A reverse way: agreement marker motivates the subject in Persian frame impersonal constructions
-
Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to investigate an idiosyncratic construction in Persian called ‘Frame Impersonal Constructions’, in detail. One of the remarkable features of this construction is the permanent occurrence of verb as 3sg; this feature naturally evokes the nature of the subject in this construction. Adopting a cognitive grammar formulation, I show that ‘Frame Impersonal Constructions’ are in fact instances of setting-subject construction in which some unspecified ambient force or energy is at work to stimulate a sensory experience on some animate entity. This stimulus is best codified as 3sg, since the setting is reasonably construable as a 3sg entity. The interesting point is that in ‘Frame Impersonal Constructions’ it is the 3sg agreement on the verb which can be motivated as making reference to the semantic relevance of the setting-subject; that is, agreement marker alone profiles the setting-subject, whereas in personal constructions a separate overt nominal encodes the clausal subject. This finding asserts that the occurrence of agreement is semantically motivated, in contrast to accounts which consider it a purely syntactic constituent which occurs by default. The semantic pole of this construction also reveals that the enclitic which obligatorily occurs in ‘Frame Impersonal Constructions’ is the host of some sensory impression exerted by the schematic setting; hence, it is considered as experiencer.
Acknowledgments
This paper is taken from a research project supported and funded by SAMT (The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Islamic Sciences and the Humanities – Project No. 100/10468, date: 23 January 2016. I would like to express my thanks for the support they provided during this research project.
References
Achard, Michel. 1998. Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French sentential complements. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110805956Suche in Google Scholar
Arnett, Carlee. 2004. A cognitive approach to the semantics of the German passive. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Barjasteh, Darab. 1983. Morphology, syntax and semantics of compound verbs: A lexicalist approach. Campain and Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Dabirmoghaddam, Mohammad. 2010 [1997]. Compound verbs in Persian. In Mohammad Dabirmoghaddam (ed.), Studies in Persian linguistics: Selected articles, 2nd edn., 149–199. Iran: Tehran University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 2000. The garden swarms with bees and the fallacy of argument alternation. In Yael Ravin & Claudia Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238423.003.0006Suche in Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1996. Projection and inflection: A study of Persian phrase structure. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Golchin Arefi, Ma’edeh. 2010. The study of impersonal construction in Persian with a view to its historical background. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaie University MA thesis.Suche in Google Scholar
Golchin Arefi, Ma’edeh. 2011. The study of impersonal construction in Persian. Journal of Grammar 7. 162–182.Suche in Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions. Linguistic Analysis 20. 139–191.Suche in Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional? Lexicology 3(2). 273–318.Suche in Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert. 1979. The problem of presentative sentences in modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. Settings, participants, and grammatical relations. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Pacific linguistic conference 2. 1–31.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. Autonomy, agreement, and cognitive grammar. In Diane Brentari, Gary Larson & Lynn Macleod (eds.), Papers from the 24th regional meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, Part two: Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory, 147–180. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110857733Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. Grammar as image: The case of voice. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & A. Kwiatkowska (eds.), Imagery in language: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker (Łódź Studies in language 10), 63–114. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.10.1515/9783110214369Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0005Suche in Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1957. Grammaire du Persan contemporain. Paris: Klincksieck.Suche in Google Scholar
Natel-Khanlari, Parviz. 1998 [1973]. The history of Persian language, Vol. 26th edn. Tehran: Now Publication.Suche in Google Scholar
Rasekh Mahand, Mohammad. 2007. The study of Persian enclitic compound verbs and their presentation in general dictionaries. Lexicography 1. 236–253.Suche in Google Scholar
Sadeghi, Ali Ashraf. 1993. On denominative verbs in Persian. Proceedings of zabān-e Fārsi va zabān-e elm (Persian language and language of science seminar), 236–246. Tehran: Iran University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sadeghi, Ali Ashraf and Gholamreza Arzhang. 1979. Grammar. Tehran: The Organization of Text-books of Iran.Suche in Google Scholar
Shafaie, Ahmad. 1984. The scientific principles of Persian grammar. Tehran: Novin Publication.Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1994. Agreement and iconicity in Russian impersonal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 5(1). 5–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.1.5.Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 2000. Cataphors, spaces, propositions: Cataphoric pronouns and their function. Proceedings from the meeting of the Chicago linguistic society 36(1). 483–500.Suche in Google Scholar
Tabibzadeh, Omid. 2001. Verbal expressions with pronouns in Persian language. Nāme-ye Farhangestān (Farhangestān’s letter) 18. 8–20.Suche in Google Scholar
Thackston, Jr. Wheeler M. 1978. An introduction to Persian. Tehran: Soroush Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Vahedi-Langrudi, Mohammad Mehdi. 2006. The study of (frame) impersonal construction in four linguistic types. Journal of grammar 2. 34–70.Suche in Google Scholar
Vahidiyan-Kamyar, Taghi. 2005. One-marker verbs. Nāme-ye Farhangestān (Farhangestān’s letter) 22. 29–37.Suche in Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2007. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1979. Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110800425Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
