Correspondence or contrast between compound infinitives and missing light verb counterparts: An explanation in the Distributed Morphology framework

Abstract

Abstract:The structural and semantic relationship between the compound infinitive and the corresponding simple counterpart missing light verb is one of the topics of interest in the field of grammar and syntax of the Persian language. This issue is generally based on the assumption that the light verb in the corresponding pair is omitted. This article aims to investigate the syntactic structure of the two constructions so as to evaluate the assumption of the omission of the light verb. Furthermore, it seeks to determine and explain the derivation of the two structures and their probable distinctiveness or correspondence. To this end, the Distributed Morphology approach is employed as the theoretical and analytical approach. As the roots has no category at the beginning phase of the derivation, the dual or multiple behavior of the lexical units can be explained well. The findings suggest that the syntactic structure missing light verb cannot consider a derived form of the compound infinitive by losing the light verb, but the two constructions are completely different in terms of syntactic derivation. The compound infinitive has followed the steps of derivation according to the suggested pattern and acquires all the nominal-verbal characteristics. This is while the constructions lacking light verbs are actually nominal and of course without verbal characteristics. In this regard, we tried to explain the level of transparency and productivity of these two structures and how to take away the usage limitations through the context.Keywords: Compound Infinitive, Missing Light Verb Infinitive, Productivity, Transparency, Distributed Morphology IntroductionOne of the challenging issues in the domain of infinitive constructions concerns with compound infinitives, which typically possess a corresponding simple form that lacks a light verb. The problem is to determine and explain the derivation of the two structures and their probable distinctiveness or correspondence In this connection, despite the omission of the light verb, some scholars argue that simple constructions can be essentially regarded as equivalent to compound infinitive forms, (cf. Batani 1984: 107-108). Consequently, both constructions are deemed to be infinitives.Moreover, the determination of the infinitive category per se as well as its interrelation with other deverbal nominals remains a subject of disagreement among grammarians and linguists. The inherent duality of its nominal and verbal characteristics has led certain scholars to regard it as a noun (Natel Khanlari 1998; Hosseini 2002; Farshidvard 2003; Darzi 2005; Anvari and Ahmadi Givi 2013), while others classify it as a verb (Shariat 1985; Nobahar 1993; Mosffa Jahromi 2014). Simultaneously, others assert that the infinitive exhibits behaviors of both nominal and verbal categories (Shafaei 1984; Rezai 2016).According to Rasekh-Mahand (2014) the categorization of the infinitive cannot definitely ascribed to either noun or verb because it depends on discourse considerations. Consequently, attempts have failed to prove that the infinitive exclusively belongs to either category. Explaining the dual nature of infinitive behavior, Anoushe (2021: 731) posits that the root undergoes a merge operation with the null verbal head, followed by a subsequent merge with the nominal head in order to receive the infinitive affix.There is a huge body of literature examining the infinitives (e.g., to analyze), gerundive nominals (e.g., analyzing), and deverbal nouns (e.g., analysis) in various languages, including English. Chomsky (1970: 215) posits that the merge position of gerundive nominals and deverbal nouns differ; the former is generated within the lexicon, while the latter is generated within the syntax. According to Alexiadou (2005: 139-152), the affix “-ing” can be classified into two categories, namely nominal and aspectual, which diverge in terms of distribution and meaning. The nominal category is derived within the nominal domain, whereas the aspectual category is derived within the participial domain. Emonds (2022) suggests that English gerundive nominals occupy the DP (Determiner Phrase), with their subjects bearing the genitive case. Conversely, infinitives are construed as clauses that can feature an overt subject or PRO (a null pronominal). According to Rouveret (2023: 87), within the framework of Distributed Morphology, the suffix “-ing” in gerundive nominals that encompass argument structure is positioned in the head of vP (verb Phrase). As they assign case to their arguments, Rouveret refers to them as Acc-ing nouns. On the other hand, nominal gerunds lack argument structure and, consequently, do not possess a vP. Instead, they are merged in the head of nP (noun Phrase). Methodology and theoretical basisThe present study aims to investigate the characteristics of the compound infinitive and its simple counterpart in Persian, along with the syntactic structure of both forms. Additionally, it seeks to explore the relationship between the two forms and the assumption of light verb omission in the simple counterpart. Furthermore, by analyzing the syntactic structure and considering some behavioral differences, the study examines the transparency and productivity of compound infinitive constructions and their simple counterparts. It investigates how these two characteristics manifest and why the two constructions do not exhibit similar behavior in these regards.To achieve the aforementioned objectives, the research employs the Distributed Morphology framework (referred to as DM) and the model proposed by Sarkissian et al. (2024) for the Persian infinitive. DM serves as an effective framework due to its treatment of roots as category-less entities, enabling simultaneous explanation of both similarities and differences in the syntactic behavior of the two aforementioned constructions.Morphemes, as primary components, generate non-simple structures through syntactic merging. They can be classified into two types: functional morphemes and roots (Embick 2015). Roots acquire their category by merging with categorizer heads such as n (noun), v (verb), or a (adjective) (Embick & Noyer 2007; Embick 2015; Alexiadou 2016). Discussion and ConclusionsSarkissian et al. (2024) have proposed a hierarchy for Persian infinitive projections. Within the framework of DM, Persian infinitives merge with two categorizer heads, namely v (verb) and n (noun), which accounts for their dual characteristics. This claim is supported by the co-occurrence of adverbs as verbal dependents and adjectives as nominal dependents. The causative and negative forms of infinitives further confirm the existence of causative and negation projections. The presence of NegP (Negation Phrase) substantiates the presence of TP (Tense Phrase), as NegP is positioned above TP in Persian (cf. Darzi 2008). The possibility of Wh-words appearing in infinitive constructions provides evidence for the existence of CP (Complementizer Phrase), which in turn supports the presence of TP (Chomsky 2001; Chomsky 2004). Consequently, the projection hierarchy of Persian infinitives can be presented as follows: CP < (NegP) < TP < InfP < (CauseP) < vP < √P < nP The presence of an adverbial dependent accompanying infinitives provides evidence that the light verb cannot be omitted in compound infinitive constructions. Removing the light verb leads to structurally ill-formed results. This claim is further supported by the negative compound infinitives, which lose their negative interpretation when the light verbs are removed. Additionally, considering the two nominal characteristics of infinitives, namely their ability to take adjectival dependents and serve as complements of prepositional phrases, it becomes evident that constructions lacking light verbs are fundamentally nominal constructions rather than compound infinitives with missing light verbs.As a result, two distinct syntactic derivations are posited for the compound infinitive and the seemingly simple counterpart, thereby accounting for the disparities observed in the transparency and productivity of compound infinitives and their nominal counterparts. In accordance with this analysis, infinitives reside in the outer domain of the nominal categorizer head, rendering them transparent and productive, while the constraints imposed on their nominal counterpart stem from the derivation taking place within the inner domain of the nominal categorizer head.

Keywords

• compound infinitive
• missing light verb infinitive
• productivity
• transparency
• distributed morphology