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, 2017
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 sentencemedial 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.
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).

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).

They have not been analyzed syntactically in detail, specifically in
Persian.
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).

The sentence-initial conditional clause in English adjoins to TP
and in some cases to CP (when preceding wh-arguments in
questions).

The sentence-final conditional clause involves VP-adjunction to
the right.

Second approach due to Valmala (2009):

Spanish and English sentence-initial conditional clauses are
in the Spec of TopP or FocP.

The 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.
Conditionals in Persian


(1)
Conditional 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):

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.

Independent 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.
The sentence-initial conditional clause

The 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 illformed under the movement-based analysis due to the principle C
violation, contrary to facts.
(2)


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:

Reconstruction 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.

Taking into account principle C and the distribution of lower
adverbs in Persian (lower adverbs are adjoined to the vP (Karimi,
2005: 125)):

(3)
The sentence-initial conditional clause is adjoined to TP.

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:

(4)
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.
It may be argued that they are in the multiple specifiers of FocP:


(5)
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.
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).
The sentence-final conditional clause

Sentence-final conditional clauses involve vP-adjunction:
 Principle
 vP

C of the Binding Theory
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.

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)


The asymmetry observed in the behavior of sentence-initial
and sentence-final conditional clauses:

It is possible to have a referential expression in the sentenceinitial conditional clause coreferent with a pronominal subject in
the main clause.

It is impossible to have a referential expression in the sentencefinal 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.

(7)
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.
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.

Our proposal for the TP and FocP adjunction of sentence-initial
conditional clauses can also account for:

(8)
The grammaticality and ungrammaticality of all the sentences in
which the conditional clause appears in the medial position.

The sentence in (9) with two topicalized DPs preceding the
conditional clause is also explained under our proposal.

(9)
More than one syntactic object may be topicalized in Persian (Karimi
2005).

The ungrammaticality of (10) is due to:


(10)
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).
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.
Conclusions

The 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.
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?
Thanks for your attention!
‫متشکرم‬

Conditional clauses may be focused. Under my analysis nothing
prevents a conditional clause to be modified by fæqæt 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)