Another Look at Persian Râ: A Single Formal Analysis of
a Multi-Functional Morpheme
Simin Karimi
With Ryan Walter Smith and Mohsen Mahdavi
University of Arizona
NACIL 1
Stony Brook University
April 28-30, 2017
Introduction
 Cross-linguistically, there are two classes of objects
 Overtly marked (Differential Object Marking (DOM))
 Not marked
 DOM may take the form of
 case (e.g., Hindi, Turkish, Hebrew),
 dposition (e.g., Spanish),
 agreement (e.g., Swahili, Senaya), or
 clitic-doubling (e.g., Macedonian, Catalan).
Introduction
 Universally, common factors distinguishing objects are
definiteness, specificity, and animacy, In general,
objects ‘high’ on the relevant scale (e.g., more definite)
are marked.
 One of the well-known instances of DOM is found in
Hindi, where objects are differentiated based (mainly)
on specificity: with -ko (which is also the canonical
dative case marker) when they are specific (Bhatt 2007).
Introduction
 In Persian, the morpheme -râ has been typically treated as a
differential object marker which appears on
 specific direct objects (Browne 1970, Karimi 1990), or
 definite objects (Mahootian, 1992, Ghomeshi 1996, among others).
 The unmarked word order has been generally shown to place the
object+râ in a higher position than the unmarked object, hence
suggesting a topical interpretation of elements carrying this element
(Windfuhr 1979, Ghomeshi 1997).
Introduction
 There are, however, several cases in which the morpheme -râ
appears on DPs other than the direct object, including:
 Raised subjects out of an embedded clause
 DP corresponding to a clitic inside an object, a case of double
DP+râ construction.
 DP corresponding to a clitic object of a preposition.
 Nominal adverbials.
 Other types of DPs.

 In some cases, the predicate is unergative instead of transitive
Introduction
 Questions
 What is the real function of –râ?
 What do DPs marked by -râ have in common?

 In order to respond to (1) we need to understand (2) first.

 Goal: to propose a case-system that explains the distribution of the
morpheme –râ as well as lack of it (subjects and objects of prepositions) in
a natural and explanatory fashion.
Introduction
 In this article, we analyze
 The DP+râ within the framework of a general case
system in line with some aspects of Marantz’s (1991)
disjunctive case hierarchy.

 Based on the data, we motivate a new analysis of –râ
which indicates that this element marks specific DPs that
have been valued for dependent case.

Introduction
 In contrast to Marantz for whom dependent case is a post-syntactic
phenomenon, we argue that accusative case is structurally
assigned downwards in syntax

 This happens if the local predicate introduces an external
argument.

Introduction
 This article also builds on work by Preminger (2011a, 2014) and
Kornfilt & Preminger (2014), which argue, on the basis of Sakha (a
Turkic language), that nominative (as well as absolutive, and within
the DP, genitive cases) are simply the morphological form afforded
to noun phrases whose case features have not been valued in the
course of the derivation.

 This means that subject DPs are not valued for case.
Introduction
 The theory adopted in this article predicts that raised subjects of
embedded clauses may only appear with -râ if the matrix verb
introduces an external argument. We show that this predication is
borne out.

 Finally, the analysis is extended to those cases in Modern Classical
Persian where –râ marks a variety of DPs other than objects.
Organization
 Data
 Theoretical background
 Analysis
 Predictions
 Classical Modern Persian
 Conclusions
Data
 It is well-known that specific/definite objects, but not nonspecific ones, are
marked in Persian. Furthermore, -râ is obligatory if the DP is specific/definite.

 (1)

Kimea be man ketâb dâd
Kimea to me book
gave
‘Kimea gave me (a) book/books.’


 (2)



Kimea in ketâb *(-ro) be man dâd
Kimea this book râ
to me gave
‘Kimea gave me this book.’
Data
 Subjects, as well as objects of prepositions, are not marked by –râ.

 (3) Kimea-(*ro) ketâb xund

Kimea-râ book read

‘Kimea read books.’

 (4) Kimea be Parviz (*ro) goft

Kimea to Parviz râ

‘Kimea told Parviz.’
said
Data
 This is true of embedded subjects as well.
 (5)
 man fekr
mi-kon-am [CP ke Ali (*ro) barande mi-sh-e.
I thought Asp-do-1SG
that Ali -râ winner Asp-become-3SG
‘I know Ali will win (become a winner).’
Data
 However, embedded subjects may be marked by –râ if raised into the
higher clause. In (6), the raised subject has moved into the main clause.

 (6)
 Ali-ro pro
Ali-râ


fekr
mi-kon-am
[ (ke) e barande be-sh-e ]
thought Asp-do-1SG that
winner
Subj-become-3SG
‘As for Ali, I think he wins’
‘It is Ali who I think will win.’
Topic
Contrastive Focus
Data
 Topicalized DPs corresponding to the object of a preposition are
also marked by –râ.

 (7) man Pari-ro bâ-hâsh

I
Pari-râ
with-her
harf zad-am
talk hit-1SG
 ‘As for Pari, I talked with her.’
Data
 DPs’ corresponding to clitics inside an object are marked by –râ as
well.

 (8) pro mâshin-ro dar - esh-ro bast-am


car-râ
door-its-râ
close-1SG
‘As for the car, I closed its door.’
(Karimi 1989)
Data
 (9) a. pro mâmân-e Ali ro did-am
mom-EZ Ali râ saw-1SG



.
‘I saw Ali’s mom.’
b. pro Ali-ro
mâmân-esh - ro did-am.
Ali-ro
mom-his râ saw-1SG
‘As for Ali, I saw his mom’
Data
 Note, however, that the same pattern does not hold when the topicalized
DP corresponds to a clitic pronominal inside a subject.

 (10) a.
xâhar - e Sahar (*ro)
sister
Ez Sahar
‘Sahar’s sister comes.’
mi-y-âd.
Asp-3SG


b.
Sahar (-*ro) xâhar-esh mi-y-âd,
Sahar - râ sister-her
certain-is
‘As for Sahar, her sister will come.’
Data
 Nominal adverbs may be marked by –râ, even in the absence of a
transitive verb.

 (11) a. man fardâ-ro



I
tu xune mi-mun-am
tomorrow-râ in house Asp-stay-1SG
‘As for tomorrow, I will stay at home.’
Data
 b.





pro shab-e
pish-o aslan
night-Ez last-râ at all
na - xâbid-am
Neg – slept-1sg
‘It was last night that I didn’t sleep at all.’ (the entire night) or
‘As for last night, I didn’t sleep at all.’
(Karimi 1997)
Data
 Finally, some other type of non-object DPs may be marked by-râ in
the absence of a transitive verb.

 (12) mâ


we
in
râh-ro
this way-râ
bâ
ham
with each other
raft-im
went-1PL
‘We have gone this way with each other.’
Theoretical background
 In The Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) and
subsequent work (Chomsky 2000, 2001), Case is seen as
a semantically uninterpretable feature on nominals,
thereby requiring “deletion” before the semantic
interface (LF).
Theoretical background

(14)
 “Structural Case is not a feature of the probes
 (T, v), but it is assigned a value under agreement.
 The value assigned depends on the probe: nominative
for T, accusative for v.”

(Chomsky 2001:6)
Theoretical background
 There are other approaches to case assignment which
consider Accusative Case as a dependent case, and
do not take unmarked cases like nominative to be
positively specified.
 Marantz’s (1991) disjunctive case hierarchy is a
prominent example. That portion of Marantz’s proposal
relevant to our discussion appears in (15).
Theoretical background
 (15) Marantz’s Disjunctive case hierarchy

i.
Dependent case: case is dependent upon the presence of
some higher functional projection or a set of such projections
(Accusative in Nom-Acc languages, Ergative in Erg-Abs languages).

 ii.
Unmarked case: assigned when a DP appears embedded in
a certain structural position (genitive in NPs, nominative in SpecIP/TP).
Theoretical background
 For Marantz, case assignment is a post-syntactic
property that applies to the output of the syntactic
operations.
Theoretical background
 Preminger (2011a, 2014) gives the same case assignment
algorithm a purely syntactic implementation—in contrast to
Marantz’s original proposal.
 In this implementation, cases like nominative and absolutive
(and within the DP, genitive) are simply the morphological
form given to noun phrases whose case features have not
been valued in the course of the derivation.
Theoretical background
 Baker and Vinokurova (2010), Kornfilt and Preminger
(2014) and Baker (2017) show that accusative in Sakha,
a Turkic language, can only be analyzed as dependent
case in syntax.
Theoretical background
 (16)
 a.
Min [sarsyn
ehigi-(*ni) kel-iex-xit
dien]
ihit-ti-m.

I.NOM tomorrow you-(*ACC) come-FUT-2pS that hear-PAST-1sS

‘I heard that tomorrow you will come.’

 b.
Min [ehigi-ni
[bügün --
kyaj-yax-xytdien]] erem-mit-im.

I
today
win-FUT-2pS that


you-ACC
‘I hoped that you would win today.’
hope-PTPL-1sS
(Baker 2017)
Theoretical background
 (16a) shows that a subject properly contained in an
embedded clause cannot get accusative case in
Sakha. (16b) shows that if the subject moves to the edge
of the embedded clause, then it can get accusative
case under the influence of the matrix clause.
Theoretical background
 In this work, we adopt the following proposal:

 (17) Case valuation





a. Accusative Case is a dependent Case that is valued
downwards inside vP.
b. Accusative Case is valued only when the verb assigns an
external theta role.
c. Nominative Case is unvalued.
Theoretical background
 (17a) and (17c) are represented by the configuration in (18).
 (18)
TP

VoiceP


Nominative

(unvalued)

vP
Accusative
(valued)
Theoretical background
 (17b) is an extension of Burzio's Generalization
 (19)Burzio's Generalization
A verb which lacks an external argument fails to assign
Accusative Case.


(Burzio 1986:178-9)
Theoretical background
 As we see in the next section, the generalization in (19) is
extended to cases where a verb assigns Accusative
Case to a DP outside of its own thematic domain. This is
reminiscent of ECM in English.
Theoretical background
 Furthermore, Following Karimi (2005) we assume that
both types of objects are base-generated Inside the
PredP (=VP).
 The specific object moves into a higher position, possibly
the Specifier of vP, to escape the novelty domain (Heim
1981, Diesing 1992, Holmberg & Nikanne 2002).
Theoretical background
 (20)



vP
DPS
vP
DPo
v’
PredP


to
v
Theoretical background
 Finally, we suggest a post-syntactic râ-marking, as in
(21):

 (21)Post-syntactic râ-Marking


DPSpecific+Accusativ is marked by –râ at the morphological
interface post-syntactically.
Theoretical background
 One final remark:
 Our definition of specificity is based on Enç (1992). She
defines specificity in terms of strong antecedent and
weak antecedent.
Theoretical background
 A definite DP requires a strong antecedent based on an identity
relation between this type of DP and its previously established
discourse referent.
 Therefore, definite DPs are always specific.
 An indefinite DP is specific if it denotes an inclusion relation to
previously established discourse, representing a weak antecedent.
 A nonspecific DP lacks an antecedent in the discourse altogether.
Analysis
 We start with the most obvious cases, namely specific direct
objects. The example in (2) is repeated here in (22). The object, still
inside the vP, is valued for Accusative case.

 (22) Kimea [vP in ketâb *(-ro) [PredP be man dâd ]]


Kimea
this book râ
‘Kimea gave me this book.
to me gave
Analysis
 This analysis is extended to those cases with double DP+râ, as in (8),
repeated in (23).

 (23)


pro [mâshin-ro]i dar – e-shi-ro
car-râ
door-Ez-its-râ
bast-am
close-1SG
‘As for the car, I closed its door.’
(Karimi 1989)
 mâshin-ro corresponds to the clitic inside the object. We suggest
that it is base generated inside the vP, possibly in the Specifier of
that phrase, and is valued for accusative case.
Analysis
 As for the object of a preposition, the statement in (17a) correctly
predicts that it cannot be marked by –râ since it is embedded
inside PP.

 The example in (4), repeated as (24) exemplify this fact:

 (24) Kimea [PP be Parviz (*ro)] goft


Kimea
to Parviz râ
‘Kimea told Parviz.’
said
Analysis
 The DP+râ in (7), repeated in (25), corresponds to a clitic object
inside PP. We suggest that this DP, similar to the one in (23) is valued
for Accusative case in the Specifier of vP, and is marked by –râ
post-syntactically.

 (25)
man [Pari-ro]i

I

‘As for Pari, I talked with her.’

Pari-râ
[bâ-hâshi] harf zad-am
with-her
talk hit-1SG
Analysis
 Next, let’s consider the case of non-object DPs in an intransitive
construction, as in (12), repeated in (26).

 (26) mâ [in râh]i-ro
this way-râ
[vP ti
bâ
ham
with each other
raft-im

we
went-1PL

‘As for this way, we have gone with each other.’
Analysis
 The statements in (17a) and (17b) explain the
appearance of –râ in this context. The verb ‘raftan’ (to
go) is an unergative verb that assigns an external theta
role, and thus v values Accusative Case on the DP ‘râh’
while still inside vP, per Burzio's Generalization in (19).
Analysis
 Nominal adverbials are next.
 Cinque (1999) suggests a sequence of High and Low adverbials to
appear at the edge or inside the verb phrase.
 Based on this proposal and Karimi (2005), we assume that adverbs,
including high adverbials, are either adjoined to vP or inside it.
 Thus they may be valued for Accusative case if nominal.
 This analysis is borne out evident by the data in (11), restated in
(27).
Analysis
 (27) a.
man [vP farda]-ro
I

tomorrow-râ
tu xune mi-mun-am ]
in house Asp-stay-1SG
‘As for tomorrow, I will stay at home.’






b.
pro [vP shab-e
pish-o
night-Ez last-râ
aslan
at all
na - xâbid-am]
Neg – slept-1SG
‘It was last night that I didn’t sleep at all.’ (the entire night)
‘As for last night I didn’t sleep at all.’
, or
Analysis
 Finally, the example in (3), restated in (28), shows that the subject DP
cannot be marked by –râ. This follows from (17c), stating that Nominative
case is not valued, and thus not marked.

 (28) [VoiceP Kimea-(*ro) [vP ketâb xund ]]

Kimea-râ

‘Kimea read books.’
book read
Analysis
 Note that the DP corresponding to the clitic pronoun
inside the subject in (10), repeated in (29b), cannot be
marked either. This is predicted by our analysis: the
topicalized DP is high in the structure, and thus is not
subject to dependent case.
Analysis
 (29)a. [VoiceP xâhare - Sahar (*ro) [vP mi-y-âd.]]
sister Ez Sahar
Asp-3SG
‘Sahar’s sister comes.’


b.
Sahari (-*ro) xâhar-e-shi mi-y-âd,
Sahar - râ sister-Ez-her certain-is
‘As for Sahar, her sister will come.’
 I will come back to this issue after discussing the next example.
Analysis
 In (6), restated in (30), the embedded subject appears in the main
clause and is marked by –râ.

 Note that unlike the data from Sakha where the embedded subject
appears at the edge of its own clause, the subject in Persian moves
all the way into the higher clause.

 We suggest that the embedded subject has moved cyclically
through the Specifier of various phases, including the matrix vP, and
is valued for Accusative Case in that position.
Analysis
 (30)
 [Ali-ro]i pro [vP ti fekr mi-kon-am [ (ke) ei barande
be-sh-e ]]
Ali-râ
thought Asp-do-1SG that winner
Subj-become-3SG


‘As for Ali, I think he wins.’
Topic

‘It is Ali who I think will win.’
Contrastive Focus
Analysis
 Consider the examples in (29) once again. As discussed
before, neither the subject nor the DP corresponding to
the clitic pronoun inside the subject may be marked by
–râ.
Analysis

 (29)
a. [VoiceP xâhar - e Sahar (*ro) [vP mi-yâd ]]
sister
Ez Sahar
Asp-come-3SG
‘Sahar’s sister comes.’


b.
Sahari (-*ro) xâhar-e-shi mi-yâd
Sahar- râ sister-Ez-her Asp-come-3SG
‘As for Sahar, her sister will come.’
Analysis
 However, if the topicalized DP appears in the matrix clause, it can be
marked by -râ, as in (31).

 (31) Sahari-ro man fekr

Sahar-râ I
mi-kon-am [ ke
xâhar-eshi
thought Asp-do-1SG that sister-her
mi-yâd
Asp-come-3SG


‘As for Sahar, I think her sister will come.’ Or
Topic

‘It is SAHAR that I think her sister will come.’ Contrastive Focus
Analysis
 This is not surprising if the DP moves through the matrix
vP, and is valued for Accusative case on its way to the
topic or focus position in the matrix clause (cf. 33).

Analysis
 Two issues need to be discussed.
 First, it could be the case that Nominative case is in fact
valued by T in syntax, and the raised subject is valued
for Accusative case in the matrix clause, an instance of
Case-stacking which has been argued for in various
languages.
 In the absence of such a Case-stacking property in
Persian, we maintain that Nominative case is not a
syntactic phenomenon.
Analysis
 A second issue has to do with the raised subject. As the example in
(32) shows, the embedded subject is optionally marked in the matrix
clause.
 (32) Kimea (-ro) man fekr
mi-kon-am
thought Asp-do-1SG
[CP ke

Kimea (-râ) I

fardâ

tomorrow with us

‘As for Kimea, I think she will come with us tomorrow.’
bâ mâ
that
bi-yâd
Subj-come-3SG
Analysis
 We suggest that the unmarked version of the embedded subject is
base-generated in (32). Since the topic position is higher in the
clause than the vP, as in (33), it cannot be valued for Accusative
case.
 (33) [CP [TopP [FocP [TP [ VoiceP [vP [PredP ]]]]]]]
Analysis
 There are two pieces of evidence in favor of a
movement theory in the case of (30) and (31) where the
embedded subject is marked in the matrix clause.
 First, the presence of –râ is obligatory in an elliptical
construction. This is demonstrated in (34).
Analysis
 (34)
 [Ali-(ro)]i pro [vP ti fekr mi-kon-am [ (ke) ei barande be-sh-e,
Ali-râ
thought Asp-do-1SG that winner Subj-become-3SG

(vali Maryam-*(ro) pro [vP t ne – mi – dun - am
but
Maryam-râ
Neg-Asp-know-1SG
 [ (ke) e barande


be-sh-e].)
that winner Subj- become-3SG
‘As for Ali, I think he wins, (but I don’t know about Maryam).’
 ‘It is Ali who I think will win.(but I don’t know about Maryam)’
Analysis
 The subject of the elided clause must have moved out,
valued for Accusative case in the matrix clause, before
appearing in the initial position of that clause.
Analysis
 The second and more crucial piece of evidence in favor of a movement
theory is provided by the following contrast.
 (35)
 man [vP [Ali-(ro)]i fekr mi-kon-am [ (ke) ei barande be-sh-e ]]
I
Ali-râ thought Asp-do-1SG that
winner
Subj-become-3SG

‘As for Ali, I think (he) wins.’

 (36)
 *man [vP [Ali]i fekr
mi-kon-am [ (ke) ei barande
be-sh-e,]]
Analysis
 While the raised DP+râ may appear in an intermediate
position (within vP in (35)), the unmarked DP (in (36))
cannot, indicating that while the former moves cyclically
through the matrix clause, the latter is base-generated in
the topic position.
Prediction
 The statements in (17a&b) predict that a raised
embedded subject is valued for Accusative case and is
marked by –râ only if the matrix verb assigns an external
theta role. This predication is borne out.
Prediction
 (37)
 Ali (*ro) ghat’i-e (ke)
Ali -râ certain-is that

Maryam*(-ro)
barande mi-sh-e
(vali
winner Asp-become-3SG but
ne-mi-dun-am
 Maryam-râ Neg-Asp-know-1SG

barande
winner
mi-sh-e)
Asp-become-3SG
‘As for Ali, it is certain that he wins, (but as for Maryam, I’m not
sure).’
Prediction
 The matrix unaccusative predicate in the first clause in
(37) does not assign an external theta role, and thus the
raised subject cannot be marked. This is in contrast with
the raised embedded subject in the second clause that
is marked due to the matrix transitive predicate in that
case.
Next
 The next section examines some of the non-objective
DP+râ cases in CMP, and shows that the proposal at
hand accounts for those cases as well.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 In Old Persian, -râ appears as râdi marking a cause with
the meaning ‘for the sake of’.
 The same interpretation holds for rây, the reflex of râdi in
Middle Persian.
 According to Brunner (1977), Middle Persian rây served
other functions as well.
 It appeared as an illustration of purpose, reference,
beneficiary or indirect object (Karimi 1990).
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 In early Classical Modern Persain, -râ appears with
specific noun phrases in various positions, representing
the indirect object for the prepositions be ‘to’ (39a), az
‘from, of ’ (40a), and barâ ‘for’ (41a).
 These forms still exist in more formal and elevated
writings. The modern version of each sentence
immediately follows the Classical Modern version.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (39) a. amir-râ zakhm-i
zad-am
(CMP)

king-râ wound-Ind hit-1sg

‘As for the king, I wounded (him).’




b.
pro be amir zakhm-i
to king
zad-am
wound-Ind hit-1sg
Lit: I inflicted a wound to the king.
(MP)
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (40)
 a. loghmân râ porsid-and


adab
az
ke
âmuxt -
i
(CMP)
Loghman râ asked-3Pl politeness from whom learned – 2SG
‘They asked (of) Loghman, whom did you learn politeness from.’

 b. pro
az loghmân porsid-and adab

of Loghman asked-3Pl politeness of whom learned-2SG

az ke
âmuxt – i
(MP)
Lit: (they) asked of Loghman from whom (you) learned politeness.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (41)
 a. pro in
mehnat
suffering
râ darmân-i
andishide-am
râ remedy-Ind
thought-1SG

this

‘As for this suffering, I have thought (of) a remedy.’
(CMP)

 b. pro barâ-ye in


mehnat
darmân-i
andishide-am
for – Ez this suffering remedy-Ind thought-1SG
Lit: for this suffering I have thought of a remedy.
(MP)
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 Note that the vocabulary choice in Colloquial Modern
Persian is different in some cases than the Classical
Modern Persian or elevated Modern Persian. However,
for the sake of consistency, we are using the same
vocabulary.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 In all CMP cases, the DP+râ originates inside the vP,
where it is valued for Accusative case in syntax, and
marked by –râ post-syntactically.

 In all cases, the verb assigns an external theta role.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 The morpheme -râ also appears in constructions that
represent possession in Modern Persian.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (42)
 a.
va pro in – râ nâm shâhnâmeh nahâd-and

and


(CMP)
this râ name Shahname put-3PL
‘Its name they marked Shahname.’
Lit. ‘And as for this, they put the name Shahname on (it).’

 b. va


and
pro [nâm-e in]-râ
[name-Ez this]-râ
Shâhnâmeh
Shahnameh
‘And its name they called Shahnameh.’
nahâd-and
put-3PL
(MP)
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (43) a. xalgh-râ
xun
be-rixt-and

people-râ blood Subj-shed-3PL

‘As for people, they shed (their) blood.’
(CMP)





b. pro [xun-e xalgh]
be-rixt-and
blood-Ez people Subj-shed-3pl
Lit: (they) shed people’s blood.
(MP)
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 These cases, similar to the previous ones, are accounted
for by the proposal at hand: The DP+râ is valued for
Accusative case inside vP, and marked morphologically
by -râ later.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 The morpheme -râ also appears in a different possessive
construction represented by the example in (44a): bud
‘was’ is a copula, yet –râ appears following the DP
pâdshâh ‘king’. The modern version of this sentence is
the one in (44b) where –râ is missing.

Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (44) a. pâdshâh - râ pesar-i bud

king - râ

‘As for the father, there was a son.’
(CMP)
son-Ind was


b. pâdshâh pesar-i dâsht

king

‘The king had a son.’

son-Ind had
(MP)
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 It has been suggested in the literature that possessive constructions
have an underlying HAVE, and that this element is in fact a
preposition incorporated into the verbal be (Harley 1995, 2002),
among others).

 Benveniste (1966) noticed that many languages represent the
possessive as a combination of be plus some spatial or locative
preposition.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 Others, including Guéron (1995), Freeze (1992) and
Kayne (1993) have proposed to encode this
decomposition as part of UG, that is, to suggest that
have is represented as P in these constructions in all
languages underlyingly.

 Those languages with verbal have incorporate the P into
the be to produce the verb have overtly.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 Given this introduction, we propose the structure in (45)
as the underlying structure for (44a), adopted from
Harley (2002). The functional v with the flavor BE plus P
representing HAVE provides a possessive interpretation.
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 (45)
VP

PP

BE
bud





DP
P’
pâdshâh
PHAVE
DP
pesar-i
Classical Modern Persian (CMP)
 The DP pâdshah ‘king’ originates insdie the prepositional
phrase. We suggest that this element is valued for
Accusative case by the combination of PHAVE and the
copula.
Conclusions
 Accusative case is a dependent case, valued downwards inside vP
in Narrow Syntax.
 v values Accusative Case as long the predicate assigns an external
theta role.

 Nominative case is not valued.

 -râ post-syntactically marks specific DPs that have been valued for
Accusative case in Narrow Syntax.
Conclusions
 This system accounts for all DP+râ cases, including direct objects.
 This proposal explains why objects of prepositions are not marked by
–râ, while DPs corresponding to the pronominal object clitic of P
are.
 If this analysis on the right track, topic DPs are unvalued for case,
and thus unmarked, similar to subjects.
 Finally, the analysis proposed here implies that Case Filter is not a
property of Universal Grammar.
Conclusions
There remains one case that might provide a
counter evidence for the current analysis. The
sentences in (46) allow –râ to mark the initial
pronominal. In fact, the DP and the morpheme
-râ are both obligatory in these cases. The DP in
rang/rang-hâ ‘this color, these colors’ are the
subjects of the complex predicate xosh
âmadan ‘to like’
Conclusions
 (46) a. *(mâ-râ) in rang
xosh
ây-ad

us-râ this color pleasant come-3SG

‘This color is pleasant to us.’

CMP
[to us, this color comes pleasing]


b. *(mâ-râ) in rang-hâ
xosh
ây-and

us-râ this color-Pl pleasant come-3PL

‘These colors are pleasant to us.’

[to us, these colors come pleasing]
CMP
Conclusions
 The complex predicate xosh âmadan ‘to please’ is an
unaccusative predicate, and thus cannot value
Accusative Case. Nevertheless, DP+râ obligatorily
appears in this construction.
 One solution is that there is an invisible applicative head
in this construction that values Accusative case, allowing
the DP to be marked by -râ.
Conclusions
 A similar situation holds in Spanish.
 (47) a.
(A mí )

To me.DAT
me
gusta
ese color.
1SG.DAT.CL please.3SG that color
"I like that color".



b.
(A mí)
me

To me.DAT

"I like those colors".
gustan
1SG.DAT.CL please.3PL
esos colores.
those colors
 . Thanks to Imanol Suarez-Palma for bringing this point to our attention.
Conclusions
 According to Cuervo (2003), me in this example is the
phonetic realization of an applicative head. The Dative
a mi is merged in the Specifier of this head, where it
receives inherent case.
Conclusions
 Note that the Modern Persian version of (46) is the one in
(48). In this example the topic DP, co-indexed with the
pronominal clitic attached to xosh, is optinal. In
addition, xosh is the subject of the sentence, evident by
the fact that the verb invariantly carries 3rd person
singular inflection.
Conclusions
 (48) (mâ) az in
rang/rang-hâ
xosh-emun

(we) of this color/color-Pl

Lit. Pleasure to us comes from this color.
mi-yâd
pleasure-1PL Asp-come-3SG
Conclutions
 Spanish is similar to Modern Persian in two ways:
 The initial DP is optional
 There is an applicative head present (me in Spanish, emun in
Persian)
 Spanish is different from Modern Persian in that the predicate
invariably appears in 3rd SG in the latter, agreeing with xosh
‘pleasure’.
 Spanish is different from CMP in that
 The Applicable Head is missing in the latter, while overt in the
former.
Conclusion
 So basically, the difference between CMP and Spanish is
that
 the applicative head is visible in the latter, and the
dative a mi is redundant and thus optional.
 the applicative head is invisible in the former, and thus
the presence of the marked DP is obligatory.
Conclusions
 Spanish seems to be in an intermediate stage between
CMP and MP.
 We leave a thorough analysis of these constructions to
future research.
THANK YOU
References
 Baker, Mark 2017. Structural Case: A Realm of Syntactic Microparameters.
To appear in S. Karimi and Massimo Piattelli-Montabelli (eds) Parameters,
what are they, where are they? Special volume of Linguistic Analysis:
 Baker and Vinokurova 2010. Two modalities of Case assignment: Case in
Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28:593–642.

Benveniste, Emile 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris:
Gallimard.
 Bhatt, Rajesh. 2007. Unaccusativity and case licensing. Talk presented at
McGill University.
 Browne, W. 1970. More on definiteness marker: interrogatives in Persian.
Linguistic Inquiry 1:
359-63.
References
 Brunner, C. J. 1977. A syntax of western Middle Iranian (No. 3). New York:
Caravan Books.
 Burzio, Luigi 1986.
Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
 Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Chomsky, Noam 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in
language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
 Cuervo, C. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation: MIT.
 Diesing, Molly 1992. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical
representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 353-380.
References
 Enç, Murvet 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (1):1-25.
 Freeze, Ray 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language, 553-595.
 Ghomeshi, Jila 1997. Topics in persian VPs. Lingua, 102(2), 133-167.
 Chomeshi, Jila 1997. Topics in Persian VPs, Lingua 102: 133-167.
 Guéron, Jacqueline 1995. On have and be. In PROCEEDINGS-NELS 25, 191206). University of Massachusetts.
 Harley, Heidi 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
 Harley, Heid 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic
variation yearbook, 2(1), 31-70.
References
 Heim, Irene 1982. The Semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases.
Doctoraldissertation: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
 Holmberg, Anders and Urpo Nikanne 2002. Expletives, subjects, and topics
in Finnish. In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, P. Svenonius (ed.), 71-105.
New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Karimi, Simin 1990. Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions.
Linguistic Analysis 20 (3/4): 139-191.
 Karimi, Simin 1997.
Persian complex verbs: idiomatic or compositional.
Lexicology 3 (2): 273-318.
 Karimi, Simin 2005. A Minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from
Persian (Vol. 76). Walter de Gruyter.
References
 Kayne, Richard 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia
linguistica, 47(1), 3-31.
 Kornfilt, Jaklin and Omer Preminger 2014. Nominative as no case at all: An
argument from raising-to-Accusative in Sakha. Ms, Syracuse University.
 Mahootian, Shahrzad 1992. Persian. Routledge.
 Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the 8th Eastern
States Conference onLinguistics (ESCOL 8), ed. German Westphal,
Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
 Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
References
 Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Number 68 in Linguistic
Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 Windfuhr, G. L. 1979. Persian grammar: History and state of its study (Vol. 12).
Walter de Gruyter.
 Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language
63:217–250.