Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 107–118

Chapter 6
The suffix that makes Persian nouns unique

Although it is widely acknowledged that Tehrani Persian (often broadly labeled as Persian) has no dedicated marker of definiteness, the nominal suffix -e has been analyzed as a colloquial definiteness marker. Here I show that -e can mark bare nominals to ensure a definite interpretation, but it can also appear on indefinites marked by the indefinite determiner ye. I show that indefinites marked by -e are scopally inert. To unify the effect of -e on definites and indefinites, I propose that -e introduces a uniqueness implication on the nominal it modifies. More specifically, N-e denotes a singleton set of objects. On a bare nominal, this uniqueness implication ensures a definite interpretation. On an indefinite, it restricts the domain of quantification to a singleton, making the indefinite scopally inert. I present a compositional account of definite and indefinite constructions with -e in Tehrani Persian.
Keywords: definiteness, specificity, Persian, colloquial
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Bare nominal vs. specific definite
  • 3.Simple indefinite vs. specific indefinite
  • 4.Specificity
  • 5.Common ground effects
  • 6.Analysis
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.06jas
References (8)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2006. Definite and indefinite. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 3. 392–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Lea Nash & George Tsoulas (eds.), Proceedings of Langues et Grammaire, vol. 1, 119–137. Paris: University of Paris 8.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57(2). 47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14(56). 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 2002. Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 289–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar and Hayedeh Nasser. 2015. Quantification in Persian. In Edward Keenan & Denis Paperno (eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language, 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Matsuoka, Daiki, Daisuke Bekki & Hitomi Yanaka
2024. Appositive Projection as Implicit Context Extension in Dependent Type Semantics. In Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14569], ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.