Abstract
Ra-marking in Persian has been a hotly debated topic over five decades. The postposition is primarily a definite marker of accusative objects in Standard Persian. However, the possibility for it to accompany indefinite accusative objects has paved the way for the emergence of further accounts such as ra being a marker of specificity, topicality, or identifiability. In colloquial Persian, the postposition also appears in displacement constructions where it marks clause-external possessors or obliques serving as so-called topics. In this paper, we argue that ra-marking is not unique to topical DOs and displaced NPs. A ra-marked NP also partakes in the constitution of focus structure while the postposition is taken to be an identifiability marker. We situate our account within a Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) framework to delineate that ra-marking at the Persian left-periphery is an example par excellence of the (mis)match between identifiability as a discourse-based concept and the pragmatic functions that the ra-marked displaced NPs serve in information structure. It becomes clear that a displaced NP legitimately plays an array of information-structural roles varying from a primary and secondary topic to a contrastive focus.
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024109008573.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische universalienforschung: Differentiell objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Wayles. 1970. More on definiteness markers: Interrogatives in Persian. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3). 359–363.Search in Google Scholar
Brunner, Christopher. 1977. A syntax of Western Middle Iranian [Persian Studies Series 3]. New York: Caravan Books.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. London & New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russel Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], 21–51. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.11.03chaSearch in Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Denis Creissels. 2019. Topicality and the typology of predicative possession. Linguistic Typology 23(3). 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0016.Search in Google Scholar
Clair, Nathaniel. 2016. Differential object marking in spoken Persian: Towards an enriched typology. California: University of California, Santa Cruz MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Definite direct objects and referent identification. Pragmatics Microfiche 3(1). D3.Search in Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, discourse and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236481.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from the postposition ra in Persian. In Dieter Stein (ed.), Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts [Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 5], 549–573. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110881196.549Search in Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 2005 [1990]. Piramune ra dær zæbane Farsi [On the postposition ra in Persian]. In Mohammad Dabir-Moghaddam (ed.), Pæjuhešhaye zæbanšenaxtiye Farsi [Studies in Persian linguistics: Selected articles], 83–148. Tehran: Mærkæz-e Næšr.Search in Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 131]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface [Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology 3]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199262588.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara & Ronald Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Susanne Winkler & Kerstin Schwabe (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], 87–116. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.100.07fraSearch in Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From discourse process to grammatical construction: On left-dislocation in English [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 1]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.1Search in Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102(2&3). 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(97)00005-3.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study [Typological Studies in Language 3], 1–43. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3.01givSearch in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic and pragmatic case. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 151–182. London & New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle & Laura Michaelis. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33(11). 1665–1706. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(00)00063-1.Search in Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, Arivand Joshi & Scott Weistein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–225.10.21236/ADA324949Search in Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 37]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198614Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.Search in Google Scholar
Hosseini Fatemi, Maryam. 2013. The semantics of Persian object marker -ra. Ottawa: Carlton University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2). 239–272. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem.Search in Google Scholar
Irmer, Matthias. 2016. Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation [Language, Context, and Cognition 11]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(4). 641–681. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027.Search in Google Scholar
Jasbi, Masoud. 2020. The meaning of the Persian object marker ra: What it is not, and what it (probably) is. In Richard Larsen, Sedigheh Moradi & Vida Samiian (eds.), Advances in Iranian Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theories 351], 119–135. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.351.07jasSearch in Google Scholar
Jügel, Thomas. 2019. The development of the object marker in Middle Persian. In Pavel B. Lurje (ed.), Proceedings of the eighth European conference of Iranian studies, 203–219. Saint Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, Josef Van Genabith & Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, 125–395. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3Search in Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1989. Aspects of Persian syntax, specificity and the theory of grammar. Washington: University of Washington dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian [Studies in Generative Grammar 76]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199796Search in Google Scholar
Key, Gregory. 2008. Differential object marking in a Persian Medieval text. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 227–247. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Khanlari, Parviz. 1976. Dæsture zæbane Farsi [Grammar of the Persian Language]. Tehran: Bonyade Farhang.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Alan. 1988. Preverbal focusing and type XXIII languages. In Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], 147–172. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.12kimSearch in Google Scholar
Kiss, Kataline É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/417867.Search in Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2009. Inalienable possession as grammatical category and discourse pattern. Studies in Language 31(1). 25–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.1.03koc.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4). 243–276. https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.2.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Renate Musan. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds.), The expression of information structure [The Expression of Cognitive Categories 5], 1–44. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110261608.1Search in Google Scholar
Lahousse, Karen. 2008. Implicit stage topics: A case study in French. Discourse. Revue de Linguistique, Psycholinguistique et Informatique 1(1). 1–22.10.4000/discours.117Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in Non-Standard French [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 6]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pb.ii.6Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Kund. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Kund. 2000. When subjects behave like objects. Studies in Language 24(3). 611–682. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam.Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. Dislocation. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Osterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language universals and language typology 2: An international handbook, 1050–1078. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Lampton, Ann. 1974. Persian grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, W. Ronald. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1982. Le morpheme ra en Persan et les relations actancielles. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 77(1). 177–208.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, Ferenc Kiefer & Manfred Krifka (eds.). 2017. Contrastiveness in information structure, alternatives and scalar implicatures [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 91]. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4Search in Google Scholar
McCoy, Svetlana. 2003. Connecting information structure and discourse structure through ‘kontrast’: The case of colloquial Russian particles -TO, ŽE, and VED. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(3). 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024110711090.10.1023/A:1024110711090Search in Google Scholar
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Moezzipour, Farhad. 2015. A functional characterization of the Persian left-periphery in an RRG-constructional account. Dublin: Trinity College dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Monlár, Valeria. 2006. On different kinds of contrast. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), Architecture of focus [Studies in Generative Grammar 82], 197–233. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Elena Titov, Hans van de Koot & Reiko Vermeulen. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), Alternatives to cartography [Studies in Generative Grammar 100], 15–52. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110217124.15Search in Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Reiko Vermeulen. 2012. The syntactic expression of information structure. In Ad Neeleman & Reiko Vermeulen (eds.), The syntax of topic, focus, and contrast: An interface-based approach [Studies in Generative Grammar 113], 1–39. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614511458Search in Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39(1). 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.006.Search in Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian. 2013a. Constructional polysemy and argument realisation with the Irish GET verb. In Elly van Gelderen, Jóhanna Barðdal & Michela Cennamo (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples-Capri papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131], 87–116. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.131.04nolSearch in Google Scholar
Nolan, Brian. 2013b. Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], 143–178. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John benjamins.10.1075/slcs.145.06nolSearch in Google Scholar
Paul, Ludwig. 2008. Some remarks on the Persian suffix -ra as a general and historical linguistic issue. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 329–337. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Pavey, Emma L. 2008. Predication and reference in specificational sentences: Functions of English noun phrases. In Robert D. Van Valin (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], 305–317. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.105.22pavSearch in Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi. 1999. External possession: What, where, how, and why. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession [Typological Studies in Language 39], 1–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39Search in Google Scholar
Rahimian, Jalal & Farrokh Hajiani. 2009. Semantic-pragmatic functions of ra in Persian: A diachronic and synchronic study. Journal of Indo-European Studies 37(3&4). 399–420.Search in Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie & Philippa Cook. 2010. Defining contrast as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120(6). 1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.006.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, John, Behrooz Delforooz & Carina Jahani. 2009. A study of Persian discourse structure [Studia Iranica Upslaiensia 12]. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Search in Google Scholar
Sadeghi, Ali Ashraf. 1970. Ra dær zæbane Farsiye emruz [Ra in contemporary Persian]. Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities Tabriz University 93. 9–22.Search in Google Scholar
Sadrai, Mahmoud. 2014. Cognitive status and ra-marked referents of nominal expressions in Persian discourse. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Seržant, A. Ilja & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 19], 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Robert D. Van Valin (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], 285–304. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.105.21shiSearch in Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2009. Focus structure and beyond: Discourse-pragmatics in RRG. In Lilian Guerrero, Sergio Ibanez Cerda & Valeria Belloro (eds.), Studies in role and reference grammar, 75–95. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.Search in Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2016. Saliency in discourse and sentence form: Zero anaphora and topicalization in Japanese. In M. M. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin (eds.), Information structuring of spoken language from a cross-linguistic perspective [Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 283], 55–75. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110368758-004Search in Google Scholar
Shokouhi, Hassan & Peter Kipka. 2003. A discourse study of Persian ra. Lingua 113(10). 953–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3841(02)00145-6.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812729Search in Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199211654.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198235866.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2016. Information structure in Japanese. In Caroline Féry & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 753–773. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.42Search in Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2004. On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 21(2). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.155.Search in Google Scholar
Vallduví, Eric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In Peter Culicover & Louise Mc Nally (eds.), The limits of syntax [Syntax and Semantics 29], 79–108. London & New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373167_005Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578.001Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2008. RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar. In Robert D. Van Valin (ed.), Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 105], 161–178. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.105.14vanSearch in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2013. Head-marking languages and linguistic theory. In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency [Typological Studies in Language 104], 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.104.04valSearch in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Marilyn, Arivand Joshi & Ellen F. Prince. 1998. Centering in naturally occurring discourse: An overview. In Marilyn Walker, Arivand Joshi & Ellen F. Prince (eds.), Centering theory in discourse, 1–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236870.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1979. Persian grammar: History and state of its study. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800425Search in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2008. Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4). 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.9.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
