A syntactic analysis of Conditionals - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

A syntactic analysis of Conditionals in Persian

Roya

Kabiri

, Ali

Darzi

University of

Arizona, University of Tehran

 First North American Conference in Iranian Linguistics (NACIL1)

April 28-30, 2017Slide2

Outline

Provide definition of conditional propositions.

Introduce two distinct views on the structural position of the conditionals in the literature:

Bhatt and

Pancheva

(2006)

Valmala

(2009)

Introduce

sentence-initial, sentence-final and

seemingly sentence-medial conditional clauses in Persian.

Examine

Persian conditionals in order to understand how these constructions are structured, and whether or not the existing theories can account for

them.Slide3

Conditional structures

Conditionals

are linguistic expressions expressed by means of syntactically complex forms which consist of a conditional

clause

(

protasis

or antecedent) and a main clause (apodosis or consequent).

Conditionals involve

an adverbial clause which

makes

the occurrence of one

event

dependent on the occurrence of another (

Inchaurralde

2005

).Slide4

Conditionals have been one of the most significant topics in the areas of semantics, pragmatics and philosophy of language, and have been studied within different approaches (

Kratzer

1986,

Kaufmann 2001

).

T

hey

have not been analyzed syntactically in

detail,

specifically in Persian

. Slide5

Structural position of conditionals

Syntactically, there is a debate as to how these expressions are

constructed:

First approach due to Bhatt

and

Pancheva

(2006):

It is an

adjunction-based

approach

(proposed as equivalent to external

merge).

T

he

sentence-initial conditional clause in English adjoins to TP and in some cases to CP (when preceding

wh

-arguments in

questions).

T

he

sentence-final conditional clause involves VP-adjunction to the right. Slide6

Second approach due to Valmala

(2009):

Spanish

and English sentence-initial conditional clauses are in the

Spec

of

TopP

or

FocP

.

T

he

sentence-final conditional

clauses are

in the Spec of a functional projection,

CondP

.

This

analysis is based on movement (

proposed

as equivalent to internal merge) in some cases.

The

sentence-initial conditional

clause has a

topic or focus interpretation, and it is usually derived via movement from a post verbal position to the front of the sentence. Slide7

Conditionals in Persian

C

onditional marker:

ægær

‘

if’ or more informally

æge

.

Three different positions of the conditional clause

: sentence-initial (1a), sentence-final (1b) and seemingly sentence-medial (1c): (1) Slide8

We show that the adjunction-based approach (proposed by Bhatt and

Pancheva

(2006)) rather than the

other approach advocated by

Valmala

(

2009) best

accounts for the data in Persian.

I

ndependent

syntactic properties such as the interaction of scrambling and principle C of Binding Theory, the structural position of focused

wh-arguments, distribution of higher and lower adverbs

and

vP

deletion

provide evidence for our analysis.Slide9

The sentence-initial conditional clauseT

he

movement-based analysis cannot account for

a sentence-initial

conditional

clause

containing a

referential expression

,

coindexed

with a

pronominal in the matrix clause. Taking into account the interaction of scrambling and principle C of Binding Theory, the sentence in (2) would be predicted to be ill-formed under the movement-based analysis due to the principle C violation, contrary to facts.

(2)Slide10

If the conditional clause is generated in a position following the main clause and then moved to its surface position, it should be

ungrammatical since:

R

econstruction

is well-known to be obligatory for principle C at LF (See

Iatridou

1991,

Sportiche

2005,

Valmala

2009)

Scrambling does not bleed principle C in Persian (Karimi, 2005: 179).

Thus

, the sentence-initial conditional clause is externally merged as an adjunct to TP which is not c-commanded by the subject in the main clause. Slide11

Taking into account principle C and the distribution of lower adverbs in Persian (lower adverbs are adjoined to the

vP

(

Karimi

, 2005

:

125)):

The

sentence-initial conditional clause is

adjoined

to TP.(3)Slide12

If a matrix clause containing a focused wh

-argument (occupying the Spec of

FocP

upon movement in Persian (

Karimi

2005)),

is preceded

by a conditional

clause, it can be argued:

If the

wh

-argument ki ‘who’ is in the Spec of FocP

, it is not possible for the conditional clause to simultaneously occupy this

position.

Persian allows two elements bearing contrastive focus in the same sentence only if at least one of them bears an inherent focus.

Focus position is argued to be unique in

Karimi

(2005

). Following what Bhatt and

Pancheva

(2006) proposed for English, the conditional clause may adjoin to FocP as well. (4) Slide13

It may be argued that they are in the multiple specifiers of

FocP

:

Karimi

(2005

):

two focused elements moved to Specs of

FocP

may not be separated by other syntactic

objects.

Færda ‘tomorrow’ may be construed as a temporal adverb for both the conditional clause and the matrix clause, indicating that there is no adjacency requirement between the

wh

-argument and the conditional

clause.

(5)Slide14

Syntactic position of the sentence-initial conditional

clause:

It

involves

TP-adjunction and

FocP

-adjunction (when preceding the focused

wh

-arguments which have moved to Spec of

FocP

).

This analysis offers support for the Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2006

) analysis

.

It is also consistent with some other studies

(

Haegeman

2004,

Iatridoue

1991)

which consider conditional clauses as adverbial clauses in adjunct positions as they are not triggered by the need to check features (Chomsky 1995).Slide15

The sentence-final conditional clause

Sentence-final conditional clauses involve

vP

-adjunction:

Principle

C of the Binding Theory

vP

deletion

Since

the adjunction-based approach accounted for the sentence-initial conditionals, to maintain consistency I

extend the adjunction-based approach to sentence-final conditionals as well. Slide16

Ill-formedness of sentence (6)

is due to a principle C violation because the pronominal subject of the main clause binds the subject of the embedded

clause adjoined to

vP

.

The sentence-final conditional clause is adjoined to a position lower than TP (the most likely candidate being the

vP

)

inducing principle C

violation.

(6)Slide17

The asymmetry observed in the behavior of sentence-initial and sentence-final

conditional clauses:

It is possible to have

a referential expression in the

sentence-initial conditional

clause

coreferent

with a pronominal subject in the main

clause.

It is impossible to

have a referential expression in the sentence-final conditional clause coreferent with a pronominal subject in the main clause.

Sentence-initial and sentence-final conditional clauses are merged in different positions in the derivation. Slide18

vP deletion shows the sentence-final conditional clause is in a position lower than

NegP

, the most likely candidate being the

vP

. In

(7),

all constituents below the

NegP

, including the conditional clause are elided, leaving the subject and the head

Neg

intact.

(7) Slide19

Syntactic position of the sentence-final

conditional clause:

It

is adjoined to

the right of the

vP

.

It is compatible with Bhatt and

Pancheva’s

(2006) analysis. Slide20

Our proposal for the TP and

FocP

adjunction of sentence-initial conditional clauses can

also account for:

The

grammaticality and ungrammaticality of all the sentences in which the conditional clause appears in the medial

position.

(

8

)Slide21

The sentence in

(

9

)

with two topicalized

DPs preceding

the conditional clause is also explained under

our

proposal.

More

than one syntactic object may be

topicalized in Persian (Karimi 2005).(

9

)Slide22

The ungrammaticality of (

10) is due to:

Topicalization

of the pronominal

un

‘he’

from the main clause subject to the front of the

sentence, places

it in a structural position from which it binds the

referential expression in the conditional clause, inducing principle C violation. Scrambling feeds principle C in Persian (Karimi 2005: 180).

(10)Slide23

Syntactic position of the seemingly sentence-medial conditional clause:

The

merge position of the

seemingly sentence-medial

conditional clause is in no way different from

the

sentence-initial position.

The

relative ordering between the conditional clause and the constituents preceding

it,

is due to scrambling of syntactic constituents to the sentence-initial

position.Slide24

ConclusionsThe

adjunction-based approach

of conditionals proposed

by Bhatt and

Pancheva

(2006) best

accounted

for the data in Persian

over

the other approach advocated by

Valmala

(2009). The conditional clause was argued to be an adverbial clause in Persian adjoined to the TP or FocP in sentence-initial position, and to the right of the vP

in sentence-final position.Slide25

Future Research

Why

left-adjunction is restricted to TP or higher projections such as

FocP

whereas right-adjunction is restricted to

vP

?

Is there

syntactic differences among various kinds of conditional clauses classified in terms of syntax/semantic

grounds?

Is there any

connectivity effects that hold relative to tense/aspect, especially with counterfactuals that may have implications for the syntactic analysis?How does conditional clause interact with

negation?

How phase theory can account for

the

syntactic position

of the conditionals?Slide26

Thanks for your attention!

متشکرمSlide27

Conditional clauses may be focused.

U

nder my

analysis nothing prevents a conditional clause to be modified by

f

æ

q

æ

t

as in

(6).

It doesn’t mean that it is base-generated in that position. Actually, it is base-generated in the adjunct position of the TP and then may optionally move to Spec of FocP.

(6)