Overt and non-overt subjects in Persian
The phenomenon of prodrop has attracted much attention in recent years both in the field of syntactic theory and in pragmatics (Chomsky, 1981, 1982; Rizzi, 1982; Gundel, 1980; Givon, 1976). Persian is among the many languages which exhibit this phenomenon. The central aim of this paper is to discover the pragmatic contraints governing the distribution of overt and non-overt subjects.
Persian is a SOV language. Verbs carry the person and number information in the form of suffixes. These agreement markers are unique for each person. Non-overt (zero) subjects are allowed and occur very frequently in speech. Looking at natural data, we see that overt subjects appear even when their referents are in focus. Finding the contraints governing the distribution of these overt subjects is the primary question addressed in this paper. For the purposes of this study, we are classifying full noun phrases and pronouns together as overt subjects although pronominalization has its own separate pragmatic functions. Here we are focussing on zero subjects and overt subjects. Our data base consists of six children and four adult narratives. The unity of the narrative as a genre with its usual focus on one main actor make it possible to track the same noun phrase throughout the story in a variety of syntactic and pragmatic environments. This makes the narrative genre ideal for contrasting overt and non-overt subjects.
References (5)
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981). The grammatical marking of thematic structure in the development of language production. In W. Deutsch (ed.), The child's construction of language. London: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givon, T. (1976). Pronoun and grammatical agreement. In C. Li (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gundel, J. (1980). Zero-anaphora in Russian: a case of topic-prominence. In J. Kreiman and A. Ojeda (eds.) Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago: C.L.S.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis
2019.
Variationist typology: Shared probabilistic constraints across (non-)null subject languages.
Linguistics 57:3
► pp. 653 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Koban, Didem
2011.
Continuity of Reference and Subject Personal Pronoun Variation in the Turkish Spoken in Turkey and in New York City.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 31:3
► pp. 351 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.