International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
www.seipub.org/ijla
An Integrated Minimalist Analysis on the Position of Colloquial Persian Wh-phrases Golnaz Kashefi The Linguistics Department, Alzahra University Vanak St.- Tehran-Iran Golnaz_kashefi@yahoo.com Abstract In this article,I have argued that Persian has got both covert and overt Wh-movements. The possible targets for such movements and possible changes they make in the meaning are discussed. The collected data from colloquial sentences spoken by Persian native speakers shows that there are three possible positions for Wh-phrases in Persian: wh-in-situ, pre-subject and post-subject positions. In these positions certain features are checked and deleted. Key words Wh-phrases; Wh-movement; Wh-in-situ; Checking; Focus
Introduction Analyzing the syntactic structure of different languages using the Minimalist approach is an ongoing process in linguistics nowadays. This article is based on such an approach in which attempt is made to analyze the position of wh-phrases in Persian sentences. Possible positions of wh-phrases, the difference between them and their feature checking are discussed here. Wh-in-situ Vs. wh-movement Wh-movement parameter is one of the fields of studying on which language topologists concentrate. In English there is an overt wh-movement in questions containing wh-phrase, while in Japanese no whmovement takes place and wh-phrases remain in-situ. In colloquial French both forms exist. Ouhalla (1999) believes that there is a special parameter that differentiates languages with obligatory wh-movement (English) from wh-in-situ languages (Japanese) and the ones having optional wh-movement (the colloquial French). If we consider a continuum of languages with wh-in-situ languages in one end and languages with wh-movement in the other, colloquial French is located somewhere in between.
Based on BoĹĄcoviÄ? (1997:86-107) in Serbo-Croatian all wh-phrases undergo the Focus movement to the initial position, which he calls the Non-wh-movement. If we take this view that all movements are motivated by the need to check morphological features, whmovement to spec-CP must also involve checking of some relevant features. The feature involved is [Q], encoded in both head of C(omplementizer) and whphrase. According to this scenario, spec-CP must include at least one wh-phrase to check the [Q]-feature of C, if not in overt syntax then in covert syntax. Chomsky (1993) and Watanabe (1991) suggest that [Q]-feature of C is strong in all languages. So, in order to satisfy the question force, of a given sentence the [Q]-feature must be checked. In most of the languages there are fixed phonological forms for Wh-phrases such as Wh- in English, p- in Zuni (New Mexican language) at the end of whphrases, and m- in the initial position of wh-phrases in Hebrew. Of course this fact does not include all languages such as Turkish but since it can be seen among the languages belonging to different language families it can be considered as a universal character (Adger, 2003:348). Bayer (2006:376) assumes another kind of whmovement known as Partial Movement in which the wh-operator moves partially. In such a case the final target of wh-movement is filled with a more neutral wh-element so the wh-phrase moves to the closes Spec-CP. According to Bayer wh-phrases in German undergo such a partial movement. According to Huang (1982) subjacency does not hold of covert movement. In other words, subjacency is basically a condition on overt wh-movement. This conclusion was originally reached by Huang (1982) on the basis of data from Chinese, a wh-in-situ language, as well as English. Watanabe (1991) also goes on to conclude that
25
www.seipub.org/ijla
International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
Japanese has overt wh-movement responsible for the subjacency violation. He (ibid) believes in what moves overtly in Japanese wh-questions is a null wh-operator which originates inside the wh-phrase. Although the moved category is null, the movement applies in overt syntax and is an instance of wh-movement. If true, this leads to the conclusion that even wh-in-situ languages involve overt wh-movement. Chomsky (1981) defines [+Q] as a feature with two derivations:[+Q,+Wh] in interrogatives containing whphrase and [+Q,-Wh] in yes/no questions. In the next section the Persian data regarding whphrases and the way the above-mentioned features are checked in Persian will be discussed to see which type of language Persian belong to. Persian Interrogative Sentences Persian interrogative sentences are divided into three categories: 1)Yes/no questions 2)Interrogative sentences having different functions rather than being interrogative. 3)Interrogatives containing Wh-phrases Yes/no Questions There are three possible kinds of answers to such questions in Persian: •
Positive(Yes): Are (Informal),bæle (Formal), bæli/Ari (historical and literal)
•
Negative (Formal)
(No):Næ(Informal),
xeir,
næxier
•
Neutral (I don’t know): nemidunæm or čemidunæm (Informal) Nemidanæm (Formal).
For making formal yes/no questions in Persian aya and a rising intonation is used (1), whereas in informal form the rising intonation is the only mechanism for making such sentences (2): 1) Aya donya be suye solh harekæt xahæd kærd? peace
‘Will the world move towards peace?’ 2) Xubi? Fine are you 26
Interrogatives with Different Functions Persian interrogatives have got other functions too. They can be used for representing exclamation in echo questions, requesting, humiliating and insulting, threatening and etc.. Since these types of interrogatives are not considered as having the interrogative function, they will not be explored more here. Interrogatives Containing Wh-Phrases Since these sentences are used for obtaining a kind of information (time, place, action…), they are called Informative Questions. They have also been called as Special Questions (Crystal: 1992:324). Persian Wh-words are as followed: Čera (why), ku or koja (where), če (what), ki (who), kei(when), kodam or kodamyek (which one), čænd (how many), čegune or četor (how), čeghædr (how much). Persian Wh- words can be combined with Noun phrases to make Wh- phrases such as: Čevæght (what time), baraye če (why), be če mænzur (what for), be če ellæt/dælil and be če sæbæb (why for),… . Persian Data Analysis In this section I will examine possible positions of Persian Wh-phrases in sentences. Consider the following sentence:
These kinds of questions are also called General Questions (Crystal:1992:324).
INTER world towards will.FUTURE.3SG do
‘Are you fine?’
move
3) Ma dær-o ba tæbær šikæstim . we door-OM with axe break-PAST-1PL ‘We broke the door with an axe.’ The indirect object of the above sentence (tæbær) can be questioned in three different ways: Shoma dær-o ba či šikæstin? 3.1) You door-OM with what break-PAST-2PL ‘What did you break the door with?’ Shoma ba či dær-o šikæstin? 3.2) You with what door break-PAST-2PL ‘What did you break the door with?’ 3.3) Ba či shoma dær-o šikæstin?
International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
With what you door-OM break-2PL ‘What did you break the door with?’ As we can see the Wh-phrase in (3.1), that is či, is an in-situ type , in (3.2) it has moved to the pre-object position, which is actually a kind of post-subject position and in (3.3) it has moved to the initial position, which is the pre-subject position. In the following example we can see the same three landing sites for the Wh- phrases: 4) Mæn daræm dærs mixunæm.
www.seipub.org/ijla
convergence in (5) the mentioned checking should be completed. So how are these features checked? Are the Whphrases along with their features copied in Spec-CP or is it just a kind of feature checking in which just features are copied, checked and deleted in Spec-CP? Based on Procrastinate Principle, which is an aspect of the Economy Principle in Derivation, the constituents must not move immediately unless such movements are required.
I am lesson study-PRESENT-1SG
So after the movement of [+Q] and [+Wh] to Spec-CP no further movement is needed.
‘I’m studying.’
(5) will have the structure (6) as follows:
4.1) To dari či kar mikoni? (in-situ)
6)
You are what do-PRESENT-2SG “What are you doing?” 4.2) To či kar dari mikoni? (post-subject) You what are do-PRESENT-2SG 4.3) Či kar to dari mikoni? (pre-subject) What you are do-PRESENT-2SG The writer has analyzed around three hundred Persian interrogatives containing Wh-phrases and has obtained the same three positions for Persian Whphrases. Wh-in-situ As mentioned before some Persian Wh-phrases remain in-situ. For instance, in (5) Wh-phrase is located instead of object (keik): 5)Æli keik-o xord. Æli cake-OM eat-PAST-3SG “Æli ate the cake.” 5.1) Æli či-o xord? Æli what-OM eat-PST-3SG “What did Æli eat?” (5.1) is an interrogative sentence. The question here is that what makes the whole sentence an interrogative? Radford (2004) believes that in yes/no questions there is a [+Q] feature which should be checked while in interrogatives containing Wh-phrases there’s also a [+Wh] feature to be checked. He adds that these two features are checked in Spec-Cp. In order to have
As we can see in (6), [+Q] and [+Wh] have been copied in Spec-CP, then they have been checked with the similar features existing in C and have been deleted afterwards. The same operations can be generalized for other Whin-situ cases in Persian. Based on Chomsky’s view feature checking is the only reason for Movement/Copying (1993), which can be observed in Persian interrogatives as discussed above. Post-subject and Pre-subject Positions 7) Æli či-o xord? Æli what-OM eat? “What did Æli eat? 8) Či-o Æli xord? What-OM Æli eat-PAST-3SG “What did Æli eat?” Considering (7) and (8), following questions can be raised:
27
www.seipub.org/ijla
•
Are the both interrogative sentences?
•
What is the difference between (8) which is an in-situ kind and (9) in which the Wh-phrase has moved to the pre-subject position?
•
How are the features checked in (9)?
The answer to the first question is positive since in Persian such interrogatives are quite frequent. As for the second question, based on the data gathered through a questionnaire distributed among 20 linguistics students, most of them believed that comparing (7) and (8), (8) has got a stronger focus on Wh-phrase. The same result was obtained for (9) and (10) as well: 9) Sara koja ræft? Sara where go-PAST-3SG “Where did Sara go?” 10) KOJA sara ræft? Where Sara go-PAST-3SG “Where did Sara go?” The above results show that the moved wh-phrase is more interrogative focused than the Wh-in-situ type. Rizzi (1997) discusses that the focused items in a sentence bears a focus feature [+FOC] which has to be checked in Spec-FocP. As we can see in the above sentences a copy of Wh-phrase has been placed in the initial position of the sentences, that is, before the subject. For more clarification let us take a closer look at (8) with the following structure: 11)
International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
Spec-FocP. In this position the [+FOC] is checked with the same feature existing in Foc and then it is deleted. For the checking of other two features, [+Q] and [+Wh], a copy of them is moved to Spec-CP and after being checked is deleted. The question to be answered here is “how can we assume that Wh-phrase has moved to Spec-FocP and not Sep-TopP?” Based on Rizzi (1997:285) there are two differences between topic and focus in Persian: •
Topic is a fronted structure that is separated from the rest of the sentence by a pause and it usually contains old information.
•
Focus is a fronted structure, which bears a focal stress and contains new information.
Let us consider the following sentence: 12) Æli sib-o xord. Æli apple-OM eat-PAST-3SG “Æli ate the apple.” In (12) sib is the object and can be located either in Spec-TopP, as in (12.1), or in Spec-FocP, as (12.2), which are both the initial positions of a given sentence: 12.1) ??Sib-o, æli xord. (Stress on action) Apple-OM Æli eat-PASt-3SG “Æli ate the apple –not threw it.” 12.2) SIB-o Æli xord. (Stress on object) Apple-OM Æli eat-PAST-3SG “Æli ate the apple-not anything else.” In (12.1) sib-o has moved to Spec-TopP as it is being said with a pause regarding the rest of the sentence while in (12.b) sib-o bears a special stress which is of the focal one. The above example along with similar ones shows that Wh-phrase moves to Spec-FocP and not to Spec-TopP. Now let us take a look at the following examples: 13.1) To be mamanet či gofti? You to your mum what said “What did you say to your mum?” 13.2) To či be mamanet gofti? You what to your mum said
As we can see in (11) Wh-phrase (čio) has moved to
28
“What did you say to your mum?”
International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
Persian native speakers believe that (13.2) has more interrogative focus comparing with (13.1). As one can see in (13.2) Wh-phrase has moved to somewhere in between subject (to) and indirect object (be mamanet). The question is “where in this position?” As Rizzi (1997) discusses VP is divided into two phrases: VP shell (vP) and VP core (VP). According to him vP is located after TP and before VP as the following structure: 14)
www.seipub.org/ijla
As can be seen in (15) Wh-phrase (či) has been copied in Spec-VP then its [+foc] has been checked with the same feature existing in v and has been deleted. Finally, the original Wh-phrase (či) in its initial position has also been deleted. In the next stage a copy of Wh-phrase is located in Spec-CP in order to check and erase its [Q] and [Wh] features with the same features in the head C. Another issue to be discussed here is the pro-dropped sentences. As we know Persian is a pro-drop language in which the unmarked type has not got any overt subject pronouns. 16) Ketab-o xundæm. Book-OM read-PAST-1SG “ I read the book.” (16) is an unmarked Persian sentences in which the subject pronoun (mæn) has been spelled out whereas in (17) , the marked type, the subject pronoun (mæn) exists.
I therefore assume that in (13.2) a copy of wh-phrase (či) has moved to a position higher than VP and lower than TP which is Spec-vP. As we mentioned earlier, (13.2) bears more interrogative focus than (13.1). Therefore, we also assume that copy movement of wh-phrase to Spec-vP makes stronger interrogative sentences. As Kahnemuyipour (2001) argues v(shell) also bears a kind of focus feature and based on Persian data we argue that such focus is weaker than the other one existing in focus; therefore, I suggest referring to the focus feature existing in v as the secondary strong focus feature which can be represented by [+foc] and the one in Foc, the primary strong focus feature which can be shown by [+FOC]. However, he doesn’t discuss how this feature along with [+Q] and [+Wh] features are checked and deleted and which function they exactly have.
17) Mæn ketab-o xundam. I
book-OM read-PAST-1SG
“I read the book.” The important difference between the two above examples is the focus on subject in (17). In other words, when there is a need to focus on subject, the marked type is used. As we argued before such focus needs the [+FOC] and it should be checked. For more explanation let us take a look at the following sentences: 18.1) To či-o xordi? You what-OM eat-PAST-2SG “What did you eat?” 18.2) Či-o
(13.2) has the below structure:
to
What-OM you
15)
xordi? eat-PAST-2SG
“What did you eat?” As it is illustrated in (18.1) Wh-phrase (či) has remained in-situ whereas in (18.2) a copy of it has moved to a place before the subject (to). The question to be answered here is “how is the focus feature of Whphrase and subject checked?” In (18.2) Wh-phrase (či) has move to a position higher than Spec-FocP and has the following structure: 19)
29
www.seipub.org/ijla
International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
21.1) To ba kodum dustet ræfty xærid? You with which your friend go-PAST-2SG shopping “Which of your friends did you go shopping with?” 22.2) Ba kodum dustet ræfty xærid? With which your friend go-PAST-2SG shopping “Which of your friends did you go shopping with?” 23.1) Æli æz če ketabi motenaffere? Æli from which book hate-PRESENT- 3SG “Which book does Æli hate?” 23.2) Æz če ketbi Æli motenaffere? As can be seen in (19), a copy of the Wh-phrase (či) is located in Spec-FocP where the [+FOC] is checked and deleted. Then, Wh-phrase is copied in Spec-CP in order to be check and delete its [Wh] and [Q] features. Another issue to be discussed here is “how is the subject (to) checked in such sentences?” According to VP-internal Subject Hypothesis [Sportiche (1998), Rosen (1990) and Huang (1993)], subjects are generated in Spec-VP and then copied in Spec-TP for their eatures (person, number…) to be checked with the same features in T. After a copy of subject (to) is located in Spec-TP, the sentences will have a focus on the subject. Therefore, subject will have the focus feature. I assume that since the focus in Wh-phrase, ([+FOC]), is stronger than the one in subject ([+foc]), subject pronoun is derived in Spec-VP, then it is copied in Spec-vP for its [+foc] feature to be checked and finally a copy of that is located in Spec-TP (as it is shown in 19). Pied Piping Ross (1967) argues that after Wh-movement in English, prepositions can remain in-situ (20.1) or can move with the whole Wh-phrase, which is called Pied Piping (20.2): 20.1) Who did you give the book to? 20.2) To whom did you give the book? Based on the Persian data below we can observe that there is a sort of special pied piping in Persian in which the prepositions and object clitic are copied along with the Wh-phrases in the target locations: 30
From which book Æli hate-PRESENT-3SG “Which book deos Æli hate?” As I have observed in Persian data in interrogative sentences no Wh-phrase is allowed to be copied in a lower position than its original one ,otherwise; the sentences will be ungrammatical (as can be seen in the following examples): 24.1) Či umæde? What come-PAST-3SG “What came?” 24.2) * Umæde či? Come-PAST-3SG what “What came?” 25.1) Ki bud? Who is-PAST-3SG “Who was it?” 25.2)* Bud ki? Is-PAST-3SG who “Who was it?” Conclusion As I have argued in this article Persian Wh-phrases have got both covert and overt movements. In convert movement (Wh-in-situ) the Wh-features are copied in Spec-CP and they are checked and deleted in that position. In the overt case Wh-phrase along with its features can be copied in two main positions: pre-
International Journal of Literature and Art (IJLA) Volume 2, 2014
subject or post-subject positions. In Pre-subject position Wh-phrase has got the primary more strong [+FOC] feature, which I called the primary focus feature. This feature needs to be checked in Spec-FocP while in the post-subject case the secondary less strong [+foc] feature, here called the secondary focus feature, has to be checked in Spec-vP. I have also discussed the focus feature existing in the subject pronouns in Persian. Since Persian is a kind of pro-drop language the presence of subject pronouns makes marked sentences with more focus on the subject. I have assumed that focus feature of the subject pronouns is also the same weak [+foc] feature mentioned before. In Persian, Wh-phrases is a kind of pied piping in which the prepositions are also copied along with the Wh-phrases.
www.seipub.org/ijla
Building 20, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993. Crystal, David. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated, 1992. Culicover,
Peter
W.
Principles
and
Parameters
(An
Introduction to Syntactic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Huang , C.T.J. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, 1982. Huang , C.T.J. “Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences”. Linguistic Inquiry, 24:103-38, 1993. Hornstein, Norbert. Logical Form :From GB to Minimalism . Blackwell, 1995. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. "On Wh-questions in Persian," in Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46(1/2): 41-61, 2001.
Another point is that Persian Wh-phrase can not be copied in positions lower positions than their original ones.
Kayne, Richard S. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press,
Wh-phrases can be examined from different points of view. One might study the position of Persian Whphrases in the Logical Form, which remains to be analyzed.
Structure of English, U.K.: Cambridge University Press,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many thanks to my dear professors: Dr. Farideh Haghbin and Dr. Farhad Sasani for all their supports. I would also like to appreciate my family especially my brother Sam Kashefi for all his care and inspiration.
Cambridge, Mass, 1994. Radford,
Andrew.
Minimalist
Syntax:
Exploring
the
2004. Rizzi, Luigi. “The Fine Structure of The Left Periphery”. Haegeman, Liliane (Ed.) , Elements of Grammar , Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 281-337, 1997. Roberts, Ian and Rosseau, Anna. Syntactic change: a minimalist approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Rosen , Sarah Thomas. Argument Structure and Complex Predicates, Gerland: New York,1990.
REFERENCES
Adger, David. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Ross, John Robert. “Constraints on variables in syntax “ , Ph.D. dissertation, MIT (published as Infinite syntax, by Ablex publishing corporation: NJ, 1986), 1967.
Bayer, Josef. “Wh-in-Situ”, edited by Everaert Martin, C.Van
Sportiche, Dominique. “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers
Riemsdijk Henk, Goedemans, Rob and Hollebrandse, Bart.
and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure” , Linguistic
Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Blackwell Publishing,
Inquiry , 19:425-49, 1998.
2006. Boškovic`,Ž.eljco.“Fronting Wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian”. In the annual Workshop on formal Approach to Slavic Linguistics:. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publication, 1997. Chomsky, Noam. Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrechet: Foris, 1981. Chomsky, Noam. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”, in Hale and S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The View From
Watanabe, Akira. “Wh-in-situ, Subjacency , and Chain Formation”, MS thesis, MIT, 1991. Golnaz Kashefi Tehran/ 30/3/1980. Master of Linguistics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran, 2008. Working as an ENGLISH TEACHER at the Kish Institute for 10 years, she is interested in studying languages from their syntactic point of view.
31