جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "adjunct" در نشریات گروه "ادبیات و زبان ها"

Adjunct is an optional or secondary element used in a sentence to provide excess information about the action, participants, time, place, etc. The present paper studied the application and order of different types of adjuncts in the standard spoken Persian. Using corpus-based methods, the study showed that the usage of adjuncts is more than that of other main constituents (i.e. subject, verb, internal arguments), and it is used in all places of clause. Additionally, the types of descriptive, time, place, manner and quantity are the most used adjuncts in the standard spoken Persian with adjunct of time applied mostly at the beginning of the clause and around subject, and the descriptive one used dominantly in the middle of the clause and alongside verb and internal arguments. Accordingly, based on the type of adjuncts their places in clause, it can be concluded that expressing the time of an action for Persian speaker is the foremost priority in the spoken variety. The results can be useful to studies exploring word order in Persian language, differences of spoken and written varieties, and discourse analysis.

This paper studies some of the less-studied constructions in Persian in which a dependent describes a participant in a clause. The participants which are described or attributed a feature are normally subject and object, but sometimes complements, too. These dependents are either complements or adjuncts. The complements could be subject complements, object complements and complement of prepositional complement. The participant-oriented adjuncts include adverbial adjuncts and predicative adjuncts. The adverbial adjuncts are agent-oriented adverbs. The predicative adjuncts are in three groups: resultative, predicative and circumstantial. This paper introduces this novel categorization of participant-oriented dependents with some criteria to distinguish among them.

The present study analyzes the views of the ancient scholars of syntax on the position of adjuncts in the Arabic sentence structure and its role in the text. According to the syntacticians, the sentence includes the subject, the predicate, and adjuncts, and this structure is considered by Arabic syntacticians. Therefore, we see that new Arabic and Western linguists have theorized in this regard, and this is not far from the theory presented by old syntacticians. Some of them have spoken about the semantic dimension of the structure of the sentence itself such as the complement and adjuncts, and this is what has kept the sentence closed from the textual dimension. But, one who thinks about the structure of the text and the sentence in terms of the importance and distribution finds that the base and the core are the main and fixed elements in the structure of the sentence. Adjuncts join the sentence to the text and determine the concept of the core of the sentence. Sentences make up the structure of the text, and some of the sentences are the text itself.  Adjuncts and dependent sentences are the second main element in the Arabic sentence structure after the core and the base. The three elements of the subject, the predicate, and the adjunct are the main structure of the sentence, and this is where we can say that these adjuncts complete the sentence. So far, no independent study has addressed the issue of adjuncts in the Arabic sentence structure as the main element, so the present study investigated Arabic grammatical rules by the descriptive-analytical method.

This study investigates the nature and structure of Persian incorporation within the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) as a fully synthetic approach that considers morphology as syntax. In this approach, the Root selects for an argument, and then the Root must be merged with that argument or adjunct before it merges with its category-determining feature bundle. So Roots allow being incorporated into them. They are not yet included in any category. In order to become nominal or verbal, they have to incorporate further into a category-creating head. Some linguists (Arkan, 2006; Karimi, 1997; Shaghaghi, 2007; Spencer, 1991, 1995) considered the incorporation process as a morphological phenomenon because within the framework of Baker's synthetic theory, data from their understudied languages violates Baker's syntactic principles, but DM can describe incorporated constructions inconsistent with syntactic conditions of Baker’s synthetic theory. It seems that DM, unlike previous approaches, can solve some challenges, such as combining the syntactic function of incorporated construction of concrete structures (Gerdts, 1988), changing the syntactic function of the element derived from incorporation (Baker, 1988), and some restrictions on modifier stranding for merging with verbs (Baker, 1988, 1996). The analysis made in this article shows that syntactic approaches need to be reconsidered to explain incorporation.

The term predicate refers to two concepts in the literature; in the traditional grammar (in dividing the sentence into two parts: the subject and the predicate) and the other in the discussion of predicate-argument relations. Recent linguists have used two terms, predicate and predicator, to avoid confusing these two terms, respectively, for the first and second definition. In Persian, the two terms “Gozɑɹe” and “mahmul” have made a clear distinction between the two concepts. The present study investigates the different types of predicators in Persian based on the role and reference grammar to consider the differences and similarities between the predicators in Persian. The consideration of the layered structure of clauses and phrases showed that the nominal predicator has the most similarity and the prepositional predicator has the least to the verbal predicator. Furthermore, the findings showed that we have to accept the adjective phrase contrary to the role and reference grammar because there are different types of adjectival modifiers which are necessary to consider according to the layered structure.

IntroductionThe dependents of verb are among the most debated subjects on which a considerable body of research has been done. Yet, researchers have constantly had diverse opinions about their real identities. Complement, as one of the dependents of verb, is in the same boat. Some scholars have differentiated obligatory complements from optional ones, while others consider complements as obligatory elements and do not recognize an optional category. This article, based on Langacker’s (1987, 2013) Cognitive Grammar and through a corpus-based method, seeks to find out whether the Persian corpus verifies the existence of optional complements and if not, in what category can we place what is normally called optional complement. In other words, this research is to seek the answers to the following questions: Are there any optional complements besides obligatory ones based on Persian corpus-based data as well as Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar? If complements are merely obligatory, how can one categorize those elements called optional complements?MethodologyTo answer the above-mentioned questions, four dependents (subject, object, source and goal) of four salient motion verbs (raftan 'go', āmadan 'come', āvardan 'bring' and bordan 'take') in Persian were chosen to be studied. To this end, 300 tokens of each salient motion verb along with their dependents and the related linguistic context were randomly selected from the corpus of Hamshahri 2 to observe their corporal behavior.DiscussionLangacker (1987, 2013) distinguishes 3 dependents for heads including verbs, which are “complements”, “modifiers” and “adjuncts”. He defines complements as “a component structure that elaborates a salient substructure of the head. The head is thus dependent, and the complement is autonomous” (Langacker, 2013: 203). Conversely a modifier is “a component structure that contains a salient substructure elaborated by the head. In this case the head is autonomous, and the modifier is dependent” (Langacker, 2013: 203). And finally “a component structure which fails to either elaborate the head or be elaborated by it is called an adjunct” (Langacker, 2013: 205).Regarding the four dependents of the salient motion verbs under study, subjects and objects are complements since they elaborate the salient substructures of the verbs. Subjects elaborate the schematic trajectors of the verbs and objects elaborate the schematic landmarks of them. So the verb is, to a great extent, dependent on the subject and the object to complete its meaning. Such high conceptual dependence of the verb brings about its syntactic dependence too and as a result complements are obligatory and must constantly accompany the verb. The corporal behavior of the complements (subjects and objects) verifies this fact; from 300 tokens of each verb in Persian, there was not even a single sample in which the subject or the object was absent. Goals and sources, which tend to be considered as optional complements in the canonical viewpoints in Persian grammar, are, taking Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar into consideration,  modifiers since the motion verb elaborates their schematic trajectors which is a schematic process denoting a motional action. As a result, they are conceptually dependent on the motion verbs, hence being modifiers.3. ConclusionThe corporal behavior of subjects, objects, goals and sources as the dependents of the four salient motion verbs under study produces the following

Complements are solely obligatory elements since they elaborate the schematic trajectors or landmarks of motion verbs; thus, motion verbs are so conceptually dependent on the complements that they can never appear without them and as a result they become syntactically dependent on the complements as well. Sources and goals, on the other hand, are modifiers that are dependent on motion verbs to elaborate their schematic trajectors. Therefore, the relation that exists between the complement and the verb does exist between the modifier and the verb too but in a reverse direction. Although sources and goals are both modifiers considering Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, the result of the study shows that there is a goal over source preference. The frequency of the goals is much higher than that of the sources and the result of the Chi-square test indicates that there is a significant difference between the presence of these two elements with salient motion verbs (P<0.05). This result aligns with Stefanowitsch and Rohde (2004), Kabata (2013) and Verkerk (2014). Although there is an asymmetrical distribution between sources and goals, neither of them are optional elements. Their behavior in the text corpus shows that the presence of these modifiers are determined by the context, i.e. if the context needs them, they have to appear and if not, they are not employed by it. For that reason, sources and goals are contextually obligatory and can be called “contextual supplements”.Studying adjuncts in the corpus shows that they are not optional either. These elements, too, have to be present if the context necessitates their being but if they are not summoned by the context, they are absent. So, adjuncts on the par with the modifiers are contextually obligatory and termed “contextual supplements” in this study. Based on the results of the analysis of the Persian text corpus, it seems that Langacker’s triple division of the dependents (i.e. complements, modifiers and adjuncts) does not meet the corporal behavior of these dependents.

Prepositional phrases have a significant place in different syntactic theories. In Role and Reference Grammar these constituents are categorized into three classes namely Adjuncts, Argument markers and Argument-adjuncts. Adjuncts PPs offer semantic information for the sentence in which they occur. They are adverbial elements modifying the event or situation described by the predicate. Argument marking PPs mark an argument of the predicate. In this class the preposition itself does not contribute semantic information. Argument- adjunct PPs contain predicative adpositions that add to the meaning of the sentence. Also, they introduce one of the participants in the event. This paper examines different PPs in Persian based on the classification of RRG. It will be demonstrated that PPs in Persian do not always function as adjuncts, but they play as markers of arguments in ditransitive clauses or even as direct objects with some predicates. To conclude we will show that RRG accounts for prepositional phrases in Persian.

This article investigates the position of the adjunct «chera» (why) in Persian. There are two different proposals to consider. According to the first proposal، «chera» is merged post-verbally before it obligatorily moves to precede the verb. According to the second proposal، first introduced in this article، «chera» is generated before the verb، but moves somewhere higher in the tree structure. In this article we employ the linear order of the phrases in the sentence and certain empirical facts to support the second hypothesis. We take «chera» as a wh-causal phrase merged in the adjunct position to the vP to the left before it moves to the Spec، Interrogative phrase along the lines of Shlonsky and Soare (2o11).

Most traditional grammarians in describing conjunctive make use of metaphoric genitive construction. However, one can see that there is a great difference between the two genitive constructions. The most important difference is the analogical structure which exists in the metaphoric genitive construction but it does not exist in conjunctive. Unlike grammarians who consider that the adjunct in this genitive construction is the main goal in conjunctive, what is considered here is the combination of the adjunct and the governed word and not just either of them alone. In most of the sentences in which there is a conjunctive, if we omit the adjunct or the governed word, the sentence will have a figurative meaning, a meaning which derives from the genitive construction.The strategy that traditional grammarians have suggested for identifying the characteristics of conjunctive is incorrect. Grammarians who have studied the subject from a linguistic perspective also did not explain this properly and they have only paid attention to the appearance of the compound and have neglected the meaning differences. This study concludes that in explaining the conjunctive we should not make a comparison between conjunctive and metaphoric genitive construction. The only resemblance of these two genitive constructions is in the structure “core + e + dependent.” If in examining genitive constructions only the structure is considered, all of the genitive constructions will be put in one group. But paying attention only to the form of the compound does not complete the grammatical concepts. In grammatical investigations, it is better to consider the structure and meaning at the same time. Having said that the purpose of conjunctive is the figurative meaning of this kind of genitive construction and is not the adjunct or the governed word alone.

Persian relative clauses are the complex DP containing head and CP. These two make a syntactic constituent and have DP distribution. Following the SOV word order, the base generated position of them is an argument position before verb which can be changed by movement operations. DP embedded CP is introduced by the invariable complementizer (ke) and the embedded verbs are inflected for tense, aspect and mood just as a main verb. Nonrestrictive relative clause is a subordinate clause which does not restrict the meaning of the head it modifies but stands in apposition to it. Nonrestrictive relative clauses are syntactically the same as restrictive relative clauses, i.e. they go through various grammatical operations in the same way. However nonrestrictive relative clauses are similar to the parentheticals (particularly apposition) in the prosodic and semantic aspects. They have distinctive prosodic contour, that is, discontinuity and parentheticals’ semantic contribution to the matrix clause is an additional or supplementive one. one.In this article an attempt is made to show these differences by structural representation: the apposition as a cooperated construction and nonrestrictive relative clause as right –adjoined to the head noun.

The study investigated the unmarked placement of manner adverbs of Persian as an SOV language by an experiment in which 30 informants were asked to correct the order of sentences in which a manner adverb was used. The study shows that some adverbs significantly appear at the beginning of the sentence before subject, some between subject and object, some between object and verb and some between indirect object and verb in double object constructions. The study also shows that some adverbs occur in two or three places almost equally. Based on results it has been argued that the placement of adverbs depends on semantic and syntactic properties of the structures as well as semantic properties of the adverbs. Considering the fact that speakers had no chance to change the adverbs, the study shows that their decision on adverb placement is not significantly effective. In this study, it has also been argued that VP shell analysis can account for adverb placement if the placement defines both as an adjunct to intermediate projection (X') as well as head (X) in the framework of Minimalist Program.

This paper focuses on the structural properties of quantified noun phrases in Persian. Based on Giusti's hypothesis, two arguments are raised. The first is that quantified noun phrases are of QP category in Persian, i.e. the quantifier (Q,) on a par with the determiner(D), is a functional head which always dominates a definite nominal (DP) and an indefinite one (NP) or a prepositional phrase (PP).1 The second is that a certain number of quantifiers act as adjectives.