Perfect Construction in Persian within the Framework of Distributed Morphology

Abstract

Abstract: Within the non-lexicalist framework of Distributed Morphology (DM), proposed in the early 1990’s by Halle and Marantz, there is no pre-syntactic generative lexicon in which words are derived and all morphosyntactic elements are subject to competition for Vocabulary Item insertion in the head of functional projections. Based on this formal approach to grammar, the present study investigates the perfect construction and past participle ending in Persian, without resorting to their semantic properties. The past participle ending usually called “-en” since the earliest generative work, is one of the most pervasive functional elements in Persian. This suffix not only combines with present and past verbs in indicative and subjunctive moods, but also it appears in both finite and non-finite clauses (i.e. clauses with or without Tense and Agr) and is even present in smaller constituents such as words. The study explores the nature of participle inflection and perfect constructions in two successive parts. From an empirical perspective and beyond the purely theoretical assumptions, in the first part arguments drawn from language data are used to show that “De” realized as “de” or “te” at PF, is the underlying form of perfect suffix and it never appears with subjunctive verbs in past tense. This analysis has two important consequences. First, the so-called past participle in not derived from the past stem of verbs. But, contextual allomorphy which plays a central role in this research, realizes different forms of a morpheme determined by some items, including perfect suffix, in its context. Second, past perfect subjunctive clauses are not found in Persian, although “-en” suffix has a widespread distribution in this language. The second part discusses some views on syntactic word formation of present perfect verbs, by focusing on the assumptions being made within the framework of DM. Such a strategy, it is suggested, can be generalized to all cases of perfect constructions with some subtle differences in post-syntactic operations. Meanwhile, it will be argued that perfect suffix is inserted in the head of Particle Phrase licensed by Aspect Phrase. Keywords: Perfect Aspect, Tense, Past Participle, Allomorphy, Late Insertion Introduction Distributed Morphology (DM) introduced in Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994) in the early 1990s is a grammatical model that has emerged within the framework of Principles and Parameters. DM which represents a set of hypotheses about the interaction among components of grammar, including Morphology, syntax and phonology claims that the complex structure of a word is created in the same way as is the complex structure of a phrase or sentence. It is important to say that Distributed Morphology is a framework within the Minimalist Program (MP) which rejects the Lexicalist hypothesis and the notion of a generative lexicon (Siddiqi 2009). In this linguistic model, there is only one generative component of the grammar (the syntax) whereas in Lexicalist Minimalism, there are two (the syntax and the lexicon). The four fundamental differences between DM and Lexicalist Minimalism to be mentioned here are categorization, late-insertion, morphosyntactic decomposition, and underspecification. These key notions are very important for my investigation in the Persian past participle inflection and perfect constructions. Moreover, this article proposes an analysis of root allomorphy (e.g., ketāb “book”/ kotob “books”) within the framework of DM that showcases the economy constraint minimize exponence. It also accomplishes two other things: First, following Siddiqi (2009), it proposes some of the revisions to the framework of DM in related to the root allomorphy and readjustment rules. Second, it provides an analysis of verbal allomorphy in Persian. It should be emphasized that when roots appear in the derivation, they do not have grammatical category. This is the first difference between DM and MP which is discussed in the next part. Materials and Methods As I told above, within the non-lexicalist framework of Distributed Morphology (DM), proposed in the early 1990’s by Halle and Marantz, there is no pre-syntactic generative lexicon in which words are derived and all morphosyntactic elements are subject to competition for Vocabulary Item insertion in the head of functional projections. Based on this formal approach to grammar, the present study investigates the perfect construction and past participle ending in Persian, without resorting to their semantic properties. The theoretical method of the investigation is mostly based on the following characteristics: (a). Categorization An important property of Roots is that they have no grammatical category inherently. This assumption derives from earlier work on derivational morphology. According to the category-free theory of Roots, traditional lexical categories like ‘noun’ or ‘verb’ or ‘adjective’ are convenient shorthand labels that refer to syntactic structures in which a Root combines with a category-defining functional head such as little n or v or a. This is what happens for that a root like √bin (see). During the derivation, it may merge with a little noun head to generate the noun bineš (vision), or it can absorb a little adjective head for producing binande (viewer) and so on. (b). Late insertion Terminologically, theories that allow for morphemes to receive phonological form after they are combined in the syntactic component are said to have late insertion process. In DM, unlike in GB and its Lexicalist derivatives, rather than manipulating fully formed words, the syntax only manipulates abstract formal features to generate syntactic structures. These morphosyntactic features (such as [plural] and [past]) are selected from a fixed list of abstract features (or feature bundles) rather than being selected from the output of a generative lexicon. The late insertion hypothesis (Halle & Marantz 1994) holds that the phonology which represents the morphological features manipulated by the syntax is provided at PF rather than being present throughout the derivation. At spell out, syntactic terminals in DM are entirely comprised of interpretable features (including roots). Only once all syntactic processes are finished with the structure is phonological content added. This phonology is provided by a component of the grammar called the Vocabulary. The Vocabulary is a static list of items whose function in the grammar is to provide phonology to realize the interpretable features contained in the terminal nodes of a derivation so that that derivation can be pronounced. Individual items within this list are called Vocabulary Items (or VIs for short). (c). Morphosyntactic decomposition One of the strengths of the Distributed Morphology framework is the parallel between syntactic structure and morphological structure. Since the grammar of DM manipulates only syntactic features, the complex structure of a word is created in the same way as is the complex structure of a sentence. Spelling out a complex constituent of the syntax as a “phrase” or a “word” depends on the nature of VIs in the structure. In this model not only the verb mi-binam (I see) is produced in syntax, but also the noun bineš (vision) is derived in the same component. (d). Underspecification Distributed Morphology uses underspecification in the insertion of Vocabulary Items into a terminal node of the syntax. The insertion of a VI is governed by the subset principle which allows for a VI with certain specifications to be inserted into any node that satisfies those specifications, regardless of whether or not it exceeds those specifications. This characteristic of DM is very important for my proposal regarding to past inflection in Persian. Discussion of Results and Conclusions The above four characteristics distinguish DM from MP. But before going through them, I should briefly discuss what is meant by Root and Root Allomorphy in DM. These two concepts are continuously referred through this article. In addition to functional morphemes, the grammar contains morphemes that are called Roots. By definition, Roots are the members of the open-class vocabulary of a language. This part of the vocabulary is typically thought of as connecting with concepts: a system of mental representations of classes, which exists outside of the grammar (Embick 2015 for an overview). The representation and use of Roots is a complex issue, because of their dual nature as grammatical objects that have important connections with (presumably) extragrammtical cognitive systems. A hypothesis that has been adopted in much work is that Roots can be represented by different allomorphs at the PF. Within this framework I will show that a Root like √šekan (break) has three different allomorphs in Persian: (1). šekan (2). šekas (3). šek. These allomorphs appear in different contexts: ‘šekan’: VIs Features Examples a. šekas [ÖŠekan, +t] šekas-tan, šekas-te, šekas-t b. šek [ÖŠekan, +Caus] mi-šek-ān-d-am, mi-šek-ān-am c. šekan [ÖŠekan] mi-šekan-am, šekan-ande, na-šekan Based on experimental data from Persian and theoretical framework, I will argue that ‘-De’ is the underlying form of past participle affix in this language appearing as ‘-de’ or ‘-te’ due to its context. This ending is used in different kind of perfect constructions, from finite clauses to derived adjectives. In the above chart, šekas is the allomorph that accepts past participle ending and determines its form as ‘te’. This word, šekas-te (broken), can be interpreted as a main verb in finite or non-finite sentences or it can be an adjective in a complex word like del-šekas-te (broken heart). The past participle ending (usually called “-en” since the earliest generative work) is one of the most pervasive functional elements in Persian. This suffix not only combines with present and past verbs in indicative and subjunctive moods, but also it appears in both finite and non-finite clauses (i.e. clauses with or without Tense and Agr) and is even present in smaller constituents such as words. The study explores the nature of participle inflection and perfect constructions in two successive parts. From an empirical perspective and beyond the purely theoretical assumptions, in the first part arguments drawn from language data are used to show that “De” realized as “de” or “te” at PF, is the underlying form of perfect suffix and it never appears with subjunctive verbs in past tense. This analysis has two important consequences. First, the so-called past participle in not derived from the past stem of verbs. But, contextual allomorphy which plays a central role in this research, realizes different forms of a morpheme determined by some items, including perfect suffix, in its context. Second, past perfect subjunctive clauses are not found in Persian, although “-en” suffix has a widespread distribution in this language. The second part discusses some views on syntactic word formation of present perfect verbs, by focusing on the assumptions being made within the framework of DM. Such a strategy, it is suggested, can be generalized to all cases of perfect constructions with some subtle differences in post-syntactic operations. Meanwhile, it will be argued that perfect suffix is inserted in the head of Particle Phrase licensed by Aspect Phrase. When the automatic phonological alternation ‘-de/-te’ which is the only past participle affix in Persian, appears in non-finite clauses or derived adjectives like ‘šekaste’ (broken), no auxiliary is allowed. So in theses perfect constructions, we can’t find present or past tense. In this article, I also show that the grammatical verb bāš (be) in perfect constructions is an auxiliary inserting in the head of Aspect Phrase (or: Perfect Phrase). So, bāš in perfect constructions in Persian is not a light verb and these constructions cannot be considered complex predicates. In present perfect sentences (for the 3rd singular agreement), bāš appears as ‘ast’ or clitic ‘-e’ which is a free variation for ‘ast’. An important consequence of this analysis is that ‘ast’ or clitic ‘-e’ cannot be omitted in a dependent clause where there is no counterpart for them in a coordinated structure. I will argue in a sentence like ‘U rafte’ (he has gone), clitic ‘-e’ (free variation of ‘ast’) has been merged with the final vowel of past participle affix, ‘-te’ at PF.

Keywords

• perfect aspect
• tense
• past participle
• allomorphy
• late insertion