Cover not available
Part of
Causation, Permission, and Transfer: Argument realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET verbs
Edited by Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 167] 2015
► pp. 463–490

Information-structural encoding of recipient in non-canonical alignments of Persian

A constructional account

| Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
This chapter aims to study the prepositional marking and the postpositional marking of the recipient in the Persian non-canonical ditransitive alignments, which are associated respectively with a particular role that the recipient as topic or exhaustive focus plays in the information-structural representation of the benefactive event. I will argue that overriding of the theme and recipient by each other with respect to topicality, grammatically achieved by utilizing two distinct operations including preposing and left-dislocation, determines the intended grammatical marking of the recipient. Moreover, the pragmatic alternation between the two types of coding portrays a constructional pattern which will be accounted for in terms of a Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) framework.
Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.167.16moe
References (46)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Grice, Martine. 2006. The intonation of accessibility. Lingua 38(10): 1636–1657.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 69], Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds), 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russell Tomlin (ed.), 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. When agreement gets trigger-happy. Transactions of the Philosophical Society 101(2): 313–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Carmen. 2004. Beneficiary and recipient in double object constructions. In RRG04 Proceedings, Brian Nolan (ed.), 110–119. <[URL]>
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Czypionka, Anna. 2007. Word order and focus position in the world's languages. Linguistische Berichte 212(16): 439–454.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition ra in Persian. In Cooperating with Written Texts: The Pragmatics and Comprehension of Written Texts, Dieter Stein (ed.), 549–573. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4): 808–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102(2–3): 133–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, Lilian & Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2004. Yaqui and the analysis of primary object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(3): 290–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Ditransitive constructions: The verb 'give'. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 426–429. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2008. Ditransitive constructions: Toward a new Role and Reference Grammar account? In Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), 75–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan. 1990. Information structure as a consequence of word order type. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society , 163–174. Berkeley CA: BLS.
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Differential Object Marking. Oxford: OUP.
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson. 2014. Differential Object Marking: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Special issue of Linguistics 52(2).Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions: Ra in Persian. Linguistic Analysis 20(3–4): 139–191.Google Scholar
. 2003. Object positions, specificity and scrambling. In Word Order and Scrambling, Simin Karimi (ed.), 91–125. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian [Studies in Generative Grammar 76]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. Object-, animacy- and role-based strategies: A typology of object marking. Studies in Language 30 (1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. On the encoding of transitivity-related features on the indirect object. Functions of Language 14(1): 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2): 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Formal and functional differences between differential object marking and differential R marking: Unity or disunity? Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 1(1): 1–8.<[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1982. Le morpheme ra en Persan et les relations actancielles. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 77(1): 177–208.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Ditransitive construction: A typological overview. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 1–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Monlár, Valeria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In Architecture of Focus [Studies in Generative Grammar 82], Valéria Monlár & Sussanne Winkler (eds), 197–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39 (1): 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Brian. 2011. Constructions as grammatical objects: A new perspective on constructions in RRG. Paper presented at the International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar on Functional Linguistics: Grammar, Communication & Cognition. Facultad de Letras, at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, 11–13 August.
. 2012. The GET constructions of Modern Irish and Irish English: GET-passive and GET-recipient variations. Linguistics 50(6): 1111–1161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Nolan & Diedrichsen (eds), 143–178.Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian & Diedrichsen, Elke. 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 145]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John, Delforooz, Behrooz & Jahani, Carina. 2009. A Study of Persian Discourse Structure. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Shokouhi, Hassan & Kipka, Peter. 2003. A discourse study of Persian ra . Lingua 113(10): 953–966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The Role and Reference Grammar analysis of three-place predicates. Suvremena Lingvistika 63: 31–63.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randi J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar