Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2019

JENS FLEISCHHAUER
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf
MOZHGAN NEISANI
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf

Abstract

Persian makes extensive use of light verb constructions (LVCs) consisting of a non-verbal preverb and a semantically light verbal element. The current paper concentrates on LVCs with nominal preverbs (e.g. sedâ dâdan ‘produce a sound’, lit. ‘sound give’) which license an attributively used adjective intervening between the two components of the construction. Such LVCs are idiomatically combining expressions, in the sense of Nunberg, Sag & Wasow (1994: 496). The individual components of idiomatically combining expressions have an identifiable meaning and combine in a non-arbitrary way. Thus, they are conceived as being formed compositionally. Evidence for this view can be taken from the fact that the attributively used adjectives function as internal modifiers, targeting only the nominal component of the LVC.

As adjectives can also be used adverbially, two modification patterns emerge: The nominal preverb is modified by an attributive modifier, or the same adjective can be used as an adverbial modifier of the whole LVC. Two corresponding interpretation patterns arise: Attributive and adverbial modification either both result in the same, or in different interpretations.

The paper makes the following claims: First, only compositionally derived LVCs license attributive modification of their nominal preverb; and second, different interpretations of the two modification patterns only result if the light verb and the preverb each license a suitable property as a target for the modifier. If, on the other hand, such a property is only licensed by the preverb, adverbial and attributive modification result in the same interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

This work was supported by the Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 991 ‘The Structure of Representations in Language, Cognition, and Science’ financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). In addition, our research was funded by a grant from Heinrich-Heine University awarded to Jens Fleischhauer (Strategischer Forschungsfonds, F-2015/946-2). We would like to thank the audiences at the Event Semantics Workshop 2016 and CoSt 2016 – especially Thomas Gamerschlag, Sebastian Löbner, Albert Ortmann and Christopher Piñón – for their helpful comments and suggestions. We explicitly like to thank the anonymous reviewers of JL for their very valuable comments, which helped to improve the paper a lot.

References

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.3, 435483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Amberber, Mengistu, Baker, Brett & Harvey, Mark (eds.). 2010. Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. The diachrony of complex predicates. Diachronica 25.2, 161185.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences 23.4-5, 551578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2010. The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Amberber, Baker & Harvey(eds.), 4878.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2013. Control vs. complex predication: Identifying non-finite complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32.1, 165190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm. 2001. On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In Corver, Norbert & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Semilexical categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words, 323370. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Lahiri, Aditi. 2013. Diachronic pertinacity in light verbs. Lingua 135, 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tantos, Alexandros. 2004. Verbal semantics via petri nets. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, 123139. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1984. Composite predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 1997. Compound verbs in Persian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 27.2, 2559.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Vaneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.1, 123167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and selection. Dordrecht: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1981. Grist for the linguistics mill: Idioms and ‘extra’ adjectives. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 5168.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin & Hollebrandse, Bart. 1995. The lexical representation of light verb constructions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General section and parasession on historical issues in sociolinguistics/social issues in historical linguistics, 94104. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fabregas, Antonio & Marín, Rafael. 2012. The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages. Journal of Linguistics 48.1, 3570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Family, Neilou. 2006. Explorations of semantic space: The case of light verb constructions in Persian. Ph.D. dissertation, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales.Google Scholar
Family, Neilou. 2011. Verbal islands in Persian. Folia Linguistica 45.1, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2015. Activation of attributes in frames. In Pirrelli, Vito, Marzi, Claudia & Ferro, Marcello (eds.), Word Structure and word usage: Representations and processes in the mental Lexicon, 5862. http://ceur-ws.org.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2016a. Degree expressions at the syntax-semantics interface. In Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja & Osswald, Rainer (eds.), Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface, 209246. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2016b. Degree gradation of verbs. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2018. Graduierung nicht skalarer Verben. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 46.2, 221247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens, Gamerschlag, Thomas & Petersen, Wiebke. 2017. A frame-analysis of the interplay of grammar and cognition in emission verbs. In Hartmann, Stefan (ed.), Yearbook of the German cognitive linguistics association, vol. 5, 177194. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Harley, Heidi & Karimi, Simin. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115.10, 13651401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey & Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997a. Non-projecting nouns and the Ezâfe construction in Persian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15.4, 729788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997b. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102.2-3, 133167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57.2, 4774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2008. Markedness and bare nouns in Persian. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Stilo, Donald (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 85111. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila & Massam, Diane. 1994. Lexical/syntactic relations without projections. Linguistic Analysis 24.3-4, 175217.Google Scholar
Glatz, Daniel. 2006. Funktionsverbgefüge – semantische Doubletten von einfachen Verben oder mehr?In Proost, Kristel, Harras, Gisela & Glatz, Daniel (eds.), Domänen der lexikalisierung kommunikativer konzepte, 129178. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1996. Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 22, 132146. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Ostman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Mirjam (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 1743. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D703}$ -marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19.2, 205232.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 1997. Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2000. The reference of indefinites. In von Heusinger, Klaus & Egli, Urs (eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations, 247265. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Angelia & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 10251058. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Isoda, Michio. 1991. The light verb construction in Japanese. In Dobrin, L., Nichols, L. & Rodriguez, R. M. (eds.), The 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 261275.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part VI, morphology. Cogenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions: Râ in Persian. Linguistic Analysis 20.3-4, 139191.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology 3, 273318.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Stilo, Donald (eds.). 2007. Aspects of Iranian linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Karimi-Doostan, Gholamhossein. 2011. Separability of light verb constructions in Persian. Studia Linguistica 65.1, 7095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A grammar of contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, Cal./New York: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2012. Sub-compositionality. In Werning, Markus, Hinzen, Wolfram & Machery, Edouard (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality, 221241. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2014. Evidence for frames from natural language. In Gamerschlag, Thomas, Gerland, Doris, Osswald, Rainer & Petersen, Wiebke (eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy, 2368. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2012. The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.1, 179216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modarresi, Fereshteh. 2015. Bare nouns in Persian: Interpretation, grammar and prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Jan & Karimi, Simin. 1992. Light verbs are taking over: Complex predicates in Persian. In Nevis, J. A. & Samiian, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, vol. 5, 195212. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
Morzycki, Marcin. 2016. Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2010. Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics 46.2, 601655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolas, Tim. 1995. Semantics of idiom modification. In Everaert, Martin, van der Linden, Erik-Jan, Schenk, André & Schreuder, Rob (eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives, 233252. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3, 491538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 2002. Kategorien des Nomens. Schnittstellen und Ökonomie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2009. First phase syntax of Persian complex predicates: Argument structure and telicity. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 2.1, 5372.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara, ter Meulen, Alice & Wall, Robert E.. 1990. Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Paul, Daniel. 2008. The individuating function of the persian ‘indefinite suffix’. In Karimi, Samiian & Stilo(eds.), 309328. Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Potashnik, Joseph. 2012. Emission verbs. In Everaert, Martin, Marelj, Marijana & Siloni, Tal (eds.), The theta system, 251278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2000. Classifying single argument verbs. In Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin & Grimshaw, Jane (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 269304. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeedi, Zari. 2017. Nominal predication in Persian. In Nolan, Brian & Diedrichsen, Elke (eds.), Argument realization in complex predicates and complex events, 373412. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Baldwin, Timothy, Bond, Francis, Copestake, Ann & Flickinger, Dan. 2002. Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. In Gelbukh, Alexander (ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, 115. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. The Ezâfe as a head-marking inflectional affix: Evidence from Persian and Kurmanji Kurdish. In Karimi, Samiian & Stilo(eds.), 339361.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet & Faghiri, Pegah. 2014. Persian complex predicates: How compositional are they? Syntax-Semantics Interface 1.1, 4374.Google Scholar
Tabaian, Hessam. 1979. Persian compound verbs. Lingua 47.2-3, 189208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vahedi-Langrudi, Mohammad-Mehdi. 1996. The syntax, semantics and argument structure of complex predicates in modern Farsi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 1997. Semantics of nouns and nominal number. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 8, 136163.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Argument extension by lexical adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14.2, 95142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 24
Total number of PDF views: 172 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 14th January 2019 - 20th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-pdn9z Total loading time: 0.353 Render date: 2021-01-20T07:51:41.721Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *