fundamentally nominal constructions rather than compound infinitives with missing light verbs.As a result, two distinct syntactic derivations are posited for the compound infinitive and the seemingly simple counterpart, thereby accounting for the disparities observed in the transparency and productivity of compound infinitives and their nominal counterparts. In accordance with this analysis, infinitives reside in the outer domain of the nominal categorizer head, rendering them transparent and productive, while the constraints imposed on their nominal counterpart stem from the derivation taking place within the inner domain of the nominal categorizer head.

Abstract Persian independent pronouns can be considered as the head of noun phrases) Shaghaghi, 2015). However, the head of the noun phrase with a prepositional phrase (preposition + pronominal clitic) can be occupied by a pronominal clitic. To deal with this dual behavior, we adopt distributed morphology, developed by Halle & Marantz (1993), to analyze the internal structure of dependent pronouns or pronominal clitics. This research draws upon descriptive-analytical method, and the data come from Persian language. In this paper, theoretical arguments as well as linguistic evidence will be employed to examine the hypotheses. We suggest that the so-called “pronominal clitics” are actually different elements with different semantic features and structural relationships. Finally, we argue that the (M) index, as a secondary product of morphological merger (Merger) between the two heads, is supposed to be the distinctive element of the dependent pronouns, not of the independent pronouns. Keywords: Clitics, Distributed Morphology, pronominal clitics, Object agreement, Morphological merger Introduction The present paper intends to examine the nature of Persian pronominal clitics or dependent personal pronouns within the framework of distributed morphology. Independent personal pronouns can appear at the head position of a noun phrase. However, it is not true for their clitic forms unless their host be a preposition phrase, wherein that the pronominal clitics can function as the head of the noun phrase. This points to the underlying distinctions between dependent personal pronouns. The present research is grounded upon the very behaviors of pronouns and intends to describe the content features and internal structure of the dependent pronouns. Materials and methods In the framework of generative grammar, the intuition of native speakers is an important criterion to judge the well-formedness of sentences. It is thus understood that research into different structures of a language can be based on the intuition of a competent native speaker of the language in question. The data for analysis were collected based on the intuition of one of the co-authors which were then reviewed and confirmed by other members of the research team. In the next step, data obtained were analyzed for descriptive goals related to clitics in Persian language and were then explained on the basis of Distributed morphology framework. Distributed morphology is a post syntactic framework developed by Halle and Marantz (1993). It assumes that there is no generative lexicon, and the formal features are solely restored in a basic storage. According to Marantz (1998), this non-generative storage (which Marantz calls “pure lexicon”) does not participate in the word formation process. In this theory, the other functions of the generative lexicon are now distributed along the syntactic, morphological and phonological components. In Marantz’s (1998) approach, the output of the computational system would be manipulated across the morphological component. In other words, the morphological operations that apply at the post-syntactic level can modify the structure mainly before the phonological component. Furthermore, Bobaljik (2008) argues that agreement features are assigned post-syntactically. In this descriptive analytic research, we mainly use this framework to investigate the nature of pronominal clitics in Persian Discussion of results and conclusion This paper is intended to analyze the internal structure and nature of morphemes known as pronominal clitics. These morphemes are attached to different hosts including nouns, prepositions and verbs. We are also aimed at finding out if they possess the same content feature. Considering this inquiry is significant from two perspectives: Firstly, the research in this area claims that one of the most important features that places the pronominal clitics in the category of Clitics is their ability to connect to different hosts. If the analysis shows that the content feature of these elements are different in structures with discrepant hosts, they can no longer be categorized as clitics. Secondly, the dual behavior and the morphological peculiarities that have been shown in combination of “base + pronominal clitic” indicate the underlying distinctions between dependent personal pronouns. Such questions lie at the bedrock of suggesting (M) index. It is assumed that this index, considered as a secondary product of morphological merger between two heads, is the distinguishing factor between dependent and independent forms of pronouns. To examine the explanatory efficiency of the (M) index, we investigated the performance of this index in the reflexive structures with local dislocation and some noun phrases. Finally, the current research investigated the structural position of the dependent pronouns attached to verbs and their structural relation to the agreement mechanism; In this part, we describe the content feature and internal structure of these pronouns. The important issue regarding these elements is that these pronominal systems really resemble affixation more than clitic systems. Within the framework of distributed morphology, it was found that the dependent personal pronouns attached to nouns, verbs, and prepositions are separate elements with different content features and internal structures. The dependent personal pronouns can also be placed first before other morphemes making thus pronouns closer to the stem. In fact, the findings of this research indicate that these pronominal systems do not really resemble clitic systems.

In Farsi, the clitic pronouns are often added to the stem as the last element, but in some structures, they can be immediately attached to their hosts. The ability to describe this dual behavior can be used as a criterion to check the effectiveness of different approaches. This research aims to find out if Distributed Morphology and its post-syntactic mechanism are needed to determine the position of different morphemes at the level of the word? Or it can be explained using lexicalist hypothesis? For this purpose, after introducing the theoretical background and previous researches, we analyze data from Farsi; the analyses shows that the assumptions of lexicalists cannot explain why the clitic pronoun (shon) has two positions in (xodeshoniha) and (xodihashon), but this phenomenon is not allowed in other structures. On the other hand, by analyzing the data in the framework of Distributed Morphology, it was found that only with the existence of post-syntactic operations such as local dislocation and considering the content feature of clitics and stems the dual behavior of the clitic pronouns can be explained.

Ergative construction (EC) as a subtle characteristic of Iranian languages and dialects has massively fostered a large body of research in the literature over previous decades. In this regard, the current study focuses on the morphotactics of the verb construction and the manner through which ergative alignment is formed in Targhy accent of Rajy dialect of which description and explanation of language behavior in the area in question have been entirely overlooked from distributed morphology (DM) viewpoint. Generally speaking, EC, according to Karimi’s (2012a) generalization, in all Iranian and dialects can be classified into two categories. In the first group including North Kurdish and Baluchi, there is an agreement relation between the direct object and the T head represented by a verbal agreement (VA) at the end of the verb. In his proposal, in the EC of the second class including Central Kurdish and Larestani, which based on the current article, Traghy is of their pattern as well, however, there is no agreement in that oblique pronominal clitics (PCLs), which enter as a big DP form in the syntactic derivation, function as interveners, blocking any conceivable agreement between T head and a direct object altogether. Plus, there exists a complementary distribution between Vas and oblique PCLs, Karimi (ibid) says. He asserts, without any agreement relation with T, oblique PCLs just double φ-features of the subject, and the PCLs function as a repair strategy in response to the loss of oblique (here ERG) case marker, whereas EC still exists dynamically. Nonetheless, this article, based on both empirical and theoretical evidence, argues that contra to Karimi’s (2012a) generalization it seems fair to suggest at least in EC of Targhy, which in turn bears the pattern of the second category, there is a genuinely fullfledged agreement in place, while agreement exponents, be it VAs or agreement clitics (ACLs) have no complementary distribution with their oblique PCL counterparts whatsoever.

The present descriptive-analytic article is aimed to study and compare the syntactic structure and linear order of Persian verbal inflectional categories within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993). First we suppose the syntactic hierarchical position of functional categories and clause syntactic structure of Persian to be what Taleghani (2008) proposes. Then based on the post syntactic operations such as, “lowering” and “local dislocation” and what Embick (2015) proposes for linearization of constituents within the framework of DM, syntactic and linear position of verbal compounds in present, past and future tenses are compared. Finally, any mismatches between the two structures are explained through the two post syntactic operations. Research findings showed that “negation morpheme”, compared to other morphemes, mismatches much more in the syntactic and linear structures and requires more explanations in post syntactic component. It is concluded that this morpheme at post-syntactic component, lowers and prefixes mostly to vp and in some cases to aspect and auxiliary morphemes.

Compound verbs are one of the most frequent types of verbs in Persian and have been the subject of many researches. This type of verb is actually a compound predicate that consists of a verbal component and one (or more) non-verbal component that, together, express a meaning. In this article, we provide a model for the structure of compound verbs in Persian based on the theory of Distributed Morphology. It becomes clear that in the structure of compound verbs, an abstract root is considered for each component. These roots have no syntactic category and phonetic essence and are only a chain of semantic features. At first, roots merge in their base position according to Minimalism Program and pass the known syntactic processes in the theory. After that, they undergo post-syntactic processes on the basis of Distributed Morphology. Finally, the syntactic nodes are prepared for the insertion of Vocabulary Items (VI). It is shown that the root related to the non-verbal component is merged in the head of the predicate group (PredP) and bears the main burden of predication in the sentence. This group is in sister position to the vP. The verbal component of the compound verb is merged into the head of vP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present descriptive-analytic article is aimed to study and compare the syntactic structure and linear order of Persian verbal inflectional categories within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993). First we suppose the syntactic hierarchical position of functional categories and clause syntactic structure of Persian to be what Taleghani (2008) proposes. Then based on the post syntactic operations such as, "lowering" and "local dislocation" and what Embick (2015) proposes for linearization of constituents within the framework of DM, syntactic and linear position of verbal compounds in present, past and future tenses are compared. Finally, any mismatches between the two structures are explained through the two post syntactic operations. Research findings showed that "negation morpheme", compared to other morphemes, mismatches much more in the syntactic and linear structures and requires more explanations in post syntactic component. It is concluded that this morpheme at post-syntactic component, lowers and prefixes mostly to vp and in some cases to aspect and auxiliary morphemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis study investigates the nature and structure of Persian incorporation within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) as a fully synthetic approach that considers morphology as syntax. In this approach, the Root selects for an argument, and then the Root must be merged with that argument or adjunct before it merges with its category-determining feature bundle. So Roots allow being incorporated into them. They are not yet included in any category. In order to become nominal or verbal, they have to incorporate further into a category-creating head. Some linguists (Arkan, 2006; Karimi, 1997; Shaghaghi, 2007; Spencer, 1991, 1995) considered the incorporation process as a morphological phenomenon because within the framework of Baker's synthetic theory, data from their understudied languages violates Baker's syntactic principles, but DM can describe incorporated constructions inconsistent with syntactic conditions of Baker’s synthetic theory. It seems that DM, unlike previous approaches, can solve some challenges, such as combining the syntactic function of incorporated construction of concrete structures (Gerdts, 1988), changing the syntactic function of the element derived from incorporation (Baker, 1988), and some restrictions on modifier stranding for merging with verbs (Baker, 1988, 1996). The analysis made in this article shows that syntactic approaches need to be reconsidered to explain incorporation.Keywords: Incorporation, Distributed Morphology, Compounding, Argument, Adjunct, Persian IntroductionIncorporation is a process that has received much attention in the last century, and from the beginning, there has been disagreement between its nature as a structural or syntactic phenomenon. Gerdts (1988, p. 84) defines incorporation as a combination of one word (typically a verb or preposition) with another element (usually a noun, pronoun, or adverb) that combines the syntactic function of both elements. The notion given in this definition that states a compound presents a "combined syntactic function" of the components of incorporation seems vague because the compound usually has a head and a descriptive element. The head determines the category of the whole compound. Therefore, the combination of two roots cannot mean the combination of two categories because there can only be one resulting category for the combination. Mithun (1984) takes the position that while incorporation is a process that walks the line of morphology and syntax, it is a morphological process only. This is the opposition to Baker and those prescribing to the Principles and Parameters framework, who claim that the morphology patterns after the syntax and that morphology does not operate independently of syntax (Baker, 1988, p. 68; Marantz, 1985, pp. 222-23). Baker (1996, pp. 291-295) claims that the noun incorporation that involves the primary object of the verb differs significantly from all other instances of incorporation such that it is a special syntactic process and the other cases of incorporation (adjective, adverb, etc.) are a kind of compounding.In the analyses conducted in the Persian language, no theoretical agreement has been reached on this process's nature. Since DM has a purely syntactic view of morphology and incorporation and considers morphology as the syntax, it seems that this theory, unlike previous non-lexicalist approaches, provides a uniform analysis of noun incorporation and be able to explain types of incorporation (adjectives, adverbs, etc.) in the form of a syntactic approach.According to DM, the structure of incorporation in the Persian language can be divided into different types based on the roots, the target of incorporation, and the elements generated as their first-sister element. Some roots (especially those that can become verbs) have argument structure, and the first-sister element, if appropriate, can be interpreted as satisfying that argument structure, generating argumentative synthetic incorporation. Other such roots, especially those with event structure, can be modified in the same way as their corresponding verb can. In such cases, an incorporated first-sister modifier results in a modification of synthetic incorporation. Materials and MethodsIn this research, as descriptive-analytical research, the references related to the article's subject have been first studied in a library method to collect the required information and data in Persian. Also, other information needed to analyze this data, such as the information needed to introduce the types of incorporation and literature review, in the same way, were collected by referring to resources available in libraries, such as Persian and English books and articles.The present study is a kind of theoretical study and conducted in the framework of DM theory. In other words, the analysis of linguistic data is based on a theoretical framework of DM. Discussion and ConclusionContrary to Baker's syntactic theory, DM theory provides a consistent analysis of incorporation based on which other incorporations can be explained, including adjunct incorporation. Also, the problem with the analysis of incorporation in lexical approaches is that incorporation is considered equivalent to one word and the morphology output in these approaches. In addition, a new entry per incorporation is added to the Lexicon of the language, which is a kind of memory load. On the other hand, incorporation is also a productive process based on which numerous entries can be considered, but there is no need to consider a separate entry for each incorporation by providing a syntactic analysis. Different types of incorporated structures can be described by the syntactic rule. Despite Baker's syntactic theory that claims the grammatical function of lexical categories changes with their head-to-head movement and merging with the verb, the DM approach claims that in the syntactic analysis of incorporated constructions, the grammatical function does not change because its category-determining feature bundle merges with the ROOTs after merging bare ROOTs with each other. This can be realized phonologically in the form of abstract morphemes without phonetic content in the phonetic form.In the study of incorporation in different languages, many linguists, according to Baker’s syntactic principle of "Head Movement Restriction", have not accepted the syntactic analysis of the incorporation because, in the studied languages, incorporated constructions consist of elements such as Instrument, Location, and Goal that merge with the verb and violate Baker's syntactic incorporation conditions. Some argue that incorporation is a morphological construction because they believe that the syntactic approach is incapable of explaining the various types of incorporation. While the DM view can explain the adjunct merging with the verb in Persian because, according to the event structure of some verbs, the adjuncts can be in the position of the first sister and under the domination of the verb. Therefore, it seems that the DM approach can solve some challenges, such as the compounding syntactic function of incorporated constructions, changing the grammatical function of these structures, and not allowing adjuncts to merge with the verb despite the existence of this type of incorporation in many languages.

This study investigates the nature and structure of Persian incorporation within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) as a fully synthetic approach that considers morphology as syntax. In this approach, the Root selects for an argument, and then the Root must be merged with that argument or adjunct before it merges with its category-determining feature bundle. So Roots allow being incorporated into them. They are not yet included in any category. In order to become nominal or verbal, they have to incorporate further into a category-creating head. Some linguists (Arkan, 2006; Karimi, 1997; Shaghaghi, 2007; Spencer, 1991, 1995) considered the incorporation process as a morphological phenomenon because within the framework of Baker's synthetic theory, data from their understudied languages violates Baker's syntactic principles, but DM can describe incorporated constructions inconsistent with syntactic conditions of Baker’s synthetic theory. It seems that DM, unlike previous approaches, can solve some challenges, such as combining the syntactic function of incorporated construction of concrete structures (Gerdts, 1988), changing the syntactic function of the element derived from incorporation (Baker, 1988), and some restrictions on modifier stranding for merging with verbs (Baker, 1988, 1996). The analysis made in this article shows that syntactic approaches need to be reconsidered to explain incorporation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last two decades, several approaches to the theory of word formation have emerged which are sometimes quite different in spirit. In contrast to the lexicalist approaches, the theory of Distributed Morphology claims that the complex structure of a word is created in the same way as is the complex structure of a phrase or sentence. Focusing on complex agentive adjectives, the present study argues that there is aparallel between syntactic structure of simple sentences and morphological structure of synthetic compounds in Persian. For this, first the structure of simple sentences will be briefly examined within the framework of Distributed Morphology, before returning to the derivation of compounds. Then, it will be argued that the same hierarchy of lexical and functional projections, including tense and aspect projections, can be found in the morphological structure of agentive adjectives. Finlly, based on the theoretical and empirical considerations provided in the previous sections, the traditional view on the word-formation of agentive adjectives will be totally rejected.On the basis of this analysis, pairs like “dars-xān” (educating) and “dars-xānde” (educated) are both agentive adjectives which just differ in the tense feature and the presence/absence ofAspect Projection, no matter whether the verbal stem is present or past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]