Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||Word order, NP movements, and opacity conditions in Persian|
|Doctoral Committee Chair(s):||Yoon, Hye Suk James|
|Department / Program:||Linguistics|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
|Abstract:||This study investigates word order and NP-movement phenomena in Persian within the framework of Government and Binding as developed in Chomsky (1981, 1986b) and subsequent work.
I show that proposals for and against the underlying SOV order in Persian are not conclusive, though the SOV order seems to be more plausible. Other word order possibilities within the clause (short-distance scrambling) are shown to involve A-scrambling.
I also discuss movement of NPs into an immediately superordinate clause. I show that only in subject-to-subject raising, but not in putative instances of object-to-subject raising, an NP extracted from an embedded finite clause lands in the subject position of the matrix clause. Putative instances of object-to-subject raising and instances of S-S-R over an intervening subject with "seem" type matrix predicates are shown to involve A$\prime$-movement. Therefore, raising constructions in Persian violate the Tensed Sentence Condition, but not the Specified Subject Condition. If so, the two opacity conditions may not be formulated under one principle such as Principle A of Binding Theory.
Putative instances of subject-to-object and object-to-object raising (long-distance scrambling) with non-raising matrix predicates are shown to involve A-scrambling of an NP from a position adjoined to the embedded IP to the object position of the superordinate clause. The generalization that can be made with regard to the nature of the dependency between an NP moved to an immediately superordinate clause and its trace is that an NP A-moves to an immediately superordinate clause if the Specified Subject Condition is not violated, and if there is a Case available to the NP in its landing site.
The study of scrambling is important with regard to questions such as configurationality, and A/A$\prime$-movement typology. Browning & E. Karimi (1990) have proposed that in Persian scrambling involves A$\prime$-movement, and that anaphors may be bound from a Case-licensed position which may be either an A-position or an A$\prime$-position. I show that scrambling in Persian involves A-movement, and that we do not need to revise Principle A of Binding Theory.
Subject-to-subject raising in Persian seems to involve a chain with a nominative Case both on its tail and on its head, in violation of the Chain Condition (Chomsky 1981 & 1986a). The trace of the raised subject is not properly governed in its governing category, violating the ECP. I motivate an analysis according to which the raised subject uses an A-position in its clause as an escape hatch. The original trace of the raised subject is antecedent governed by the intermediate trace it leaves behind in its movement to the matrix clause. I also explain the lack of agreement between the raised subject and the matrix verb in this construction by proposing an analysis within the Minimalist Program according to which the formal features of the embedded clauses of raising predicates is responsible for the third person singular verbal morphology on the matrix verb.
|Rights Information:||Copyright 1996 Darzi, Ali|
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2011-05-07|
|Identifier in Online Catalog:||AAI9702496|