Argument structure of di-transitive verbs in Hawrami Kurdish

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candiadate at University of Tehrān

2 (PhD), University of Tehrān

Abstract

The argument structure of di-transitive verbs in Iranian languages has been studied less than what it deserves. A lot of studies in this concern have been devoted to two kinds of constructions containing di-transitive verbs in English, called double object constructions and double complement constructions. Studies in other languages have compared them with those of English. However, in Hawrami Kurdish, there are two sorts of these verbs called main di-transitive verbs and subsidiary double object constructions. The aim of this paper was to investigate the argument structure of the main di-transitive verbs in Hawrami with due attention to determining their categorization, syntactic structure and semantic realization. These verbs were divided into two kinds of possessive transfer and location transfer and then they were described. A sample of both kinds of verbs was analyzed under theoretical framework of Minimalist Program (MP)/Distributed Morphology (DM). The results showed that the argument structure of both kinds of verbs becomes compatible with that of low ApplP structure proposed by Pylkkanen with some revisions. Furthermore, there are more similarities and some differences between the argument structure of these two kinds of verbs, regarding their categorization, syntactic structure and semantic realization.
 

Keywords

References

Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. University College London, London, UK.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Gram­matical Function Changing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barss, A. & Lasnik. 1986. A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects. Linguistic Inquiry )17(: 347-354.
Bresnan, J. & T, Nikitina. 2007. The gradience of the dative alternation. Available at http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ebresnan/bresnan-nikitina. To appear in Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, (ed.) by L. Uyechi & L. Hee Wee. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bruening, B. 2010. Double object Construction disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry, )41(: 287-305.
Cuervo, M. C. 2003. Datives at Large. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.
Den Dikken, M. 2006a. Phase extension: contours of the theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Ms. CUNY.
Fournier, D.H. 2010. La structure du prédicat verbal: une étude de la construction à double ob­jet en français, PhD Diss, University of Toronto.
Frank, R. 2007. Notes on phase extension. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (1): 49-64.
Georgala, E. 2012. Applicatives in their Structural and Thematic Function: A Minimalist Account of Multitransitivity. Doctorial Dissertation, Cornell University.
Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation )2(: 29–68.
ــــــــــــ. 2012. Semantics in Distributed Morphology, In Claudia Maienborn, P. Portner & K. Heusinger (eds.), Semantics: International Handbook of Meaning, Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter.
ــــــــــــــ. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of voice and v. Lingua 125 (12): 159-217.
ــــــــــــــ. 2014. On the identiy o roots: Theoretical Linguistics. 4 (3/4): 225-276.
Heim, I. & A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Genrative Grammar. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Hovav, R. & B, Levin. 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity, Journal of Linguistics )44(: 129-167.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. On Larson's treatment of the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry 21(3): 427-456.
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2008. Topic, focus and adverb placement in cluse structure. Nanzan Linguistics (4): 43-68.
Karimi, Y. 2015. Remarks on ergativity and phase theory.  Studia Linguistica, 2015 /a-n/a. Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015.
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb, In: J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 109–137.
Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry )19:( 335-391.
ــــــــــــــ. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry )21(: 589–632.
Lee, J. 2005. A-movementLocality in Applicative Construction. U Pcnn Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 11,1.
Maienborn, Claudia. 2011. Semantics: An international handbook of    natural language meaning; Volume 1. Chapter: Event Semantics, Publisher: Mouton de Gruyter, Editors: Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner, P:802-829
Marantz, A. 2013. Verbal Argument Structure: Events and Participants, Lingua, )130(:152-168.
Ndayiragije, J. 1999. Checking Economy. Linguistic Inquiry (30): 399-444.
Paul, W. & J. Whitman. 2010. Applicative structure and Mandarin ditransitives. Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations, 261-282.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pylkkanen, L. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Siddiqi, D. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Persian Language and Iranian Dialects
Volume 1, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
Serial 2
July 2017
Pages 67-91

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics