Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:21:40.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2014

OLIVIER BONAMI  and
POLLET SAMVELIAN
OLIVIER BONAMI*
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Sorbonne, Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle (CNRS & Université Paris Diderot)
POLLET SAMVELIAN*
Affiliation:
Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Mondes Iranien et Indien (CNRS, Inalco, EPHE & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle)
*
Authors' address: (Bonami)Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1, rue Victor Cousin, 75005 Paris, Franceolivier.bonami@paris-sorbonne.fr
Authors' address: (Samvelian)Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Institut de Linguistique et de Phonétique Générales et Appliquées, 19, rue des Bernardins, 75005 Paris, Francepollet.samvelian@univ-paris3.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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 constraint-based 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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 327 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Parts of the work reported here were presented at the 6th Décembrettes conference (Bordeaux, 2008), at the 16th HPSG conference (Göttingen, 2009), at the 3rd International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (Paris, 2009), and at the conference on the Typology of Periphrasis (Guildford, 2010). We thank the audience at these events for their questions, suggestions and helpful disagreement, and in particular Marina Chumakina, Grev Corbett, Nick Evans, Andrew Hippisley, Andrew Spencer, and Greg Stump. For reading through various versions of this manuscript and making many valuable suggestions we thank Farrell Ackerman, Bob Borsley, Agnès Lenepveu-Hotz, Stefan Müller, Gert Webelhuth, and two anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees. Many thanks are due to Ewa Jaworska for her remarkable support throughout the editing process. This work was funded by the ANR-DFG project PERGRAM [grant No. MU 2822/3-I] and benefited from interactions with other members of the project, most importantly Stefan Müller and Jesse Tseng.

References

REFERENCES

Abeillé, Anne, Bonami, Olivier, Godard, Danièle & Tseng, Jesse 2006. The syntax of French à and de: An HPSG analysis. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick (ed.), Dimensions of the syntax and semantics of prepositions, 147–162. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, Anne & Godard, Danièle. 2000. French word order and lexical weight. In Borsley, Robert D. (ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories (Syntax and Semantics 32), 325–360. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, Anne & Godard, Danièle. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 78, 404–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Stump, Gregory T.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In Sadler, Louisa & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Projecting morphology, 111–157. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Stump, Gregory T. & Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology. In Borsley, Robert D. & Börjars, Kersti (eds.), Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, 325–358. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory. 2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barjasteh, Darab. 1983. Morphology, syntax and semantics of Persian compound verbs: A lexical approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. To appear. Periphrasis as syntactic exponence. In Blevins, James P., Ackerman, Farrell & Stump, Gregory T. (eds.), Paradigms and periphrasis, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Crysmann, Berthold. 2013. Morphotactics in an information-based model of realisational morphology. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), HPSG 2013 Conference, 27–47. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Samvelian, Pollet. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. Presented at the Thirteenth International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Samvelian, Pollet. 2009. Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), HPSG 2009 Conference, 26–46. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Stump., Gregory T. To appear. Paradigm Function Morphology. In Spencer, Andrew (ed.), Handbook of morphology, 2nd edn.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Inflectional periphrasis as collocation. Presented at the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari, Sardinia.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Gert, Webelhuth. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Chumakina, & Corbett, (eds.), 141–167.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Nigel, Vincent & Chapman, Carol. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996, 155–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Rob, Malouf & Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse & van Noord, Gertjan. 1998. Word order constraints on verb clusters in German and Dutch. In Hinrichs, et al. (eds.), 43–72.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Marina, Chumakina, Corbett, Greville G., Gergana, Popova & Andrew, Spencer. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 22, 233–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marina, Chumakina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.). 2013. Periphrasis. Oxford: British Academy & Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Chan. 1998. Argument composition and long-distance scrambling in korean: An extension of the complex predicate hypothesis. In , Hinrichs et al. (eds.), 159–220.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83, 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. 2012. Establishing order in type-based realisational morphology. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), HPSG 2012 Conference, 123–143. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1982. Passive in Persian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12.1, 63–90.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1954. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. In Spencer, Robert F. (ed.), Method and perspective in anthropology: Papers in honor of Wilson D. Wallis, 192–220. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. [Reprinted in 1960, International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 178–194.]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. Periphrasis. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, vol. 1, 654–664. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard, Andreas, Kathol & Tsuneko, Nakazawa (eds.). 1998. Complex predicates in nonderivational syntax (Syntax and Semantics 30). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard & Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus & Pollard, Carl (eds.), German in HPSG, 11–37. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahani, Carina. 2000. Expressions of indirectivity in spoken Modern Persian. In Johanson, Lars & Utas, Bo (eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, 185–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1996. Case and specificity: Persian râ revisited. Linguistic Analysis 26, 74–194.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology 3, 273–318.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2008. Raising and control in Persian. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Stilo, Donald (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 177–208. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Karimi-Doostan, Gholamhossein. 1997. Light verb constructions in Persian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1963. La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1985. L'infé rentiel ou passé distancié en persan. Studia Iranica 14, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert, Yann, Richard, Rokhsareh, Hechmati & Pollet, Samvelian. 2006. Grammaire du persan contemporain. Tehran: IFRI and Farhang-e Moaser.Google Scholar
Lenepveu-Hotz, Agnès. 2010. Des verbes modaux persans et de l’évolution de leur construction entre xe et xvie siècles. Studia Iranica 39, 79–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip & Sag, Ivan A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 1999. A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Moyne, John Abel. 1974. The so-called passive in Persian. Foundations of Language 12, 249–67.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2010. Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics 46, 601–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications & The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Popova, Geri & Andrew, Spencer. 2013. Relatedness in periphrasis: a paradigm-based perspective. In Chumakina, & Corbett, (eds.), 191–225.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 111–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Arnold, Doug. 1994. Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics 30, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Booij, Gert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000, 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2006–2007. Le sujet, l'objet et l'inaccusativité dans les prédicats complexes nom-verbe en persan. Cahiers de linguistique de l'INALCO 6, 155–190.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A (phrasal) affix analysis of the persian ezafe. Journal of Linguistics 43, 605–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2012. Grammaire des prédicats complexes. les constructions nom-verbe. Paris: Lavoisier-Hermès.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet & Tseng, Jesse L.. 2010. Persian object clitics and the syntax–morphology interface. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), HPSG 2010 Conference, 212–232. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Inflecting clitics in generalized paradigm function morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio 4, 179–193.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Periphrasis. In Brown, Keith (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 287–294. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82, 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2013. Periphrasis in the Sanskrit verb system. In Chumakina, & Corbett, (eds.), 105–138.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. & Hippisley, Andrew. 2011. Valence sensitivity in Pamirian past-tense inflection: A realizational analysis. In Korn, Agnes, Haig, Geoffrey, Karimi, Simin & Samvelian, Pollet (eds.), Topics in Iranian linguistics, 103–116. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Riechert Verlag.Google Scholar
Taleghani, Azita H. 2008. Modality, aspect and negation in Persian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Jesse. 2002. Remarks on marking. In Van Eynde, Frank, Hellan, Lars & Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), HPSG 2001 Conference, 267–283. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tseng, Jesse L. 2003. Edge features and French liaison. In Kim, Jong-Bok & Wechsler, Stephen (eds.), HPSG 2002 Conference, 267–283. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Walther, Géraldine. 2013. De la canonicité en morphologie: perspective empirique, théorique et computationnelle. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1982. The verbal category of inference in Persian. In Momentum Georg Morgenstierne (Acta Iranica 21–22), vol. II, 263–287. Leiden: E. G. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar