Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses1


Persian complex predicates pose an interesting challenge for theoretical linguistics since they have both word-like and phrase-like properties. For example, they can feed derivational processes, but they are also separable by the future auxiliary or the negation prefix.

Various proposals have been made in the literature to capture the nature of Persian complex predicates, among them analyses that treat them as purely phrasal or purely lexical combinations. Mixed analyses that analyze them as words by default and as phrases in the non-default case have also been suggested.

In this paper, I show that theories that rely exclusively on the classification of patterns in inheritance hierarchies cannot account for the facts in an insightful way unless they are augmented by transformations or some similar device. I then show that a lexical account together with appropriate grammar rules and an argument composition analysis of the future auxiliary has none of the shortcomings that classification-based analyses have and that it can account for both the phrasal and the word-like properties of Persian complex predicates.

Corresponding author
Author's address: Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Deutsche und Niederländische Philologie, Deutsche Grammatik, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, D-14195 Berlin,
Hide All

I thank Mina Esmaili, Fateme Nemati, Pollet Samvelian, Yasser Shakeri, and Mehran A. Taghvaipour for help with the Persian data and for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Without their help I would not have been able to write this paper. In addition I want to thank Elham Alaee for discussion of data and Daniel Hole and Jacob Maché for comments on the paper. I thank Emily M. Bender and Felix Bildhauer for discussion. Special thanks go to Bob Borsley, Karine Megerdoomian, Ivan Sag, Pollet Samvelian, and several anonymous reviewers, whose comments on earlier versions of the paper improved it considerably. I also thank Philippa Cook for proof reading.

Research related to this paper was presented at the HPSG conference 2006 in Varna, at the Institut für Linguistik in Leipzig, at the Institut für Linguistik in Potsdam, at the Centrum für Informations und Sprachverarbeitung in Munich, at the center for Computational Linguistics of the Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, in 2008 at the conference Complex Predicates in Iranian Languages at the Université Sorbonne Nouvelle in Paris, and in 2008 at the conference Syntax of the World's Languages at the Freie Universität Berlin. I thank the respective institutions and the organizers of the HPSG conference for the invitation and all audiences for discussion.

This work was supported by a grant from Agence Nationale de la Recherche and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the Franco-German project PER-GRAM: Theory and Implementation of a Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar for Persian (DFG MU 2822/3-1).

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Benjamin K. Bergen & Nancy Chang . 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Jan-Ola Östman & Miriam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 147190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Joan Bybee . 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

William Croft . 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peter W. Culicover & Ray Jackendoff . 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

David R. Dowty 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar (Synthese Language Library 7). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Simin Karimi . 2005. A Minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian (Studies in Generative Grammar 76). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Paul Kay . 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument–adjunct distinction. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (Constructional Approaches to Language 4), 7198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (7 November 2006).

Tibor Kiss . 1995. Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum (Linguistische Arbeiten 333). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Stefan Müller . 2009b. Towards an HPSG analysis of Maltese. In Bernard Comrie , Ray Fabri , Beth Hume , Manwel Mifsud , Thomas Stolz & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Introducing Maltese linguistics: 1st International Conference on Maltese Linguistics (Bremen/Germany, 18–20 October 2007; Studies in Language Companion Series 113), 83–112, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (18 October 2009).

Barbara Stiebels . 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag verbaler Präfixe und Partikeln (Studia Grammatica 39). Berlin: Akademie.

Richard Wiese . 1992. Prosodic phonology and its role in the processing of written language. In Günther Görz (ed.), Konvens 92.1: Konferenz ‘Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache’. Nürnberg 7.–9. Oktober 1992 (Informatik aktuell), 139148. Berlin: Springer.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 19 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 92 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 27th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.