The Structure of Gilaki Verb Phrase on the Basis of VP Internal Subject Hypothesis

The present paper aims to support the VP-internal subject hypothesis in the Gilaki language within a minimalist perspective. The data of this qualitative research has been collected from different sources including the authors’ linguistic intuition and spoken and written texts. It is worth nothing that the variety of Gilaki selected and explored in this research is spoken in the center and west of the Guilan province. However, the findings can be generalized to all other varieties of Gilaki.  We provided pieces of evidence from floating quantifiers, coordinate structure constraint, idiom chunks and raising in order to specify the base-position of the external argument (argument), and showed that the Gilaki data verify the VP-internal subject hypothesis. In fact, We argued that subject is base generated in [Spec,VP], and then move to [Spec,IP] to satisfy the Extended Projection Principle [EPP]. In other words, all arguments of the verbs including subject are base generated within VP, and the surface position of the subject [Spec,IP] hosts a derived subject.
 
 
1. Introduction
Koopman and Sportiche (1991) were the first who proposed the Predicate-Internal Subject Hypothesis (henceforth PISH). Under this hypothesis, the subject is base generated in the specifier of the verb phrase (VP), and then it moves into the specifier position of the inflectional phrase (IP). Therefore, the subject in the specifier position of the inflectional phrase is in fact a derived subject. Since the inflectional head, in some languages, has a strong D/N-feature, subject must then move to [Spec,IP] before Spell-Out. In this regard, this research aims to explore PISH in the Gilaki language. We will provide evidence to argue that this hypothesis can be generalized to Gilaki too.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
This study has been carried out within the framework of The Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001). We will provide evidence such as floating quantifiers, coordinate structure constraint, idiom chunks and raising developed in Hornstein, Nunes and Grohmann (2005) to argue that the Gilaki data are compatible with the basic idea behind PISH.
 
3. Methodology
This study is regarded as a qualitative research carried out within the framework of The Minimalist Program. The data were collected using the authors’ linguistic intuition as well as spoken and written sources. It is worth noting that the variety of Gilaki is often regarded as a language having its own dialects which are phonologically, morphologically, and grammatically different from one another in some respects. The variety of Gilaki described and analyzed in this research is spoken in the center and west of Guilan province. However, it seems that the findings can be generalized to all other varieties of Gilaki.
 
4. Results & Discussion
The floating quantifiers suggest that in the Gilaki language a quantifier and a determiner phrase (DP) make up a syntactic constituent at some point in the derivation. In sentences containing floating quantifier, the DP may move out of the specifier position of VP and leave the quantifier stranded. This means that the subject has been base-generated within the VP. Under the Coordinate Structure Constraint, one cannot extract out of a single conjunct. Given this constraint, we showed that when an active and a passive verb phrase are coordinated, the subject of the first conjunct is base generated in [Spec,VP], and the subject in the second conjunct moves out of a post verbal position to the specifier of VP. Then the subjects of the two conjuncts occupying the specifier of the active verb phrase (first conjunct) and passive verb phrase (second conjunct) move to the specifier of a higher IP via ATB movement. In fact, this constraint can contribute to determining the underlying position of the subject ([Spec,VP]) in Gilaki. The idioms and the raising construction can show us where the subject has been base-generated. A variety of idioms are formed by merging subject, object, and verb as a single constituent in which the subject cannot be freely changed. The important point that can unfold the underlying subject position in such idioms is that the subject together with the verb and its complement are interpreted idiomatically and form a syntactic constituent. This verifies the view that the verb and all its arguments are taken to be a single constituent at some point in the derivation in the sense that subjects and objects occupy [Spec,VP] and the position of the complement of the verb (sister to V) respectively. Then, the subject moves to [Spec,IP] to satisfy the Extended Projection Principle [EPP].
 
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
In this paper, we provided evidence such as floating quantifiers, coordinate structure constraint, idiom chunks, and the raising construction developed in Hornstein, Nunes and Grohmann (2005) to argue that the Gilaki data are compatible with the basic idea behind PISH. The floating quantifiers demonstrate that in the Gilaki language a quantifier and a DP can make up a syntactic constituent functioning as a subject in [Spec,VP], and then the DP may move out of this position and leave the quantifier stranded. Using the Coordinate Structure Constraint, we showed that active and passive verb phrases can be coordinated and the subjects of the two conjuncts occupying the specifier of the active verb phrase (first conjunct) and passive verb phrase (second conjunct) move to the specifier of a higher IP via ATB movement. Finally, we investigated PISH in the idioms in which subject, object, and verb make up a syntactic constituent and are interpreted idiomatically. In such idioms, verb and its arguments are all merged within VP, and then the subject moves into [Spec, IP] to satisfy the EPP feature. 
 
Select Bibliography
Adger, D. 2004.  Core syntax: A minimalist approach (Vol. 20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. “The minimalist program MIT Press”. Cambridge, MA.
ــــــــــــــــــ. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The framework”. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, (Eds.), 89-155.
ـــــــــــــــــــ. 2001. “Derivation by phase”. M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.1-52.
Dabir Moghaddam, M. 2004. Theoretical linguistics: emergence and development of generative grammar. Tehran: Samt Publication. [in Persian]
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. 2005. Understanding minimalism. Cambridge: CUP.
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. 1991. “The position of subjects”. Lingua, 85(2-3): 211-258.
Radford, A. 2009. English sentence structure. Cambridge: CUP.
Sportiche, D. 1988. “A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure”. Linguistic inquiry, 19(3): 425-449.