Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics II
Edited by Simin Karimi, Narges Nematollahi, Roya Kabiri and Jian Gang Ngui
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 361] 2023
► pp. 12–43

Chapter 1
Anaphoric potential of pseudo-incorporated bare objects in Persian

| Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin
| Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin
This paper investigates the syntax, semantics and discourse effects of bare nominal objects in Persian, analysed as an instance of pseudo-incorporation, in contrast to objects marked by the indefinite article yek and to objects marked by the object marker -rā. The main experimental result is that bare objects readily allow for anaphoric uptake, in contrast to claims in previous literature about Persian and pseudo-incorporated objects in other languages. However, anaphoric uptake is less readily available than with yek-marked objects.
We account for this difference, elaborating on Krifka & Modarresi (2016), where we argue for existential closure over the vP (Diesing 1992) as analyzed in Modarresi (2014) and an interpretation of bare objects as definites dependent on this existential closure. We give an implementation in Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp & Reyle 1993) which provides a model for our experimental findings. We consider -rā as marking constituents that moved out of the existential closure. Thus BNs if marked with -rā are definite and if not are definites dependent on existential closure similar, leading to weak definite effects. This also explains semantic features like the number-neutrality of bare objects, the specific/definite interpretation of rā-marked objects, and the similarity of bare objects to weak definites in languages like English.
Keywords: anaphoric reference, pseudo-incorporation, weak definites, definiteness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experimental findings on anaphoric uptake
    • 2.1Experimental studies
    • 2.2Reported experiments
    • 2.3Experiments 1/2: Self-paced-reading and acceptability judgment tests
    • 2.4Experiment 3: Anaphora choice
    • 2.5Experiment 4: Antecedent choice
    • 2.6Experiment 5: Free sentence completion
  • 3.Explaining anaphoric reference to BN vs. YK objects
    • 3.1BN objects as kind-referring expressions?
    • 3.2Syntactic structure of BN objects, YK objects and rā-marking
    • 3.3Semantic interpretation: The framework of DRT
    • 3.4The interpretation of BN objects and YK objects
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 14 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.361.01mod
References (55)
References
Abrusán, Marta. 2019. Semantic anomaly, pragmatic infelicity, and ungrammaticality. Annual Review of Linguistics 5:329–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aguilar-Guevera, Ana, Bert Le Bruyn, Joost Zwarts (eds.). 2014. Weak referentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural language & linguistic theory, 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Line Hove Mikkelsen. 2000. Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. in Cann, R., Grover, C. and Miller, P. (eds). Grammatical interfaces in HPSG, 1–15. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barjasteh, Darab. 1983. Morphology, syntax and semantics of Persian compound verbs : A lexical approach. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois dissertation.
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1970. More on definiteness markers: Interrogatives in Persian. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (3): 359–363.Google Scholar
Browning, Maggie A. & Ezat Karimi. 1994. Scrambling to object positions in Persian. In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on scrambling, 61–100. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and philosophy 1(3). 413–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg & Rachel Sussman. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, 26–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1990. Pirāmun-e -rā dar zabān-e Farsi, ‘About –rā in the Persian language’. Iranian journal of linguistics 7(1). 2–60.Google Scholar
. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition -rā in Perian. In Dieter Stein (ed.), Cooperating with written texts, 549–573. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1999. Bare NPs, reference to kinds and incorporation. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistics theory 9, eds. Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch, 35–51. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
. 2003. Bare nominals: Non-specific and contrastive readings under scrambling. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 67–90. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural language and linguistic theory 29. 123–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Incorporation: Morpho-syntactic vs. semantic considerations. In Olga Borik & Berit Gehrke (eds.), The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation, 189–221. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka, & Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fatemi, Maryam Hosseini. 2013. The semantics of the Persian object marker -rā. Ottawa: Carlton University MA Thesis.
Fodor, Janet Dean, & Ivan. A. Sag 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(3). 355–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganjavi, Shadi. 2007. Direct object in Persian. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102. 133–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Markedness and bare nouns in Persian. In Ghomeshi, J., Karimi, S., Samiian, V., & Stilo, D. (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 85–112. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 39–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hincha, Georg. 1961. Beiträge zu einer Morphemlehre des Neupersischen. Der Islam 37. 137–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto dissertation.
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2003. On object positions, specificity and scrambling in Persian. In Simin Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 91–124. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khanlari-Natel, Parviz. 1964. Dasture Zabāne Fārsi (The Grammar of Persian Language). Tehran: Tus Publications.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., F. J. Pelletier, G. N. Carlson, A. Ter Meulen, G. Chierchia, G. Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Greg N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Fereshteh Modarresi. 2016. Number neutrality and anaphoric uptake of pseudo-incorporated nominals in Persian (and weak definites in English). Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26. 874–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, Jess H.-K. & Kristen Syrett. 2017. Experimental evidence for the discourse potential of Mandarin. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, 303–323. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4 (4). 279–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19 (1). 153–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Noun incorporation: Essentials and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(4). 1076–1069. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Incorporation and pseudo-incorporation in syntax. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2012. The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 179–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Modarresi & Krifka. Forthcoming. Bare nominals, weak definites, anaphoricity: Evidence from Persian.
Modarresi, Fereshteh. 2010. Persian bare singulars, The role of information structure. Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2010. Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA).Google Scholar
. 2014. Bare nouns in Persian: Interpretation, grammar, and prosody. Berlin: Humboldt Universität zu Berlin dissertation.
. 2015. Discourse properties of bare noun objects. In Olga Borik & Berit Gehrke (eds.), The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation, 189–221. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Oggiani, Carolina. 2013. La semántica de los nombres singulares escuetos: sus propriedades referenciales. Signo y Seña 23. 239–255.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. J. 1974. Noun phrase specificity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.
Poesio, Massimo. 1994. Weak definites. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) vol 4. pp. 282–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadeghi, Ali-Ashraf. 1970. ‘Rā dar Zabān-e Fārsi Emrooz’ (raâ̄ in Contemporary Farsi). Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities 93. 9–22. Tabriz: University of Tabriz.Google Scholar
Scholten, Julien & Ana Aguilar-Guevara. 2010. Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definite NPs. Linguistics in the Netherlands 41. 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2013. Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistic Compass 7(10). 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. How weak and how definite are weak indefinites?, Weak Referentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 213–235.Google Scholar
Ward, G., Sproat, R., & McKoon, G. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67 (3). 439–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1979. Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Persian. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1990. Persian. In Language Universals and Language Typology. Comrie, Bernard (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yanovich, Igor. 2008. Incorporated nominals as antecedents for anaphora, or How to save the thematic arguments theory. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 367–379.Google Scholar