A Cognitive Perspective on the So-called pro-drop Parameter in Persian

Document Type : Original Research

Author
Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid1
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
According to the extended projection principle (EPP), it is claimed that all sentences require subjects. In line with such assumption, it is believed that some languages, including Persian, are categorized as pro-drop languages and their subject is encoded by the verbal inflection. In fact, the subject position is an empty category designated by pro (small pro). Therefore, AGR (verbal inflection) has a purely syntactic function. However, in cognitive grammar, AGR is treated as a symbolic assembly profiling a process whose only independent contribution to the meaning of the verb with which it combines, is the person and number specification of the processual AGR. Considering AGR as a meaningful category, its trajector can correspond with the trajector of the processual component (verb) which is left unexpressed. In contrast to the assumption that AGR is redundant, it shown that the subject (the trajector of the processual component) is not dropped; it does exist but is highly schematic. It is elaborated (becomes specific) by trajector of AGR through correspondence. In other words, Persian speakers conceptualize the subject by only one source of information; that is the trajector of AGR.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Ahmadi Givi, Hassn and Hassan Anvari (1998). Persian Grammar. Tehran: Nazemi Publication.
[2] Arnett, Carlee (2004). A Cognitive Approach to the Semantics of the German Passive, New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
[3] Benett, Phill (2014), "Langacker's Cognitive Grammar", In: John, R. Taylor and Jeanette Little more (eds), The Bloomsbury to Cognitive Linguistics, pp 29-48.
[4] Croft, William (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive Organization of Information, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[5] Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Emad Afshar, Hossein (1993). Grammar and Structure of Persian. 2nd ed. Tehran: Allame Tabatabaie University Publication.
[7] Evans, Vyvyan. and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[8] Langacker, Ronald W. (1982). "Space Grammar, Analysability, and the English Passive", Language, 58.1, pp 22-80.
[9] ______ (1986). "Settings, Participants, and Grammatical Relations", Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistic Conference 2, pp 1-31.
[10] ______ (1987a). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[11] ______ (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[12] ______ (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[13] ______ (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd edition, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[14] ______ (2005), "Construction Grammars: Cognitive, Radical, and Less So", In: Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibánez and M. Sandra Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, pp 101–159, Cognitive Linguistics Research 32, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[15] ______ (2006). "Cognitive Grammar", In: D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 421-462.
[16] ______ (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[17] ______ (2009). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
[18] ______ (2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19] Motevalian Naeeini, Rezvan (2016). A Cross-linguistic Analysis of pro-drop Parameter in Persian. Zaban Pazhuhi, No. 21. Pp 133-166.
[20] Natel Khanlari, Parviz (2005). Persian Grammar. 20th ed. Tehran: Toos Publication.
[21] Qarib, Abdolazim et. al. (1991). Persian Grammar. 9th ed. Tehran: Ashrafi Publication.
[22] Radden, Günter and René Dirve (2007). Cognitive English Grammar, John Benjamins B. V.
[23] Smith, Michael B. (1985). Event Chains, "Grammatical Relations and the Semantics of Case", Chicago Linguistic Society, 21, pp 388 - 407.
[24] ______ (1994). "Agreement and Iconicity in Russian Impersonal Constructions", Cognitive Linguistics, 5. 1, pp 5-56.
[25] Taylor, John. R. (2003). Cognitive Grammar, (Reprinted), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[26] Verhagen, Arie (2007). Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[27] Zahedi, Keyvan (2008). Types of Unexpressed Syntactic Subject in Persian. Grammar. No. 4. Pp 170-182.
The International Journal of Humanities
Volume 26, Issue 4
Autumn 2019
Pages 1-15