Minimalist Program

Within the Minimalist Program (MP), Relative clauses (RCs) are considered complementizer clauses (CPs) containing a C with an edge feature [EF] in the form of [wh] and [EPP] but no tense feature. This study investigates Persian RC derivation based on MP. By proposing two approaches, namely: (1) ‘ ke -movement’ and (2) ‘null wh-operator (OP) movement’, we will consistently argue and show that the null wh-OP approach provides an appropriate generalization for Persian restrictive RCs. Adopting the latter, the results display Persian RCs can be analyzed as CPs with a null wh-OP assuming to undertake wh-movement as copying and deletion from different syntactic positions, i.e., subject, direct object, object of preposition, etc. This operator allows a small pro in the subject position, leaving an optional null copy, either allowing an optional resumptive pronoun (RP) behind in direct object position or attaching to the verb; and obligatorily in indirect object and object of preposition positions as well as Ezafe-construction. Also, the edge feature of the probe, the complementizer ke , attracts the null wh-OP to Spec-C, for checking and valuing the unvalued [wh] and [EPP] features. The long relative clause derivations can, correspondingly, work as expected by the successive cyclic movement of OP through intermediate Spec-C positions as well.

The control construction has attracted the attention of a considerable number of linguists since the early development of generative grammar. The present study examines the properties of PRO in Persian, adopting the syntactic approach developed in Kim’s (2003) theory of Merge Control within the minimalist framework. According to this theory, the control construction is fundamentally based on the theta-domain relation between PRO and its controller. The findings indicate that Kim’s theory of Merge Control addresses certain issues related to promise verbs, which challenge two key properties of PRO, namely, the locality and C-command conditions. Within this framework, there is no need to distinguish between obligatory and non-obligatory control; instead, the distinction should be made between complement and adjunct control clauses. Consequently, the violation of the proposed properties of PRO in Persian is resolved because the theory accounts for the objects of promise verbs in control constructions as adjuncts rather than complements. As a result, such objects are neither theta-marked by the promise verbs nor passivized, and they do not function as the controller of PRO.