a challenging passive in Persian

[Fatemeh Nemati]

Dear all,

First of all, I want to thank George Aaron Broadwell and Andrew
Koontz-Garboden for their kind feedback regarding my inquiry on passive vs.
inchoative constructions.
Now my second inquiry on passives in Persian:
I have come across a kind of passive construction in Persian that involves
Indirect Objects and want to know if you have come across this phenomenon
(given that the existence of passive constructions in Persian is questioned
by some researches (Moyne 1974, Vahedi-Langrudi)).
In canonical type of passive, the agent with the grammatical function
subject gets suppressed and the patient functioning as the direct object is
linked to the the Subject function. This type is attested and described in
Persian, as in many other languages (1-2). What is interesting is that
passivization applies to structures lacking a direct object. These sentences
in both active and passive voice are of the configuration illustrated in
(3-4).

1.ACTIVE
SUBJ   OBJ      V
*sina *    *xane-i*    *saxt*.
Sina     house-a built
Sina built a house.


2. PASSIVE
SUBJ     V
*xane-i*    *saxte Sod*
house-a  built  become
A house was built.


3. ACTIVE:
SUBJ                IO           V
*doSman*         *be anha*      hamle kard
enemy           to they       attack did

The enemy attacked them.

4. PASSIVE
IO          V
*be anha* *hamle Sod*
to they  attack become
They were attacked.

As it can be observed, the agent is suppressed, but as for the Indirect
Object functioning as the subject, one can not claim such a thing, because
according to the grammar of Persian, a propositional phrase can not function
as a subject. A fact about Persian is that it is a pro-drop language, but
positing the existence of a small "pro" in the place of the Subject would
not be a solution because it ends up in violating the coherence condition,
as there will be an extra function which is not designated by the passive
verb. As for agreement on the verb, the verb takes an unmarked third person
agreement; it does not show agreement with the pronoun contained in the IO,
which is the affected entity from a semantic point of view.  I am curious to
know if there is any other language that shows these properties where a
sentence containing an Indirect Object is passivized, the subject is
suppressed, the indirect object remains intact and finally in ends up in a
subject-less sentence.
The construction, however, is different from impersonal constructions which
are similar to passives. Persian impersonals have a pronoun as the subject
which is referentially non-specific.

All the best,
Fatemeh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lfg/attachments/20100826/858523c9/attachment.htm>