parsafar semantics

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [TÜBİTAK EKUAL]On: 1 April 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 772815468]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Iranian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427941

Syntax, Morphology, and Semantics of EzafeParviz Parsafar

Online publication date: 14 December 2010

To cite this Article Parsafar, Parviz(2010) 'Syntax, Morphology, and Semantics of Ezafe', Iranian Studies, 43: 5, 637 — 666To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00210862.2010.518029URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2010.518029

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427941

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2010.518029

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Parviz Parsafar

Syntax, Morphology, and Semantics of Ezafe

Although ezafe has been studied by many scholars for many years, it does not yet have atransparent grammatical status. Grammarians have regarded ezafe as a polysemous“word” carrying over ten different “meanings/functions.” After a brief review of theprevious treatments of ezafe, this paper will present a syntactic analysis, followed by amorphological description and a semantic analysis of this ubiquitous morpheme. It willalso compare the distributional properties of other relevant bound morphemes with thoseof the ezafe. It will finally conclude that ezafe is a dummy clitic-like morpheme which issemantically void, while syntactically it functions as an “associative marker” whichsubordinates its [+N] host, on the left, to its following complements.

Ezafe, which literally means “annexation” or “addition” and is traditionallyknown as a “Genitive” marker, is an indispensable element inside any nounphrase comprising a head modified by at least one non-clausal modifier and/orcomplement. That is, any study of Persian involving noun phrases (NPs) insubject position or predicate position, whether followed by light verbs orthematic verbs, is bound to encounter ezafe in numerous example sentences.The purpose of this paper, which is a very condensed version of chapter one of

Parsafar’s doctoral dissertation,1 is to present a clear analysis of ezafe. The firstsection is a brief review of previous works. The main part then starts with thesyntactic aspects of this morpheme and is followed by a morphological andfinally a semantic analysis.

Previous Treatments of Ezafe

This section presents a very brief description of some scholars’ accounts of ezafe.Homayunfarrokh maintains that ezafe is a “case” which determines the semanticrelationship between two words or groups of words both phonologically and

Parviz Parsafar is Professor of ESL & Linguistics, Yuba College, Marysville, CA, USA(pparsafa@ yccd.edu).Note that the findings in this paper are part of research that took place between 1990 and 1996. I

am greatly indebted to my advisor, Professor Laurence Horn (Yale), and Professors Stanley Insler(Yale) and Gernot Windfuhr (University of Michigan). However, all the errors and lapses are minealone.

1Parviz Parsafar, “Spatial Prepositions in Modern Persian” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1996).

Iranian Studies, volume 43, number 5, December 2010

ISSN 0021-0862 print/ISSN 1475-4819 online/10/050637–30#2010 The International Society for Iranian StudiesDOI 10.1080/00210862.2010.518029

Downloaded By: [TÜBTAK EKUAL] At: 15:17 1 April 2011

semantically. He further adds that “the sign of ezafe is an [e] which is added to thefirst word” as in /kolah-e mæn/“my hat.”2

He considers ezafe a polysemous item and divides all the ezafe-bearingconstructions into six groups: possessive, particularizing, descriptive, metapho-rical, definitional, and analogical.Phillott’s classification of ezafe constructions consists of many “different

types,”3 of which those that have not been mentioned by Homayunfarrokh areezafe of profession, and territorial, epithetical, patronymic, partitive, and super-lative ezafe.Lazard maintains that “when a substantive is accompanied by a modifier, it is

followed by the ‘enclitic particle’ -e.” He further adds that “ezafe does not indicateanything regarding the nature of the relation which holds between the modifierand the modified nominal.” Then, he classifies all the “relations which arerepresented by ezafe” into five major groups.4

Palmer’s analysis is different from those mentioned above. He derives all hisezafe constructions from underlying (deep structure) relative clauses. There aretwo “subsets” of ezafe constructions. Those in the first group, which do notcontain any “conjugated verb” in their deep structures, will carry either theverb /da

�t-/ “have” or the verb /bud-/ “be” in their “sentence paraphrases.”5

The second subset of ezafe constructions consists of those containing infinitives.The introduction of infinitives into the constructions is also accounted for bytransformational rules.After criticizing the traditional treatments of ezafe, Sami’ian starts with a defi-

nition of ezafe and its functions. She maintains that ezafe “which literally means“addition” refers to the unstressed morpheme [-e]” appearing between thehead and certain modifiers and complements in noun phrases, in adjectivalphrases, and in prepositional phrases.6 Furthermore, she believes that “theEzafe morpheme is not base generated but transformationally inserted beforeeach phrasal complement” inside the noun phrase. She then proposes that “allEzafe bearing phrasal complements are generated” under �N (N-bar).Karimi refers to “the ezafe particle -e” very briefly and maintains that in the

ezafe constructions, this particle “structurally relates the embedded phrase tothe head noun.”7 She further adds that ezafe is not a case assigner, but it does“transfer the case of the head noun to its complement(s).”

2A. R. Homayunfarrokh, Dæstur-e Jame’-e Zæban-e Farsi [A Comprehensive Grammar of thePersian Language], 2nd ed. (Tehran, 1339/1960).

3D. C. Phillot, Higher Persian Grammar (Calcutta, 1919).4Gilbert Lazard, Grammaire du Persian Contemporain (Paris, 1957).5A. Palmer, “The Ezafe Construction in Modern Standard Persian” (PhD diss., University of

Michigan, 1971).6Vida Sami’ian, “Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian: an X-Bar Analysis” (PhD diss.,

UCLA, 1983).7Simin Karimi, “Aspects of Persian Syntax, Specificity, and the Theory of Grammar” (PhD

diss., University of Washington, 1989), 83–84 and 116.

638 Parsafar


The Syntax of Ezafe

The distribution of ezafe. This subsection briefly examines the distributional restric-tions. Ezafe is unable to begin or end any tensed clause or to occur more thanonce consecutively. In general, the construction in which ezafe occurs carries atleast two elements, each on one side of the ezafe. For instance, in (1) only thelast example is acceptable:

(1) a. ∗/ e-saye-ye deræxtan /E-shade-E trees

b. ∗/ saye-ye deræxtan-e /-E -E

c. ∗/ saye-ye e-deræxtan/-E E-

d. / saye-ye deræxtan / “the shade(s) of the trees”-E

Furthermore, ezafe cannot be immediately adjacent to a finite verb, as in (2–3):

(2) a. ∗/ dærs-e xand /lesson-E read-[3sg]

b. ∗ / xand-e dærs /Cf. c. / dærs xand / “He/she studied.”(3) ∗/ mirævæd-e mædrese /

goes-E school

In infinitival constructions of periphrastic verbs (PVs), ezafe cannot precede theverbal component which is the last element of the PV:

(4) a.∗/ jævab-e dadæn /answer-E to give

Cf. b./jævab dadæn / “to (give an) answer”

However, simple infinitives can be used as modifiers, in which case ezafeobligatorily precedes the infinitive (by attaching, as usual, to the head of theNP). In (5), the subject NP is /sa’æt-e ræftæn/ “time of leaving” where the infi-nitive / ræftæn/ is modifying /sa’æt/ “time.”

(5) [ sa’æt-e ræftæn ] næzdik æstNP

time-E to go near is“[The time of departure ] is approaching.”

Syntax, Morphology, and Semantics of Ezafe 639


That /ræftæn/ is a nominal is illustrated in (6) where it functions as the subject,and in (7) where it is the object of the preposition.

(6 ) / ræftæn fayede-‘i nædaræd/ “It’s useless to go.”to go use-a not-has

(7) /æz ræftæn xæste�ode-æm/

from to go tired become-1sg“I’m tired of going/leaving.”

What is significant to note is that there seems to be no syntactic restriction onthe post-infinitival occurrence of ezafe in either case, i.e. whether the infinitive isthe verbal element of a PV or a simple verb. In other words, ezafe can attach to aninfinitive on its left whether the infinitive is used as a modifier of a preceding con-stituent or it is the verbal element in a PV, as in (8) and (9). Observe that there areno syntactic/semantic differences between these sentences and their colloquialversions.

(8) [ æz [jævab dadæn]-e ‘u ] ] xo�æm næyamæd

PP NPfrom answer to give-E him please-1sg not come-[3sg]

“His answering didn’t please me.”“[lit.] From his answer-giving pleasure did not occur to me.”

(9) [ [ [sa’æt]-e ræftæn]-e ma] æstNP NP

time-E to go-E us is“It’s our departure time.”

As these examples suggest, Persian infinitives function only as nominals, hencedeverbal nouns. Furthermore, note that the head of Persian NPs is always the noun(or the QP which functions as a noun) on the left of the ezafe. For example, in (5)and (9), /sa’æt/ “time” is the head of the NP, and in (8) /jævab dadæn/ “answer-giving” is the head. Thus far, then, it seems tentatively reasonable to concludethat an implied corollary to (5–9) is that adjacency to nominals and nominalizedelements is one possible environment for the occurrence of ezafe.

Categorical sensitivity of ezafe. Chomsky suggests the possibility “that thecategories noun, verb, adjective are the reflection of a deeper feature structure,each being a combination of features of a more abstract sort.”8 He furtheradds that in “this way, the various relations among these categories might beexpressible.”

8N. Chomsky, “Remarks on Nominalization,” in Readings in English Transformational Grammar,ed. by R. A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (Cambridge, MA, 1970), 184–221.

640 Parsafar


Stowell mentions that Chomsky “proposed an explicit theory of syntacticfeatures from which the major lexical categories should be derived.”9 The fea-tures list in (10) shows a summary of that system:

(10) [+N] (nouns, adjectives)[-N] (verbs, prepositions)[+V] (verbs, adjectives)[-V] (prepositions, nouns)

Note that Chomsky’s feature system predicts that the “unnatural” syntacticclasses are (nouns, verbs) and (adjectives, prepositions). Stowell mentions thatVan Riemsdijk has raised some doubts about Chomsky’s natural classes. Hehas pointed out that this feature system “implicitly assumes that no rule ofgrammar should be able to refer to a class of three of the major categories tothe exclusion of a fourth.” Van Riemsdijk’s skepticism is based on his beliefthat “there is a rule in the grammar of Dutch which incorporates adjectives,nouns, and prepositions into the verbal complex, although it does not apply toverbs themselves.”10

However, it will be shown that Chomsky’s feature system adequately coversthe functions of the Persian ezafe, since, contrary to Sami’ian’s arguments, ezafemerely applies to [+N] lexical and phrasal categories. If this proves to hold,then the existence of such specific parochial rules which do not apply to all thecategories, but to subsets of the given categories, will serve as further evidenceto support Chomsky’s feature system.Ezafe in adjectival phrases. Ezafe can attach to adjectives and past participles used

as heads. In predicates with auxiliary verbs /budæn/ “to be” and /�odæn/ “to

become,” ezafe can attach to the head of certain adjectival phrases as in (11):

(11) [mo�taq-e didar-etan] hæstæm

APeager-E seeing-E-your am“I’m eager to see you.”

There is, however, a restriction on such predicative adjectives. It seems thatthe head (of these APs) obligatorily subcategorizes for an NP and the resultingAP together with the auxiliary makes a periphrastic verb. Consequently, whenthese APs are used in the attributive, rather than predicative, position, theywill result in ill-formed NPs as in the following:

9Timothy A. Stowell, “Origins of Phrase Structure” (PhD diss., MIT, 1981), 21.10Stowell, “Origins of Phrase Structure,” 55. See also H. C. Van Riemsdijk, “The Case of

German Adjectives,” in Linguistic Categories 1, ed. by F. Heny and B. Richards (Dordrecht,1983), 223–252.



(12) a.∗ / mærd-e mo�taq-e didar-etan/

man-E eager-E seeing-E-yourb.∗ / pesær-e motevæjje-ye hærekat-e xode

�/

boy-E attentive-E actions-E himself

Now in order to capture both the conclusion in the first part of this section andthe one in this subsection, we can, still tentatively, hold that ezafe can attach to[+N] categories. Later, it will be illustrated that indeed ezafe attaches to thepreceding [+N] category both syntactically and phonologically.As for past participles, they can be used both predicatively and attributively. In

(13), ezafe is attached to the head adjective /suxte/ “burned.” However, as will beshown later, the second ezafe in (14) is attached to the NP /pænjere-ye

�ekæste/

“broken window,” rather than to the adjective /�ekæste/ “broken”:

(13) [ [suxte]-ye aftab ] “weather-beaten”, “[lit.] burned by sunlight”AP

burned-E sunshine(14) [ [ [pænjere]-ye

�ekæste]-ye ma]

NP NPwindow-E broken-E we

“our broken window”

In any event, these examples, too, are indicative of the fact that ezafe attaches tonominal or nominalized elements.Ezafe in noun phrase specifiers. Of the Persian NP specifiers, i.e. demonstratives

(including interrogatives), quantifiers, superlative adjectives, numerals, and classi-fiers, only superlatives, ordinals, and those quantifiers which occur in partitivephrases take ezafe obligatorily.Quantifiers. First, consider sentences (15–16) which show the use of quantifiers.

The (b) examples are ill-formed because the head quantifiers do not carry ezafe.

(15) a. /hæme-ye doxtærha / “all the girls”all-E girls

b.∗/ hæme- doxtærha/(16) a. /nesf-e cayi / “half of the tea”

half-E teab.∗/nesf cayi/

Note that these quantifier phrases, i.e. the (a) examples, can be used as subjectsand objects, as in (17–18), which means that they are NPs.

(17) a. /hæme-ye setareha be ma mixændænd/All-E stars to us laugh-[3pl]“All the stars laugh at us.”

642 Parsafar


b. /hæme-ye golhar-ra bu kærdæm /all-E flowers-SM11 smell did-[1sg]“I smelled all the flowers.”

(18) a. nesf-e mærdom xub budændhalf-E people nice were-[3pl]“Half of the people were nice.”

b. nesf-e baqbanha-ra æz kar bi-kar kærdændhalf-E gardeners-SM from work without work did-[3pl]“They fired half of the gardeners.”

Examples (19) and (20), in which /hæme/ “all” functions as the object and thesubject, respectively, further show that the initial elements, i.e. the quantifiers,in (15–18) are also nominalized.

(19) /hæmæ-ro bebær /all-SM take-[2sg]

“Take (them) all!”(20) / hæmæ-

�rixte ru zæmin / “It is all spilled on the ground.”

all-it spilled on ground

Superlatives and numerals. Comparatives are made by the suffix /-tær/ added tothe simple adjectives, as in /qæ

�æng-tær/ “prettier” while superlatives are

formed by adding the suffix /-in/ to the comparative base, as in /qæ�æng-tær-

in/ “prettiest.” From among simple, comparative, and superlative adjectives,only the last ones are obligatorily used pre-nominally, as in (21) and (22). Theother two usually follow the noun they modify.

(21) /bozorg-tær-in deræxt / “the biggest tree”biggest tree

(22) /bozorg-tær-in deræxtha / “the biggest trees”

What the specifier superlative in (21–22) has in common with demonstrativesand interrogatives (cf. 24–26) is that it can modify plural nouns whereas speci-fiers such as cardinal numbers cannot.Superlatives can also be used nominally as in (23), where the superlative is

employed as the head of the subject NP. Its being a nominal here is shown bythe fact that while the complement of the head is a plural noun, the verbagrees with the singular head (of the NP).

11SM stands for the Specificity Marker of Objects and Topics as argued for in Parviz Parsafar,“The Persian /ra/” (Unpublished qualifying paper presented to the faculty, Department of Linguis-tics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1990). This morpheme is represented by /-ra/ which hastwo other allomorphs in the colloquial language: /-ro/ and /-o/.



(23) /bozorgtærin-e bæcce-ha vared�od /

biggest-E children enter became-[3sg]“The biggest of the children entered.”

Examples (24a–c) and (25a–c) show that when demonstratives and interrogativesare used as determiners, hence obligatorily placed in a prenominal position, theycannot be pluralized but are able to modify plural nouns. When used as pronouns,however, demonstratives and interrogatives can be pluralized, as in (24d) and (25d):

(24) a. /”in doxtær / “this girl”this girl

b. /’un doxtæra / “those girls”that

Cf. c. ∗/ ‘una doxtæra /those girls

d. /’una ‘umadæn / “They/those have arrived.”those have come-[3pl]

(25) a. / kodum nevisænde / “which writer?”which writer

b. / kodum jængæla / “which forests?”Cf. c. ∗/koduma jængala /

which-PLd. /koduma-ro migi /

which-PL-SM talking-[2sg]“Which ones are you talking about?”

On the other hand, (26) illustrates the inability of cardinals to pluralize or tomodify plural nouns. As S. Insler (p.c.) has pointed out, this is due to the factthat cardinals are “lexical plurals.”

(26) a. / do ceraq / “two lamps”two lamp

b. ∗/ doha ceraqa /two-PL lamps

c. ∗/ do ceraqa /two lamps

As for ordinals, there are three forms. The basic form is used as a post-modifierin non-literary contexts as in (27a). Of the two derived forms, the one which isformed by the addition of /-i/ is also used post-nominally, as in (27b). Thethird one is derived by the suffix /-in/ added to the root and is ordinarilyplaced before the noun it modifies, as in (27c):

644 Parsafar


(27) a. /mah-e sevvom / “the third month”month-E third

b. /pesær-e sevvom-i / “the third boy”c. / sevvom-in pesær / “the third boy”

The simple ordinal form, as in (27a), is adjectival. Accordingly it is used as a postmodifier preceded by the ezafe.The suffix /-i/ which seems to be a [+specific] nominalizer (NOM), derives a

noun from the adjective base, e.g. /sevvom-i/ as used in (27b). That /sevvomi/is a nominal can be illustrated by the fact that it can be used alone in subject orobject position whereas the base form, i.e. /sevvom/, cannot:

(28) a. sevvom-i/∗ sevvom ci�od “What happened to the third one?”

Third-NOM what became-[3sg]b. sevvom-i-ro/∗ sevvom-ro peyda kærdi

third-NOM-SM find did-[2sg]“Did you find the third one?”

The third type of ordinal which carries /-in/ depicts two similarities with thesuperlative adjectives in that (a) its only position is prenominal as in (27c),where it is used as an adjective, and (b) it can also be followed by ezafe and aplural noun:

(29) /sevvomin-e anha doxtæri bud bes(i)yar ziba /third-E they girl-a was very pretty“The third one of them was an extremely beautiful girl.”

However, the difference between this kind of ordinal and the superlative adjec-tives is that when the former is not followed by ezafe, it cannot modify a pluralnoun (cf. 22). This is due to the fact that there is no number-agreement betweennumerals and nouns, which is why (30) is ill-formed:

(30) ∗/ sevvomin deraxt-ha/third trees

Now (21), /bozorg-tær-in deræxt/ “the biggest tree,” and (27c), /sevvom-inpesær/ “the third boy” show that superlative adjectives and /in/-carrying ordi-nals can be used prenominally as demonstratives. Using Jackendoff’s12 classifica-tory terminology, such specifiers can be marked [+Art] in the lexicon.On the other hand, (23) and (29) show that superlative adjectives and /in/-

bearing ordinals can also be used in partitive phrases, hence [+Partitive]. In

12R. Jackendoff, X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph No. 2(Cambridge, MA, 1977).



this function, just as the [+Partitive] quantifiers in (15-18), they are obligatorilyfollowed by ezafe and plural nouns.What needs to be further clarified is whether the [+Partitive] superlatives

reveal a nominal function like other [+Partitive] elements mentioned above.Since [+Partitive] superlatives, too, can be used only in NP positions of subjectsand objects, therefore they are indeed nouns, rather than adjectives:

(31) / bozorgtærin-e anha xers-e siyah-i bud/biggest they bear-E black-a was“The biggest (one) of them was a black bear.”

As can be readily seen, the NP status of the subject in (31) is further justified bythe subject-predicate agreement depicted by the singular verb /bud-[3sg]/“was.” The conclusion that can be drawn here is that the ezafe-bearing quanti-fiers, superlatives and ordinals can be employed as nominals, or [+N] constitu-ents, which further confirms the previous conclusion. Note that “adjectives are[+N] in any case, regardless of whether they are nominalized” (L.Horn, p.c.).Ezafe in noun phrase complements. The complements that follow head nouns in ezafe

constructions are attributive adjectives, attributive nouns, and prepositional phrases.Relative clauses can modify head nouns which carry ezafe only if the head has at leastone complement before the relative clause (cf. the morphology section).As was explained above, Persian noun phrases are usually head initial. This

implies that, as in French, adjectives usually follow the nouns they modify.And the occurrence of ezafe after the head is obligatory if the head is modifiedby complements. In what follows the structure of attributives and prepositionalphrases will be closely examined.Attributive nouns and adjectives. In (32), /na

�enas/ “unknown” is an adjective

following the head noun it modifies.

(32) / adæm-e na�enas/ “(an) unknown person”

person-E unknown

The attributive nouns also follow their head nouns, as in (33):

(33) /ranænde-ye ‘otobus / “(the) bus driver”driver-E bus

If a noun is modified by more than one modifier, each modifier is obligatorilyfollowed by an ezafe:

(34) a. /kif-e siyah-e kohne-ye italiya’i-ye mæn/briefcase-E black-E old-E Italian-E I“my old, black Italian briefcase”

646 Parsafar


As for the scope of modification inside the noun phrase, each adjective or nounmodifies only the first NP to its left. What this implies for an NP such as (34a) isthat it has the structure (34b), with the phrase structure rules partially listed in(34c), indicating that when a head is modified by a series of adjectives, eachezafemorpheme will attach to the (whole) NP preceding it rather than to individ-ual adjectives. This claim is based on the fact that adjectives cannot be modifiedby other adjectives.13

(34) b. [ [ [ [ [kif]-e siyah]-e kohne]-ye italiya’i]-ye mæn]NP N N N N Adj Adj Adj N

c. NP N – (NP)N N – (AP)N N – (NP)AP Adj

In (35a) and (35c), the adjective /kucæk/ “small” modifies the head /særbaz-xane/ “barrack,” which is a compound noun, whereas the same adjective modifies/�æhr/ “city” in (35b) because this is the closest noun to the left of the adjective.

(35) a. [ [ [særbaz-xane]-ye kucæk]-e�æhr]

NP soldier-house E small-E city“the city’s small barrack”

b. [ [særbaz-xane]-ye [ [�æhr]-e kucæk] ]

NP NP“the small city’s barrack”

c. [ [særbaz-xane]-ye kucæk]-e [ [�æhr]-e bozorg] ]

big“the big city’s small barrack”

As can be seen, in (35c), both the head of the complex NP, which is /særbaz-xane/ “barrack,” and the head of the modifying NP, which is /

�æhr/ “city” are

modified by their own adjectives.What needs to be reiterated here is that in any given complex ezafe-bearing

NP, ezafe attaches both to the head of the NP and to all constituents in thecomplement position modifying the head, except the right-most constituent.Now, since the head of the NP is ordinarily a noun, this is also theoreticallysuggestive of a recursion of multiple NPs within ezafe constructions as in (35c).

13The only apparent exception to this claim is that the color adjectives can be modified by arestrictive group of adjectives, a phenomenon that also exists in English, as in /qermez-e ro

�æn /

“light red” and /abi-ye kæmræng / “pale blue.” However, as will be seen later, an adjective carryingan ezafe is not an anomaly.



In (36a–d), as in their corresponding English sentences, changing the pos-itions of the nominals /xahær/ “sister” or /dust/ “friend” will lead to differentmeanings. Again it can be seen that each noun modifies the entire NP to its left.

(36) a. /dust-e xo�kel-e færansævi-ye xahær-e jan/

friend-E pretty-E French-E sister-E John“John’s sister’s beautiful French friend”

b. /dust-e xahær-e xo�kel-e færansævi-ye jan /

“John’s beautiful French sister’s friend”c. /xahær-e xo

�kel-e færansævi-ye dust-e jan /

“John’s friend’s beautiful French sister”d. /xahær-e xo

�kel-e dust-e færansævi-ye jan /

“John’s French friend’s beautiful sister”

Recall that Sami’ian claims that ezafe refutes Chomsky’s feature theory inapplying to three “natural classes” to the exclusion of the fourth. Hitherto,however, we have seen that in all the examples (32–36), ezafe occurs aftereither a noun or an adjective, which further confirms our claim that ezafeoccurs after merely [+N] lexical and phrasal categories.Here, it should also be mentioned that there are linguists whose views on ezafe

rest on the other end of the spectrum when compared to that of Sami’ian’s.14 Forexample, Karimi and Brame, who consider ezafe a “suffix,” have proposed aStrong Holistic Thesis (SHT) which claims that the “ezafe marker is suffixedto nominals and only to nominals, and it is followed by nominals and onlynominals.”15

However, this paper has already illustrated that in addition to applying tonominal heads, ezafe can also attach to adjectival heads in the predicate position.Parsafar has provided further evidence that shows how Karimi and Brame’sarguments are untenable and why their SHT does not hold in Persian. Afteran extensive discussion, he concludes that, indeed, “ezafe occurs after [+N] cat-egories which include adjectives and nouns.”16

Prepositions. Prepositions and prepositional phrases have been claimed to beable to function both as the head and as the complement of the head. On the con-trary, it will be illustrated that “true” prepositions cannot function as heads ofNPs, i.e. they cannot take ezafe. Since Parsafar has already done a comprehensiveanalysis of Persian prepositions and prepositional phrases,17 it is neitherappropriate nor plausible for me to embark on that task here. However, in the

14Sami’ian, “Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian,” 37–38.15SiminKarimi andMichael Brame, “AGeneralization Concerning theEzafe Construction in Persian”

(paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Conference of Linguistics, Canada, 1986).16For a more detailed discussion of this and other sections, see Parsafar, “Spatial Prepositions in

Modern Persian,” Ch.1.17Parsafar, “Spatial Prepositions in Modern Persian”.

648 Parsafar


following two subsections only a very brief discussion of prepositions will bepresented which will serve our purpose.Prepositions as heads? This paper has shown that from among all the major and

minor categories discussed so far, ezafe is attached only to [+N] categories. If itcan also occur after prepositions which are [-N, -V], then that will refute Choms-ky’s feature system which has been proved to hold in some languages. Note thatthe English Fronting Rule may be taken as counter-evidence to such a featuresystem since it “applies to NP, PP, AP, but not VP” (L. Horn, p.c.).As has been mentioned in the literature by Rubinchik, Lazard, Sami’ian, and

Karimi and Brame, among others,18 there are some prepositions that takeezafe, others that do not, and still others that take it optionally.At this stage, all the prepositions will be classified into two groups: (a) those

that never take ezafe, such as /æz/ “from,” /ba/ “with,” and (b) all the other pre-positions. For ease of reference, the first group will be referred to as True Prepo-sitions (TP) and the second group as Pseudo-prepositions (SP), the terms thatwere first proposed by Parsafar.19

The SPs display several nominal characteristics whereas the first group lackssuch properties. In (37a) the phrase /zir-e miz / “under the table,” whichbegins with one of the SPs, is the subject NP of the sentence. The same NP isthe object of the true preposition /æz/ “from” in (37b). Note that the periphrasticverb in this sentence obligatorily subcategorizes for a PP, whereas the periphras-tic verb (with a similar meaning) in (37c) subcategorizes for an NP. Finally, in(37c), the phrase /zir-e miz/ is the accusative NP:

(37) a. / [ zir-e miz] kæsif-e / “Under the table is dirty.”NP

under-E table dirty-isb. / [æz [ zir-e miz]] xo

�æm nemiyad /

PP NPfrom under-E table please-[1sg] not-come-[1sg]“Under the table doesn’t please me.”

c. /[ zir-e miz]-ra dust nædaræm /NP

under-E table-SM like not-have-1 [sg]“I don’t like under the table”

Thus, since /zir-e miz/ can be used as subject, object of PP, and direct object,it is definitely an NP. Now, internal to this NP, there is the noun /miz/ “table”which is the complement of the head of the NP, i.e. /zir/ “under.” On the other

18Yu. A. Rubinchik, The Modern Persian Language (Moscow, 1971); Lazard, Grammaire du PersianContemporain; Sami’ian, “Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian”; Karimi and Brame, “AGeneralization Concerning the Ezafe Construction in Persian.”

19Parsafar, “Spatial Prepositions in Modern Persian.”



hand, the head of an NP is expected to be a noun, too. Therefore, /zir/ “under”which is “semantically” a preposition-like morpheme is syntactically functioningas a noun. Parsafar has shown that all the other pseudo-prepositions displaynominal (or adjectival) functions whenever they are followed by ezafe.20

To sum up, again it can be concluded that ezafe can be attached only to [+N]categories, i.e. adjectives and nouns. One question which might arise here iswhether ezafe is itself a nominalizer or it only follows nominals and already nomi-nalized categories. The next section will provide an answer to this question.Attributive prepositional phrases. Prepositional phrases can modify the heads of

the NPs. It will be shown very briefly here that although they are PPs in form,they function merely as adjectivals rather than nominals or adverbials.There are basically three types of prepositional phrases that can be used as

modifiers of heads in complement positions. The first type does not carry anyverbal element as in (38). That the seemingly prepositional phrase /ba sæfa /“with pleasantness” is used as an adjective in (38a) can be illustrated by thefact that it can take the comparative suffix /-tær/ as in (38b). This casts doubton the nature of prepositions in such constructions. They might in fact be deri-vational prefixes, in this case a denominal adjectival prefix.

(38) a. / adæm-e ba sæfa/person-E with pleasantness“a pleasant/agreeable person”

b. /xosro æz mæmmæd ba sæfa-tær-e /Khosrow from Mohammad with pleasant-er-is“Khosrow is more agreeable than Mohammand.”

The second type of prepositional phrase used in the complement positionalways consists of a past participle verb as in (39). It is clear that the PP /betaraj ræfte/ “plundered” is used as an adjective in (39a). The adverb /taze/“recently” in (39b) which modifies this prepositional phrase provides proof forthe adjectival function of the PP.

(39) a. [ [æmval]-e [be taraj ræfte] ]-ye ‘uNP PP

belongings-E to plunder gone-E he“his plundered possessions”

b. [ [æmval]-e [taze be taraj ræfte] ]-ye ‘urecently

“his recently plundered possessions.”

The possibility of PPs functioning as modifiers, however, cannot refute the con-clusion drawn so far, which claims that ezafe can attach only to [+N] constituents.

20Parsafar, “Spatial Prepositions in Modern Persian”.

650 Parsafar


In (39), both the head /æmval/ and the entire embedded NP receive ezafe. In otherwords, the second ezafe is not affixed to the PP but to the embedded NP.The third type of PP that can be employed in the complement position enjoys

the fact that the use of ezafe (preceding the PP) is optional; therefore it is redun-dant, as in (40a) and (41a). The major difference between this PP and the othertwo is that this one ordinarily cannot be further followed by other constituentsas complements of the same head, as in (40b) and (41b):

(40) a. /enteqal(-e) be tehran /transference(-E) to Tehran“transference to Tehran”

b. ?? /enteqal-e be tehran-e ma/transfer-E to Tehran-E we“[lit.] transference to Tehran of ours”

c. /enteqal-e ma be tehran /transference-E we to Tehran“Our transfer to Tehran”

(41) a. / e’teraz(-e) be jæng / “objection to war”objection(-E) to war

b.∗/e’teraz(-e) be jæng-e anha/objection(-E) to war-E they

c. /e’teraz-e anha be jæng /objection-E they to war“their objection to war”

Sentence (40b) does not sound acceptable to many speakers because the PP /betehran/ “to Tehran” and the head /enteqal/ “transfer” do not make a constituentin order for them to be further modified by /ma/ “we.” To make it acceptableand grammatical, /ma/ is moved to the position after /enteqal-e/ “transfer-ence-E” with which it makes a constituent NP, as in (40c). The same analysisholds true with (41b–c), as well.Thus the final conclusion to this section is that the elements that can be used as

constituents preceding and taking ezafe are N, NP, and adjectives (only in the pre-dicate position of certain auxiliaries). These can be considered as [+N] heads. Onthe other hand, not only can [+N] constituents follow ezafe as complements butalso PPs with an adjectival function. This conclusion is not unusual, consideringthe fact that the complements of a head inside any NP should all exhibit an adjec-tival function since they are modifying a head N/NP.

The Morphology of Ezafe

What is the nature of ezafemorphologically? Is it a suffix or a clitic? In the formercase, is it derivational or inflectional? If it is the latter, how does it interact withother clitics? To search for morphological replies to these questions, the behavior



of ezafe will be closely compared and contrasted with that of three other mor-phemes, namely /-i/, the conjunct possessive pronouns (henceforth POSS),and the adposition /-ra/.This section will first provide evidence indicating that the ezafe bound mor-

pheme /-e/, the so-called “suffixes” /-i/ and POSS, and /-ra/ are not inflectionalor derivational suffixes for several reasons, the most immediate and prominent ofwhich is the fact that these are merely “extra-inflectional.”21 Then, it will beargued that ezafe and POSS are clitic-like whereas /-i/ and /-ra/ are moreword-like.

Extra-inflectional morphemes. In his discussion of the structure of complexwords, Bloomfield refers to “an outer layer of inflectional constructions” and“an inner layer of constructions of word-formation.”22 This major differencebetween inflectional and derivational affixes has been further supported bymany linguists such as Aronoff, Zwicky and Pullum, Scalise, and Klavans,among others.23

Parsafar shows that in plural NPs, the conjunct possessive pronouns, andthe “Indefinitizer /-i/” are used after the inflectional affixes /-ha/, /-an/, and/-jat/,24 which are all plural markers, whereas none of the other inflectional orderivational suffixes exhibits such a property.Let us first study the morphemes under discussion when they are affixed to

singular nouns. Examples (43–45) show that the Indefinitizer, the pluralmakers, and the possessive pronouns attach (only) to the right of nouns. Sen-tences in (46) illustrate that the Indefinitizer appears after the derivational(bound) suffixes (DA) such as /-ban/ “keeper.”

(42) /ketab/ “book”(43) /ketab-i / “a book”

book-ID25

(44) /ketab-ha/ “books”book-PL

21See Judith L. Klavans, “The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization,”Language, 61, no. 1 (1985): 95–120.

22Leonard Bloomfield, Language (Chicago, 1933), 222.23Mark Aronoff, “Word Formation in Generative Grammar,” Linguistic Inquiry, 1 (1976);

Arnold M. Zwicky and Geoffrey Pullum, “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English n’t,” Language, 59,no. 3 (1983): 502–513; S. Scalise, Generative Morphology (Dordrecht, 1984); Klavans, “The Indepen-dence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization.”

24Parviz Parsafar, “The Morphology of Modern Persian Suffixes” (Unpublished qualifyingpaper presented to the faculty, Department of Linguistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT,1990), 49. He illustrates that “this /i/ is unspecified for definiteness in the sense that when it isused in isolation, it is ‘unspecific indefinite’, but when used in context, it can be ‘specific indefinite’or ‘definite’ .”

25In what follows, PL stands for the plural markers, ID for Indefinitizer /-i/, and POSS for thepossessive pronominal suffixes (or, as will be shown, enclitics).

652 Parsafar


(45) /ketab-æm/ “my book”book-my

(46) a. /�otor-ban-i/ “a cameleer”

camel-DA-IDb. ∗/

�otor-i-ban/

(47) shows that the inflectional plural marker /ha/, too, occurs after the deri-vational suffixes. The same final position holds for the POSS, which in (48) hasbeen attached to the derivational (diminutive) bound suffix /-ce/. Note that as allthese examples show, one common property of /-i/ and POSS is that neither onecan change the category of its base.

(47) a. /�otor-ban-ha/ “cameleers”

PLb.∗ /

�otor-ha-ban/

(48) a. /baq-ce-æm / “my flowerbed”garden-DA-POSS

b.∗/baq-æm-ce/

As (49) illustrates, the possessive pronouns and /-i/ cannot co-occur simul-taneously in the same NP. The reason is that /-i/ is an “unspecific indefinite”marker, in isolation, and the possessive pronouns are inherently “definite.”Since both of these are to be used post-nominally, their co-occurrence is seman-tically implausible in Persian. Neither one is powerful enough, nor does it havethe motivation, to neutralize the effect of the other.

(49) a. ∗/ ketab-æm-i /book-POSS-ID

b. ∗/ ketæb-i-æm/book-ID-POSS

As for the plural nouns, either /-i/ or POSS can encompass the plural suffix, butnot vice versa:

(50) a. /ketab-ha-i / “some books”book-PL-ID

b. ∗/ ketab-i-ha/(51) a. /ketab-ha-yæm/ “my books”

book-PL-POSSb. ∗/ ketab-yæm-ha/

Furthermore, as has been shown by Parsafar, the right-most nominal elementin Persian is the adposition /ra/ which is “the Specificity Marker of Objects and



Topics,”26 henceforth SM.27 This adposition, which does not change the cat-egory of its base, occurs even after /-i/, or

(52) /ketab-ra xæridæm/ “I bought the book.”book-SM bought-[1sg]

(53) /ketab-ha-i-ra aværd ke. . ./book-PL-ID-SM brought-[3sg] that“He/she brought the books that . . .”

(54) /ketab-ha-yæm-ra . . . / “my books”book-PL-POSS-SM

Thus, the orders of these morphemes and the post-position /ra/ are fixed:/-ha-i-ra/ and /-ha-POSS-ra/. Hitherto, it can be concluded that the ID /-i/,the POSS, and the SM /-ra/ cannot be derivational suffixes for the followingreasons: First, they do not change the category of their bases. Parsafar showsthat the majority of Persian derivational morphemes are category changing.The ones that are category preserving are basically evaluatives, which includediminutives, derogatives, and hypocoristics.28 (Some English derivationalaffixes such as un- are also category preserving.) Second, they occur to theright of the inflectional morphemes. Furthermore, recall that, as has beenshown so far, ezafe shares these two properties, as well.

What kind of morpheme? The question to be dealt with in this section is whether theezafe /-e/, the ID /-i/, the POSS, and /-ra/ are clitics or inflectional affixes,29 orsome other kind of morpheme. Initially, a description of clitics is in order.

26Parsafar, “The Morphology of Modern Persian Suffixes,” 40–48.27Assuming the principles of Chomsky’s (1981) GB theory, Karimi (“Aspects of Persian

Syntax”, 100) argues that /ra/ “follows a specific NP if the latter is not marked [+NOM] and isnot in the minimal government-projection of a (¼N, A, or P). Independently, and based on thetheory of Relational Grammar developed by David Perlmutter, “Relational Grammar,” Syntaxand Semantics, 13 (1980): 195–227, Parsafar (“The Persian /ra/”) argues that /ra/ is “a SpecificityMarker of Objects and Topics.”

28Parsafar, “The Morphology of Modern Persian Suffixes,” 23–24.29Analyzing certain Italian data, Scalise (Generative Morphology, 126) refers to Kiparsky’s mech-

anism of “inflection blocking” which states that “sequences of consecutive inflectional elementsare prohibited.” However, this “mechanism” has been illustrated to be ineffective in Persian byParsafar (“The Morphology of Modern Persian Suffixes”), as in the following:

kucik ‘small’kucik-tær ‘smaller’kucik-tær-a ‘the little/younger/smaller ones’Adj IA IA

It should also be mentioned that Parsafar (Ibid) considers the ID /-i/ as an inflectional suffix,whereas the analysis in the present work will propose that /-i/ is probably more word-like.

654 Parsafar


Clitics defined. Giving examples from English and some other languages,Aronoff briefly discusses the existence of some “grammatical morphologicalphenomena which cannot be subsumed under inflection,”30 the best knownof which is cliticization. Zwicky elaborates on this and other borderlinecases.31

In these papers, Zwicky surveys a host of analytical problems related to aMadurese “reduplicative morpheme.” In the course of his discussion, Zwickypresents six principles, namely Ordering, Internal Sandhi, Rule Immunity,Binding, Construction with Affixes, and Accent to distinguish affixes fromeach other.Then he describes three classes of exceptional cases (to the last three prin-

ciples). The first class consists of cases where “an unaccented bound form actsas a variant of a stressed free form with the same cognitive meaning and withsimilar phonological makeup.” These conjunct clitics often show “specialsyntax.” For example, in French declarative sentences, conjunct clitics areplaced before the verb even though French is an SVO language.32

In Persian, which is an SOV language, the unstressed conjunct objectpronouns are obligatorily affixed to the right of the verb, as in (55b), whiletheir corresponding stressed free units, or disjuncts, are ordinarily placed beforeverbs, as in (55a):

(55) a. /mæn bæhram-ra didæm/ “I saw Bahram.”I Bahram-SM saw-[1sg]

b. /didæm-æ�/ “I saw him.”

saw-[1sg]-[3sg]

As for the possessives, the conjunct and the disjunct forms of possessivepronouns are used post nominally. The latter, however, are preceded by ezafebecause they function as genitive nominals modifying the head of the ezafe,whereas the former cannot be preceded by the ezafe morpheme:

(56) a. /ketab-e mæn / “my book”book-E I

b. ∗ /ketab mæn/(57) a. /ketab-æm/ “my book”

book-POSS-[1sg]b. ∗ /ketab-e-æm/

30Aronoff, “Word Formation in Generative Grammar,” 3–4.31Arnold M. Zwicky, On Clitics, Indiana University Linguistics Club publication (1977); Arnold

M. Zwicky, “On Clitics,” in Phonologica, ed. by Wolfgang U. Dresser and Oskar E. Pfeiffer(Innsbruck, 1976). This is a shorter version of the 1977 paper.

32His examples are “Je vois Jean” (“I see John”) and “Je le vois” (“I see him”).



The second class of cliticization is usually “associated with stylistic conditions,as in the casual speech cliticization of object pronouns in English.” Zwickycalls the first class “Special Clitics” and the second class “Simple Clitics.”His third class is referred to as “Bound Words.” These are unaccentedmorphemes which are usually placed at the very margins of their hosts, standingeven outside inflectional affixes. The English example is the possessivemorpheme.Based on Zwicky’s arguments, then, it seems that the Persian Possessive (as

well as Objective) Pronouns are of the “Special Clitic” form while the Indefini-tizer /-i/, the ezafe, and the SM /-ra/ might be of the “Bound Clitic” form.The next section will further investigate this distinction.Clitics, affixes, or words? It will be illustrated here that ezafe and conjunct

possessives are more clitic-like while the ID /-i/ and the SM /-ra/ share someproperties with “words” and some with “clitics.” Zwicky and Pullum presentsix criteria distinguishing between English clitics and inflectional affixes. Fourof these criteria will be applied to the Persian data as follows:

1. “Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to theirhosts, while affixes exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to theirstems.”33

The ezafe /-e/, the ID /-i/, and the POSS can attach virtually to any NP,whether singular or plural. None of the inflectional (or derivational) suffixesare as productive as these three. Nevertheless, these three cannot co-occur. Onthe other hand, the SM /-ra/ exhibits a selective application in that it marksonly Specific Object and Topic NPs.

2. “Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixedwords than of clitic groups.”

Examples (58–61) show that even the plural markers /-ha/ and /-an/, whichare among the most productive inflectional suffixes, are faced with some arbitrarygaps.34

(58) a. /sib-ha /apple-PL

Cf. b. ∗ /sib-an/ “apples”apple-PL

33Zwicky and Pullum, “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English n’t.”34M. Mo’in, Mofrad-o Jam’ [Singular and Plural] (Tehran, 1340/1961), presents a nearly exhaus-

tive list of the types of bases for /-ha/ and /-an/ which need not be mentioned here. Parsafar (“TheMorphology of Modern Persian Suffixes,” 31) claims that “almost any base that can be pluralized by/-an/ is also pluralizable by /-ha/, but not vice-versa.”

656 Parsafar


(59) a. /zæban-ha/tongue-PL

Cf. b. ∗ /zæban-an/ “tongues”tongue-PL

(60) a. ?/mæhru-ha/beautiful-PL

Cf. b. /mæhru-yan/ “the beautiful (women)”

(61) /deræxt-ha/ ¼ /deræxt-an/ “trees”tree-

Gaps do also frequently occur with derivational suffixes, for example /-e�/ and

/-id/ in (62) and (63). In contrast, the ID /-i/, the ezafe /-e/, the SM /-ra/, andthe POSS do not allow gaps.

(62) /ku�-/ “try” 1 /-e

�/ /ku

�-e�/ “attempt, try” n

present stem(63) /xær-/ “buy” ∗ /xær-e

�/

present stemCf. /xær/ +/-id/ /xær-id/ “purchase” n

3. “Morphological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words thanof clitic groups.”

There are no cases where a particular host-clitic combination, with ID /-i/, orE /-e/, SM /-ra/, or POSS, shows an unexpected phonological form. Hosts arenot affected by these four. However, they themselves have allomorphs, asdepicted in the following table:

(64) Clitics and affixes

On the other hand, idiosyncratic alternations are abundant among inflectional(and derivational) suffixes. The past tense morphemes, for instance, are involvedwith a great number of morphological idiosyncrasies:



(65) a. /ist/ pres. stem ‘stand’ /istad/ past stem ‘stood’b. /dar/ ¼ ¼ ‘have’ /da

�t/ ¼ ¼ ‘had’

c. /bær/ ¼ ¼ ‘carry’ /bord/ ¼ ¼ ‘carried’d. /xah/ ¼ ¼ ‘want’ /xast/ ¼ ¼ ‘wanted’

4. “Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics, but affixes cannot.”

This criterion is only partially borne out for the three types of clitic-likemorphemes under scrutiny. As was discussed above, there are no derivationalor inflectional affixes that can attach to ID /-i/ or the conjunct possessives,save for the Specificity Marker of Objects and Topics (SM) /-ra/. As for ezafe,there is absolutely no morpheme, including /-ra/, that can be affixed to it.(Recall, however, that ezafe cannot end an NP unless it is followed by anotherword or constituent.)Since these morphemes are not completely in accordance with the criterion

being considered here on the account of their relative inability to apply to eachother, it can be maintained that they have a mixed behavior between wordsand clitics. Nevertheless, /-i/, /-ra/, and POSS are more clitic-like than ezafesimply because /-ra/ can attach to /-i/ and POSS, but no morpheme canattach to /-e/. Moreover, the fact that /-ra/ and /-e/ are each the last elementsattached to a given N/NP can be regarded as a major difference between theseand the other two.Zwicky, who further elaborates on his earlier papers on clitics, provides a list

of tests for distinguishing “clitics from independent words.”35 Some of thesetests are paraphrases of the above-mentioned criteria. However, his “movement”test can be of significance to our discussion here.

Movement: “in an X + Y combination, if either X or Y can be moved withoutthe other, then X and Y are words: neither of them is a clitic.”

It will be shown here that /-ra/ and /-i/, but not /-e/ and POSS, can be movedin some contexts. In another paper, Zwicky maintains that the English possessiveclitic is “attached phonologically to the last word of the noun phrase,”36 even if itis not the head of the NP:

(66) The Queen of England’s hat(67) The woman I talked to’s arguments

The SM/-ra/ behaves similarly in that, in simple NPs and in ezafe construc-tions, it is attached to the right-most element of the noun phrases and cannotbe moved inside them:

35Arnold M. Zwicky, “Clitics and Particles,” Language, 61, no. 2 (1985): 283–305.36Zwicky, On Clitics, 7.

658 Parsafar


(68) a. /sa’æt-æm-ra/ “my watch”watch-my-SM

b. [ sa’æt-e tæla-ye su’isi-yæm]-ra . . .NPwatch-E gold-E Swiss-my-SM

“. . .my gold Swiss watch”

However, when the head is modified by a relative clause, /-ra/ can attach eitherto the head or to the rightmost word of the relative clause, as in (69).

(69) a. [ [mærd-i]-ra ke diruz didæm] . . .NP N

man-ID-SM that yesterday saw-[1sg]“. . .the man I saw yesterday.”

b. [ [mærd-i] ke diruz didæm]-ra ‘. . .the man I saw yesterday.’NP Nman-ID that yesterday saw-[1sg]-SM

In this case, the behavior of /-i/ seems to be the converse of that of /-ra/.Although the /-i/ that is attached to the head of the relative clauses, as in(69a–b), cannot be moved from its position, the /-i/ in (70a), where it is attachedto a head noun which is not modified by a tensed clause, can be moved to the endof the object NP, as in (70b).Notice that in (70b), the attachment of ezafe to the head noun is obligatory

because it makes the modifying function of the following PP possible. It isonly after the combination of [ [N]-e PP] that /-i/ and subsequently /-ra/ findan appropriate NP to attach to.

(70) a. [ [særbaz]-i æz jæng bær-gæ�te]-ra didæm ke

NP Nsoldier-ID from war returned-SM saw-[1sg] that

? “I saw a returned-from-the-war soldier who. . .”b. [ [ [særbaz]-e æz jæng bær-gæ

�te]-‘i]-ra didæm ke

NP NP Nsoldier-E from war returned-ID-SM saw-[1sg] that

? “I saw a returned-from-the-war soldier who . . .”

Examples (69–70), then, illustrate that /-ra/ and /-i/ can be categorized asbound “words,” rather than “clitics.” Moreover, of these two, /-ra/ is moreword-like than /-i/ due to its excessive freedom in movement. On the otherhand, it was shown above that they can also be clitics. The “mixed status” ofthese two may still seem more dubitable considering the fact that they arestressless just as the clitics are. Zwicky calls those words which are “prosodically



subordinate to their neighbouring material” leaners. He further adds that some-times leaders act as clitics “in certain circumstances.”37

Furthermore, Zwicky claims that there are two kinds of leaners; obligatory andoptional. Obligatory leaners, such as the English articles (71a) and coordinatingconjunctions (71b), cannot occur alone. Optional leaners, however, such as theEnglish prepositions (72a) and auxiliaries (72b), can occur without “a memberof the category on which” they depend.38

(71) a. “∗ Wilma said she was pointing at a lion, but I couldn’t see the (at all)”b. “∗ It was Susan that I saw Terry and (in London)”

(72) a. “It was Wystan I sent the poem to (last week)”b. “Margaret thinks Norman is a genius, but I don’t think he is (at all)”

Considering the mixed status of /-i/ and /-ra/, they can be conceived asmorphemes which share some properties with both “bound clitics” and“obligatory leaners.” However, what these two morphemes do not share withZwicky’s “leaners” is that “leaners are disinclined to attach to other leaners.”39

As for /-i/ and /-e/, what they have in common is that they cannot attach totensed clauses. There are also two major differences between them; (a) ezafe’sability to have multiple attachments to all the constituents inside the NPs, and(b) ezafe’s inability to move.Finally, the POSS morphemes, too, attach only to the last element of any given

NP. Examples (74b) and (75b–c) are ill-formed because the possessive pronounis not affixed to the entire NP.

(73) /goldan-æm/ “my vase”vase-POSS-[1sg]

(74) a. /goldan-e qermez-æm/ “my red vase”vase-E red-POSS-[1sg]

b. ∗ /goldan-æm qermez /vase-POSS-[1sg] red

(75) a. [ [ [goldan]-e qermez]-e�ekæste]-æm]

NP NPvase-E red-E broken-POSS-[1sg]

“my broken red vase”

37Arnold M. Zwicky, “Stranded to and Phonological Phrasing in English,”Linguistics, 20 (1982):3–57.

38Arnold M. Zwicky, “Stranded to,” Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 24 (1980):166–173.

39Zwicky, “Stranded to,” 171.

660 Parsafar


b. ∗ /goldan-æm qermez-e�ekæste /

c. ∗ [ goldan-e qermez-æm�ekæste]

NP NPCf. d. [ goldan-e qermez-æm]

�ekæste

NP NPvase-E red-POSS-[1sg] is broken‘My red vase is broken.’

Examples (76 a–b) show that POSS cannot be separated from the head if thelatter is modified by a relative clause:

(76) a. [ [goldan-æm] ke diruz�ekæst]. . .

NP NPvase-POSS that yesterday broke [3sg]

“My vase which broke yesterday”b. ∗ [ [goldan] ke diruz

�ekæst-æm ] . . .

NP NP

Recall that this inability to move is also shared by ezafe. Regarding Zwicky’s“movement” test, then, it seems that the POSS morphemes and ezafe are moreclitic-like than /-i/ and /-ra/. Therefore, to conclude this section, in theabsence of further evidence, it appears reasonable enough to consider bothezafe /-e/ and POSS as “clitics” and the other two, i.e. /-i/ and /-ra/, eitheras “obligatory leaners” (a la Zwicky) or simply as “bound words.”Furthermore, of all of these morphemes, the conjunct possessive pronouns

have shown to be the most reliable since they have passed all the tests successfully.Henceforth, they will be referred to as the Enclitic Possessive Pronouns (EPPs).

Is ezafe enclitic or proclitic? If ezafe is a clitic, does it attach to its precedingwords or itsfollowing word? This subsection will illustrate that ezafe is phonologically encliticand syntactically, too, it attaches to its preceding element. Klavans presentsexamples from Kwakwala, Tepecano, Nganhcara, and Greek,40 and Marantzgives examples from French, Yagua, and Papago, all indicating that it is possiblefor some clitics to have two separate hosts, syntactic and phonological.41

It seems that the Persian ezafe, however, does not enjoy this “dual citizen-ship.”42 Sami’ian mentions only one piece of phonological evidence for ezafe.The fact that ezafe forms a phonological unit with its preceding element can beattested by displacing the pause in any given phrase. The phrase will be well-formed only when the pause follows ezafe:43

40Klavans, “The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization.”41Alec Marantz, “Clitics and Phrase Structure,” in Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, ed.

by Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch (Chicago, 1989): 99–116.42Klavans, “The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization,” 104.43Sami’ian, Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian, 39 and 78.



(77) a. [N]-e + {PAUSE} + N /ceraq-e mæn / ‘my lamp”lamp-E I

b. ∗[N] + {PAUSE}+ e-[N] ∗/ceraq e-mæn/

Here, I will present another piece of evidence for ezafe’s being phonologicallyan enclitic morpheme. As mentioned above, whenever the preceding element, i.e.the host, ends in a vowel, the palatal approximant /y-/ will be inserted beforeezafe. This insertion, however, will not take place if the following elementbegins with a vowel whether the head noun ends in a vowel or not:

(78) /xane-ye jæm�id / “Jamshid’s house”

house-E(79) a. /xane-ye ema/ “Ema’s house”

b. ∗/xane-ye y-ema/c. ∗/xane y-ema/

As for the syntactic evidence, hitherto it has been implicitly assumed that ezafeattaches to its preceding element, which means it is enclitic. That ezafe is not syn-tactically proclitic can be shown by a “constituency test” similar to Radford’s“Shared Constituent Coordination.”44

In (80), since /otaq/ “room” can substitute, both syntactically and semanti-cally, for /pænjere-ye otaq/ “room’s window” after /ya/ “or,” then /otaq/and /a

�pæzxune/ “kitchen” are both syntactically free of ezafe. That is, ezafe is

not part of these two attributive nominals.

(80) pænjere-ye a�

pæzxune�ekæste ya (pænjere-ye) otaq

window-E kitchen broken-is or (window-E) room“Is the kitchen window broken or the room’s (window)?”

This, however, cannotbeused as the conclusive evidence for arguing that the com-bination of the preceding noun and ezafe forms a single constituent N orNP. As (81)exhibits, door-E cannot be used as a constituent whereas/dære

�/“its door” can.

(81) pænjere-ye hæmum�ekæsse ya

window-E bathroom broken-is ordære

�/∗ dær-e/∗ dær

door-its/∗ door-E/∗ door“Is the bathroom window broken or its door?”

This test shows that /dære�

/ “its door” is substituting for the whole subject NP/dær-e hæmum/ “bathroom door.” As was mentioned before, the reason is thatthe combination [NP +E] or [N + E] is not an independent constituent, per se,

44Andrew Radford, Transformational Grammar (Cambridge, 1988): 89–105.

662 Parsafar


because ezafe must obligatorily be followed by a complement modifying the hostof the ezafe.Once again, this is indicative of the fact that the behavior of ezafe is very different

from the English enclitic possessive -’s since the latter can form a constituent withits host:

(82) Did you break John’s pencil or Mary’s (pencil)?Mary’s (pencil).

Klavans argues that “affixes subcategorize at the lexical level” while “cliticssubcategorize for phrasal hosts.”45 However, ezafe can attach to N(P) and Adj(P).This may cast further doubt on the clitichood of ezafe and on Klavans’ argument.As a final remark, it seems that instead of being introduced through a transfor-

mational rule as proposed by Sami’ian, ezafe can be (alternatively) described as afeature46 that is initially assigned to the �N (N-bar). It will then filter down, pre-sumably like the accusative case in Latin or the dative case in German, to the headof the �N and, simultaneously or afterward, to all the constituents to the right ofthe head, i.e. the complements of the head rather than its specifiers. For instance,the structure of (83) can be partially shown to be that in (84):

(83) goldan-e siyah-e kucæk-e otaq-e bæradær-e ‘uvase-E black-E small-E room-E brother-E he“the small black vase in his brother’s room”

(84) Partial structure for (83):

45Klavans, “The Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Cliticization.”46I owe this analysis to Professor Laurence R. Horn, my teacher and adviser.



The Semantics of Ezafe

Is ezafe a genitive marker? If so, why is it used to show relations other than pos-session? Is ezafe a polysemous morpheme or are there many semantically differentbut homophonous ezafe’s?This section will demonstrate that ezafe is merely a dummy Connective or

Associative morpheme devoid of any meaning. It only serves to connect [+N]lexical and phrasal heads to complements modifying the heads. The type ofsemantic relationship that the native speaker infers from each ezafe constructionis solely dependent on the syntax and semantics of the constituents associated witheach other by means of the dummy ezafe.First, it is worth noting that regarding the genitive uses of this morpheme,

ezafe is comparable to the English possessive -’s. As Quirk et al. have mentioned,the English genitive case can carry different meanings such as “possessive geni-tive” (85), “subjective genitive” (86), “objective genitive” (87), “genitive oforigin” (88), “descriptive genitive” (89), “genitive of measure” (90), genitiveof attribute” (91), and “partitive genitive” (92):47

(85) “the earth’s gravity” “The earth has (a certain) gravity.”(86) “the boy’s application” “The boy applied for . . .”(87) “the boy’s release” “(. . .) released the boy”(88) “the general’s letter” “The general wrote a letter.”(89) “a woman’s college” “a college for women”(90) “ten day’s absence” “The absence lasted ten days.”(91) “the victim’s courage” a) “The victim had courage.”

b) “The victim was courageous.”(92) “the baby’s eyes” “The baby has (blue) eyes.”

All these “meanings” are expressed by ezafe constructions in Persian. However,as has already been clarified, ezafe can help express many other “relations” as well.Second, the relation expressed in (93) is that of possession. By changing the

order of the two constituents, we get two different meanings. Ezafe’s functionseems to be that of subordinating the constituent to which it is attached, i.e.its host, to its following constituent. Apart from this syntactic function, ezafedoes not carry any semantic load in (93):

(93) a. /bæradær-e zæn/ “wife’s brother”brother-E wife

b. /zæn-e bæradær / “brother’s wife”wife-E brother

47R. Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik,AComprehensive Grammar ofthe English Language (London, 1985). See also Christopher Lyons, “The Syntax of English Genera-tive Constructions,” Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1986): 123–143.

664 Parsafar


Third, when the word /ævvæl/ is used adjectivally, it means “first,” as in (94a),but when it is nominalized, probably through zero-derivation, as in (94b), itmeans “beginning.” In isolation, its only semantics is the adjectival “first” andit acquires its nominal meaning “beginning” when ezafe is cliticized to its right.

(94) a. /ketab-e ævvæl/ “the first (grade) book”book-E first

b. /ævvæl-e ketab/ “the beginning of the book”beginning-E book

Cf. c. /dastan-e ævvæl-e ketab /story-E beginning-E book“the story at the beginning of the book”

Probably one might argue that a corollary to this syntactically-triggeredsemantic phenomenon is that ezafe is a nominalizer. Such an argument,however, is untenable because, as was shown above, ezafe is not a derivationalmorpheme.Finally, the head of the NP /jæ’be/ “case” in (95a) is the same as that in (95b),

while the second element is the noun /tæla/ “gold” in the former, but thedenominal adjective /tæla’i/ “golden” in the latter. Thus, the meanings of thetwo phrases are primarily based on the two complements.

(95) a. / jæ’be-ye tæla/ “a jewelry case”case-E gold

b. / jæ’be-ye tæla’i / “a golden case/box”case-E golden

Nevertheless, that the semantics of the host does also have some effect on themeaning of the entire NP may be illustrated by the examples in (96). Unlike/jæ’be/ “box,” /gonbæd/ “dome” may not be used as a container. Therefore,both the NPs have the same meaning. What these observations entail again isthat ezafe is semantically empty.

(96) a. / gonbad-e tala / “a golden dome”dome-E gold

b. / gonbad-e tala’i / “a golden dome”golden

In brief, then, what ezafe communicates syntactically is that its left constituentis modified or complemented by its right element. This partially resembles“nominal compounds in English where the ‘meaning’ is basically that an AB is‘a B that has something to do with A’” (L. Horn. P.c.). However, as has beenillustrated above, ezafe’s functions have a greater scope than that of theEnglish nominal compounds.



Conclusions

This paper has been dedicated to an analysis of ezafe, a ubiquitous and highlyessential morpheme inside Persian noun phrases. It was established that theunstressed ezafe /-e/ is phonologically enclitic and that syntactically it attachesto its left-element. It was also illustrated that ezafe is semantically void, whilesyntactically it is an associative marker which communicates, to the speaker,the existence of a certain kind of relation or connection between its left-locatedhost and the modifier and/or the complement on its right.The host is always a [+N] constituent, which can be a noun, an adjective, a

nominalized category, or an NP which does not contain any tensed clause. Onthe other hand, the modifiers and/or complements of the head of the ezafe canbe nouns, adjectives, or prepositional phrases. A major corollary to these con-clusions is that ezafe can be used as a reliable diagnostic in distinguishing nom-inals and nominalized constituents from the majority of non-nominalizedadjectives and other constituents.A theoretical analysis was also proposed that considers ezafe as a feature that is

first assigned to the given NP. It will then filter down to the head noun and all theother (non-clausal) constituents to the right of the head. Determiners are ordina-rily prenominal and do not receive ezafe. Only those determiners that can be usedas nominals, i.e. superlative adjectives, the /-in/ ordinals, and some quantifiers,require the obligatory attachment of ezafe.It was also illustrated that compared to ezafe, the conjunct possessive pronouns

behave like clitics, while the Indefinitizer /-i/ and the Specificity Marker ofObjects and Topics /-ra/ exhibit a “mixed status” between clitics and “boundwords.”

666 Parsafar


Documents

parsafar semantics