INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
Definiteness, Specificity or Topicality?The Semantics of Differential Object Marking
in Persian
Masoud Jasbi
October 3, 2014
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
ROAD MAP
I IntroductionI DefinitenessI DOMI Persian
I Persian DOMI Formulating the problem.I Some preliminary answers.I 7 definite and indefinite constructions.
I Towards a compositional account.I Previous approaches:
I Topicality (Information Structural)I Specificity
I Concluding Remarks
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITENESS
I Frege and Strawson suggested that definite descriptions(“the book”) carry two presuppositions:
1. Existence: there is an entity that satisfies the description.2. Uniqueness: there is no more than one entity that satisfies
the description (in the salient context).
I If these presuppositions are not true, then the sentencecontaining a definite description is undefined or withouttruth-value.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITENESS
I Frege and Strawson suggested that definite descriptions(“the book”) carry two presuppositions:
1. Existence: there is an entity that satisfies the description.
2. Uniqueness: there is no more than one entity that satisfiesthe description (in the salient context).
I If these presuppositions are not true, then the sentencecontaining a definite description is undefined or withouttruth-value.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITENESS
I Frege and Strawson suggested that definite descriptions(“the book”) carry two presuppositions:
1. Existence: there is an entity that satisfies the description.2. Uniqueness: there is no more than one entity that satisfies
the description (in the salient context).
I If these presuppositions are not true, then the sentencecontaining a definite description is undefined or withouttruth-value.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITENESS
I Frege and Strawson suggested that definite descriptions(“the book”) carry two presuppositions:
1. Existence: there is an entity that satisfies the description.2. Uniqueness: there is no more than one entity that satisfies
the description (in the salient context).
I If these presuppositions are not true, then the sentencecontaining a definite description is undefined or withouttruth-value.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITENESS
(1) (when there is no book on the table):# Give me the book!I There is no book!
(2) (when there are multiple books on the table):# Give me the book!I There is more than one book!
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITENESS
(3) (when there is no book on the table):# Don’t give me the book!I There is no book!
(4) (when there are multiple books on the table):# Don’t give me the book!I There is more than one book!
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING
I DOM languages do not mark grammatical objectsuniformly.
I Object Marking can be obligatory, optional orunacceptable, depending on some semantic features of theobject NP.
I The usual suspects: definiteness, specificity, topicality, oranimacy.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING
I DOM languages do not mark grammatical objectsuniformly.
I Object Marking can be obligatory, optional orunacceptable, depending on some semantic features of theobject NP.
I The usual suspects: definiteness, specificity, topicality, oranimacy.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING
I DOM languages do not mark grammatical objectsuniformly.
I Object Marking can be obligatory, optional orunacceptable, depending on some semantic features of theobject NP.
I The usual suspects: definiteness, specificity, topicality, oranimacy.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DIFFERENTIAL OBJECT MARKING
(5) a. JuanJohn
besokissed
*(a)A
[Marıa][+hum,+def ]
Mary
John kissed Mary.
b. JuanJohn
quierewants
(a)A
[una
abogado][+hum,−def ]
lawyer
John wants (a certain) lawyer.
c. JuanJohn
destruyodestroyed
(*a)A
[lathe
cuidad][−hum]
city
John destroyed the city. [Rodrıguez-Mondonedo, 2007]
I The presence of a in (5b) contributes “specificity”.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I Genealogy: Indo-European → Indo-Iranian → Iranian
I Native to: Iran (Farsi) - Afghanistan (Dari) - Tajikistan(Tajik)
I Basic Word Order: SOVI I investigate Tehrani Farsi. It is common practice to call
this dialect Persian!
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I Genealogy: Indo-European → Indo-Iranian → IranianI Native to: Iran (Farsi) - Afghanistan (Dari) - Tajikistan
(Tajik)
I Basic Word Order: SOVI I investigate Tehrani Farsi. It is common practice to call
this dialect Persian!
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I Genealogy: Indo-European → Indo-Iranian → IranianI Native to: Iran (Farsi) - Afghanistan (Dari) - Tajikistan
(Tajik)
I Basic Word Order: SOV
I I investigate Tehrani Farsi. It is common practice to callthis dialect Persian!
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I Genealogy: Indo-European → Indo-Iranian → IranianI Native to: Iran (Farsi) - Afghanistan (Dari) - Tajikistan
(Tajik)
I Basic Word Order: SOVI I investigate Tehrani Farsi. It is common practice to call
this dialect Persian!
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
(6) [Amir]S
Amir[keik]DO
cakera
ACC
beto
[baradar-ash]IO
brother-his[dad-ø]V
gave-3.SG
“Amir gave the cake to his brother.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I There are two varieties of Persian: Formal (high variety)and Colloquial (low variety).
I I investigate Modern Colloquial Persian.
I The object marker ra has different forms depending on thevariety:
Persian Object Marker V CFormal Persian ra ra
Colloquial Persian ro o
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I There are two varieties of Persian: Formal (high variety)and Colloquial (low variety).
I I investigate Modern Colloquial Persian.
I The object marker ra has different forms depending on thevariety:
Persian Object Marker V CFormal Persian ra ra
Colloquial Persian ro o
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
I There are two varieties of Persian: Formal (high variety)and Colloquial (low variety).
I I investigate Modern Colloquial Persian.
I The object marker ra has different forms depending on thevariety:
Persian Object Marker V CFormal Persian ra ra
Colloquial Persian ro o
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN
(7) Formal:
[Amir]S
Amir[keik]DO
cakera
ACC
beto
[baradar-ash]IO
brother-his[dad-ø]V
gave-3.SG
“Amir gave the cake to his brother.”
(8) Colloquial:
[Amir]S
Amir[keik]DO
cakeo
ACC
[dad-ø]V
gave-3.SG
[baradar-ash]IO
brother-his
“Amir gave the cake to his brother.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN INDEFINITES
I There are two markers of indefiniteness in Persian:1. ye : which behaves very much the English a(n).2. i : which behaves a bit like the English any.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN INDEFINITES
(9) a. yea
keikcake
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”b. * keik
cakeiINDEF
xord-ameat-1.SG
c. yea
keikcake
iINDEF
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PERSIAN INDEFINITES
I i can appear by itself in a downward entailingenvironment:
(10) a. keikcake
iINDEF
na-xord-amNEG-eat-1.SG
“I didn’t eat any cake.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
(11) manI
keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate the cake.”
I Uniqueness implication: #(11) if there are 2 or more cakes.I Existence implication: #(11) if there is no cake.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
(12) manI
yeINDEF
keikcake
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”
I No Uniqueness implication.I Existence implication: (12) is false if there is no cake.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
I The puzzling construction:
(13) manI
yeINDEF
keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”
I No uniqueness implication.I Existence implication: #(31) if there is no cake.I Possible partitive reading: there are two or more cakes.I Possible specific reading: I ate a certain cake.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
I The plot thickens! The object marker ra can appear andinteract with the indefinite markers ye and i.
1. NP - i2. ye - NP - i3. ye - NP4. NP - i - ra5. ye - NP - i - ra6. ye - NP - ra7. ø - NP - ø - ra
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
I The plot thickens! The object marker ra can appear andinteract with the indefinite markers ye and i.
1. NP - i2. ye - NP - i3. ye - NP4. NP - i - ra5. ye - NP - i - ra6. ye - NP - ra7. ø - NP - ø - ra
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
Q1 What is the semantic contribution of the object marker ra?
Q2 What are the semantic contributions of ye and i?Q3 How are these constructions different from each other
semantically?
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
Q1 What is the semantic contribution of the object marker ra?Q2 What are the semantic contributions of ye and i?
Q3 How are these constructions different from each othersemantically?
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE PERSIAN DOM PUZZLE
Q1 What is the semantic contribution of the object marker ra?Q2 What are the semantic contributions of ye and i?Q3 How are these constructions different from each other
semantically?
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SOME PRELIMINARY SOLUTIONS
A1 Persian object marker ra introduces an existentialpresupposition.
A2 Persian indefinite markers ye introduce an existentialquantifier.
A3 In the following slides I will provide an examples for eachconstruction to explain the semantics differences.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SOME PRELIMINARY SOLUTIONS
A1 Persian object marker ra introduces an existentialpresupposition.
A2 Persian indefinite markers ye introduce an existentialquantifier.
A3 In the following slides I will provide an examples for eachconstruction to explain the semantics differences.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SOME PRELIMINARY SOLUTIONS
A1 Persian object marker ra introduces an existentialpresupposition.
A2 Persian indefinite markers ye introduce an existentialquantifier.
A3 In the following slides I will provide an examples for eachconstruction to explain the semantics differences.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SOME PRELIMINARY SOLUTIONS
I In order to test the projection properties of the existentialpresupposition introduced by ra, I use negated sentencesin the following examples.
I I show that the existential presupposition triggered by theobject marker is not cancelled when embedded undernegation.
I I show that the existential quantifier introduced by theindefinite markers participates in the scope relations withnegation.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SOME PRELIMINARY SOLUTIONS
I In order to test the projection properties of the existentialpresupposition introduced by ra, I use negated sentencesin the following examples.
I I show that the existential presupposition triggered by theobject marker is not cancelled when embedded undernegation.
I I show that the existential quantifier introduced by theindefinite markers participates in the scope relations withnegation.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SOME PRELIMINARY SOLUTIONS
I In order to test the projection properties of the existentialpresupposition introduced by ra, I use negated sentencesin the following examples.
I I show that the existential presupposition triggered by theobject marker is not cancelled when embedded undernegation.
I I show that the existential quantifier introduced by theindefinite markers participates in the scope relations withnegation.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
CONSTRUCTIONS
I A reminder:1. NP - i Indefinite2. ye - NP - i Indefinite3. ye - NP Indefinite4. NP - i - ra Presuppositional Indefinite5. ye - NP - i - ra Presuppositional Indefinite6. ye - NP - ra Presuppositional Indefinite7. ø - NP - ø - ra Definite
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
1. NP-i
(14) manI
emruztoday
[NPkar]-iwork-INDEF
[V anjamfinish
na-dad-am]NEG-give-1.SG
“I didn’t do any work today.”
I ¬ [ ∃x work(x) ∧ do(m,x)]I JworkK ∩ JdoK = ∅I The set denoted by “work” can be empty or non-empty
(no existence implication).
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
BUSY-LAZY STUDENT SCENARIO
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
FREE STUDENT SCENARIO
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
FREE STUDENT SCENARIO
I The free student:
(15) manI
emruztoday
[kar]-iwork-INDEF
anjamfinish
na-dad-amNEG-give-1.SG
chonbecause
kar-iwork-INDEF
na-bud-øNEG-was-3.SG
kethat
anjamfinish
be-da-mSUBJ-give-1.SG
“I didn’t do any work today because there was no workto do.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
2.ye-NP-i
(16) manI
emruztoday
ye-[NPkar]-ia- work-INDEF
[V anjamfinish
na-dad-am]NEG-give-1.SG
“There is some work I didn’t do today.”
I ∃x work(x) ∧ ¬ do(m,x)I JworkK ∩ ¬ JdoK 6= ∅I The intersection might be empty or not.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
BUSY-LAZY STUDENT SCENARIO
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
BUSY-WORKING STUDENT SCENARIO
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
3.ye-NP
(17) manI
emruztoday
ye-[NPkar]a- work
anjamfinish
na-dad-amNEG-give-1.SG
I “There is some work I didn’t do today.”I “I didn’t do a (single) task today.”
(special intonation)
I ∃x work(x) ∧ ¬ do(m,x)I ¬ [ ∃x work(x) ∧ do(m,x)]
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
4.NP-i- RA
(18) manI
emruztoday
[NPkar]-iwork-INDEF
roACC
[V anjamfinish
na-dad-am]NEG-give-1.SG
“(I had work to do but) I didn’t do any work today.”
I ∂(∃x work(x)) ∧ ¬ [∃x work(x) ∧ do(m,x)]I JworkK ∩ JdoK = ∅ (but JworkK 6= ∅)I The set denoted by “work” is presupposed to be
non-empty.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
BUSY-LAZY STUDENT SCENARIO
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
BUSY-LAZY STUDENT SCENARIO
(19) # manI
emruztoday
[kar]-iwork-INDEF
roACC
anjamfinish
na-dad-amNEG-give-1.SG
chonbecause
kar-iwork-INDEF
na-bud-øNEG-was-3.SG
kethat
anjamfinish
be-da-mSUBJ-give-1.SG
“I didn’t do any work today because there was no workto do.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
5. ye-NP-i- RA
(20) manI
emruztoday
ye-[NPkar]-ione- work-INDEF
roACC
[V anjamfinish
na-dad-am]NEG-give-1.SG
“(I had work to do but) I didn’t do any work today.”
I ∂(∃x work(x)) ∧ ∃x work(x) ∧ ¬ do(m,x)I Often used in contexts where both the speaker and
addressee are familiar with the set of things the speakerhad to do.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
6. ye-NP- RA
(21) manI
emruztoday
ye-[NPkar]one- work
oACC
anjamfinish
na-dad-amNEG-give-1.SG
I “There is some work I didn’t do today.”I “I didn’t do a (single) task today.”
(special intonation)
I ∂(∃x work(x)) ∧ ∃x work(x) ∧ ¬ do(m,x)I ∂(∃x work(x)) ∧ ¬ [∃x work(x) ∧ do(m,x)]
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
7. Ø-NP-Ø- RA
(22) manI
emruztoday one
-[NPkar]- work
oACC
anjamfinish
na-dad-amNEG-give-1.SG
“I didn’t do the work.”
I ¬ do(m, ιx.work(x))
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
DEFINITE SCENARIO
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SUMMARY
I Semantic differences between constructions:
1. NP - i : ¬ [ ∃x work(x) ∧ do(m,x)]2. ye - NP - i : ∃x work(x) ∧ ¬ do(m,x)3. ye - NP4. NP - i - ra : ∂(∃x work(x)) ∧ ¬ [∃x work(x) ∧ do(m,x)]5. ye - NP - i - ra : ∂(∃x work(x)) ∧ ∃x work(x) ∧ ¬ do(m,x)6. ye - NP - ra7. ø - NP - ø- ra : ¬ do(m, ιx.work(x))
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
TOWARDS A COMPOSITIONAL ACCOUNT
(23) a. manI
keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate the cake.”b. man
Iyea
keikcake
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”c. man
IyeINDEF
keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”
I This distribution encourages a decomposed account ofdefiniteness in which existence and uniquenesspresuppositions are triggered by different mechanisms[Coppock and Beaver, 2012].
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
TOWARDS A COMPOSITIONAL ACCOUNT
I Introduce the existence presupposition by ra.I To make a definite, add a uniqueness presupposition by
type-shifting with iota.I To make a presuppositional indefinite, add ye to introduce
an existential quantifier.
(24) a. manI
ø keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate the cake.”b. man
IyeINDEF
keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a cake.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
AN INTERESTING EXAMPLE
(25) [AsgharAsghar
Farhadi]DO
Farhadi[mi-shnas-i]V ?HAB-know-2.SG
“Do you know Asghar Farhadi? (Is that a thing?!)”
(26) [AsgharAsghar
Farhadi]DO
Farhadiro
ACC
[mi-shnas-i]V ?HAB-know-2.SG
“Do you know Asghar Farhadi? (He is a thing.)”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PREVIOUS APPROACHES
I Two main approaches to the semantics of DOM in Persian:1. Topic Marking
[Dabir-Moghaddam, 1992, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2011]2. Specificity
[Karimi, 1990, Karimi, 1996, Karimi, 2003]
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The intuition behind the information structural account isthat case-marked objects are discourse-old.
I Information in an utterance is divided into pragmaticpresupposition (old) and a pragmatic assertion (new).
I Focus is that part of the utterance that contains newinformation.
I An utterance can also have two topics:1. Primary topic is the entity that the sentence is about.2. Secondary topic is the entity such that the sentence is about
the relationship between it and the primary topic.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The intuition behind the information structural account isthat case-marked objects are discourse-old.
I Information in an utterance is divided into pragmaticpresupposition (old) and a pragmatic assertion (new).
I Focus is that part of the utterance that contains newinformation.
I An utterance can also have two topics:1. Primary topic is the entity that the sentence is about.2. Secondary topic is the entity such that the sentence is about
the relationship between it and the primary topic.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The intuition behind the information structural account isthat case-marked objects are discourse-old.
I Information in an utterance is divided into pragmaticpresupposition (old) and a pragmatic assertion (new).
I Focus is that part of the utterance that contains newinformation.
I An utterance can also have two topics:1. Primary topic is the entity that the sentence is about.2. Secondary topic is the entity such that the sentence is about
the relationship between it and the primary topic.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The intuition behind the information structural account isthat case-marked objects are discourse-old.
I Information in an utterance is divided into pragmaticpresupposition (old) and a pragmatic assertion (new).
I Focus is that part of the utterance that contains newinformation.
I An utterance can also have two topics:
1. Primary topic is the entity that the sentence is about.2. Secondary topic is the entity such that the sentence is about
the relationship between it and the primary topic.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The intuition behind the information structural account isthat case-marked objects are discourse-old.
I Information in an utterance is divided into pragmaticpresupposition (old) and a pragmatic assertion (new).
I Focus is that part of the utterance that contains newinformation.
I An utterance can also have two topics:1. Primary topic is the entity that the sentence is about.
2. Secondary topic is the entity such that the sentence is aboutthe relationship between it and the primary topic.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The intuition behind the information structural account isthat case-marked objects are discourse-old.
I Information in an utterance is divided into pragmaticpresupposition (old) and a pragmatic assertion (new).
I Focus is that part of the utterance that contains newinformation.
I An utterance can also have two topics:1. Primary topic is the entity that the sentence is about.2. Secondary topic is the entity such that the sentence is about
the relationship between it and the primary topic.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
(27) a. Whatever became of John? [Lambrecht, 1996]
b. [He]T1 [married Rosa]f .Pragmatic Presupposition: John did X.Pragmatic Assertion: X = married Rosa.
c. but [he]T1 [didn’t really love]f [her]T2 .Pragmatic Presupposition = John stands in the relation Xto Rosa.Pragmatic Assertion: X = didn’t really love
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
(28) Pragmatic Presupposition: You did X to the book.Pragmatic Assertion: X = bought.
a. What did you decide about the book?
b. [man]T1
I[ketab]T2
booko
ACC
[xarid-am]fbuy.PST-1.SG
“I bought the book.”
I ra in Persian marks secondary topics[Dabir-Moghaddam, 1992, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2011].
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I Problem 1: ra appears frequently on question words suchas ki (who), chi (what), and it is obligatory on kodum(which).
(29) [Amir]S
Amir[chi]DO
whatro
ACC
[xord-ø]V ?ate--3.SG
“What did Amir eat?”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I Problem 2: ra appears on primary topics as well.
(30) a. What happened to Amir?b. ye
ashirlion
[Amir]T1
Amiro
ACC
xord-ø?ate.PST-3.SG
“A lion ate Amir.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The decomposed definiteness account captures theintuition behind the IS approach (that ra ispresuppositional or discourse-old) without running intoproblem 1 or 2.
I It also obviates the need for positing “secondary topics” inPersian.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE INFORMATION STRUCTURAL APPRAOCH
I The decomposed definiteness account captures theintuition behind the IS approach (that ra ispresuppositional or discourse-old) without running intoproblem 1 or 2.
I It also obviates the need for positing “secondary topics” inPersian.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE SPECIFICITY APPRAOCH
I ra marks specific direct objects.
(31) manI
yeINDEF
keikcake
oACC
xord-ameat-1.SG
“I ate a specific cake.”
I The problem is that the definition of specificity is verynonspecific [Farkas, 2002].
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE SPECIFICITY APPRAOCH
I [Farkas, 1994] differentiates three types of specificity:
1. Epistemic2. Scopal3. Partitive
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
THE SPECIFICITY APPRAOCH
I [Farkas, 1994] differentiates three types of specificity:1. Epistemic2. Scopal3. Partitive
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
EPISTEMIC SPECIFICITY
I An indefinite is epistemically specific if the speaker has aspecific referent in mind.
(32) Mr. Darcy didn’t like a girl at the party.
a. Her name is Elizabeth. (Epistemically Specific)
b. We are all trying to figure out who she is.(Epistemically Nonspecific)
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
EPISTEMIC SPECIFICITY
I However, ra can appear on epistemically nonspecific NPs:
(33) Context: my three-year-old cousin takes my phone andaccidentally deletes a picture:
Inthis
bachekid
yeINDEF
akspicture
(i)INDEF
oACC
pakclean
kard-edid.PERF.3.SG
“This kid has deleted a picture.”
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
EPISTEMIC SPECIFICITY
I The decomposed definiteness account predicts thatepistemically specific readings of ra-marked NPs can bederived pragmatically in the right context.
I However, it also predicts that such readings might beabsent in other contexts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
EPISTEMIC SPECIFICITY
I The decomposed definiteness account predicts thatepistemically specific readings of ra-marked NPs can bederived pragmatically in the right context.
I However, it also predicts that such readings might beabsent in other contexts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SCOPAL SPECIFICITY
I An indefinite is scopally specific if it takes the widestscope:
(34) Mr. Darcy didn’t like a girl at the party.a. Although he liked some other girls. (Scopally
Specific)b. He thought all the girls were utterly intolerable.
(Scopally Nonspecific)
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
SCOPAL SPECIFICITY
I ra appears on scopally nonspecific NPs too:
(35) manI
emruztoday
[NPkar]-iwork-INDEF
rofinish
[V anjamACC
na-dad-am]NEG-give-1.SG
“I didn’t do any work today.”
I NOT the wide scope reading: “there is some work I didn’tdo”.
I As I suggested earlier, ra does not participate in scoperelations.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I An indefinite is partitively specific if it is interpreted aspart of a set introduced in previous discourse [Enc, 1991].
(36) Several children entered my room . . .
a. Ikitwo
kizgirl
taniyordumI-knew.
“I knew two girls.” (Partitively Non-Specific)
b. Ikitwo
kiz- igirl-ACC
taniyordumI-knew.
“I knew two (of the) girls.” (Partitively Specific)
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I Partitive Specificity is very close to the decomposeddefiniteness account.
I It is also a presuppositional account that suggests the setdenoted by the ra-marked NP is familiar and non-empty.
I However, it predicts that a partitive reading should alwaysbe present.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I Partitive Specificity is very close to the decomposeddefiniteness account.
I It is also a presuppositional account that suggests the setdenoted by the ra-marked NP is familiar and non-empty.
I However, it predicts that a partitive reading should alwaysbe present.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I Partitive Specificity is very close to the decomposeddefiniteness account.
I It is also a presuppositional account that suggests the setdenoted by the ra-marked NP is familiar and non-empty.
I However, it predicts that a partitive reading should alwaysbe present.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I But some ra-marked objects have no partitive reading:
(37) Last night in the party . . .
man1.SG
[yeone
keik]NP
cake(i)(i)
oACC
tanhayiate-1.SG
xord-am
“I ate a cake myself.”
I No implication that there was more than one cake.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I In the decomposed definiteness account, the partitivereading can be derived through the competition oftype-shifting (iota) and application of ye.
I The addresee uses the following Gricean reasoningapplies:
I The speaker used ye instead of iota.I iota would’ve been a better choice of there was only one
object satisfying the description.I Therefore, it must be that there was more than one object.
I Of course, such an inference is cancellable if the contextrequires.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I In the decomposed definiteness account, the partitivereading can be derived through the competition oftype-shifting (iota) and application of ye.
I The addresee uses the following Gricean reasoningapplies:
I The speaker used ye instead of iota.
I iota would’ve been a better choice of there was only oneobject satisfying the description.
I Therefore, it must be that there was more than one object.
I Of course, such an inference is cancellable if the contextrequires.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I In the decomposed definiteness account, the partitivereading can be derived through the competition oftype-shifting (iota) and application of ye.
I The addresee uses the following Gricean reasoningapplies:
I The speaker used ye instead of iota.I iota would’ve been a better choice of there was only one
object satisfying the description.
I Therefore, it must be that there was more than one object.
I Of course, such an inference is cancellable if the contextrequires.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I In the decomposed definiteness account, the partitivereading can be derived through the competition oftype-shifting (iota) and application of ye.
I The addresee uses the following Gricean reasoningapplies:
I The speaker used ye instead of iota.I iota would’ve been a better choice of there was only one
object satisfying the description.I Therefore, it must be that there was more than one object.
I Of course, such an inference is cancellable if the contextrequires.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
PARTITIVE SPECIFICITY
I In the decomposed definiteness account, the partitivereading can be derived through the competition oftype-shifting (iota) and application of ye.
I The addresee uses the following Gricean reasoningapplies:
I The speaker used ye instead of iota.I iota would’ve been a better choice of there was only one
object satisfying the description.I Therefore, it must be that there was more than one object.
I Of course, such an inference is cancellable if the contextrequires.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I I have argued that:I In the Persian object position, definiteness is achieved
through two different mechanisms:
I Introduction of the existential presupposition with theobject marker.
I Introduction of the uniqueness presupposition with iotaI This account captures the intuitions behind some of the
previous accounts, namely topicality and specificity.I It also shows better empirical coverage than the previous
accounts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I I have argued that:I In the Persian object position, definiteness is achieved
through two different mechanisms:I Introduction of the existential presupposition with the
object marker.
I Introduction of the uniqueness presupposition with iotaI This account captures the intuitions behind some of the
previous accounts, namely topicality and specificity.I It also shows better empirical coverage than the previous
accounts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I I have argued that:I In the Persian object position, definiteness is achieved
through two different mechanisms:I Introduction of the existential presupposition with the
object marker.I Introduction of the uniqueness presupposition with iota
I This account captures the intuitions behind some of theprevious accounts, namely topicality and specificity.
I It also shows better empirical coverage than the previousaccounts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I I have argued that:I In the Persian object position, definiteness is achieved
through two different mechanisms:I Introduction of the existential presupposition with the
object marker.I Introduction of the uniqueness presupposition with iota
I This account captures the intuitions behind some of theprevious accounts, namely topicality and specificity.
I It also shows better empirical coverage than the previousaccounts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I I have argued that:I In the Persian object position, definiteness is achieved
through two different mechanisms:I Introduction of the existential presupposition with the
object marker.I Introduction of the uniqueness presupposition with iota
I This account captures the intuitions behind some of theprevious accounts, namely topicality and specificity.
I It also shows better empirical coverage than the previousaccounts.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Cleo Condoravdi, Paul Kiparsky, EveClark, Vera Gribanova, Chris Potts, Dan Lassiter, and JamesCollins for their help and support.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
Coppock, E. and Beaver, D. (2012).Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definitesand indefinites.In Proceedings of SALT, volume 22.
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1992).On the (in) dependence of syntax and pragmatics:Evidence from the postposition-ra in persian.Cooperating with written texts, pages 549–573.
Dalrymple, M. and Nikolaeva, I. (2011).Objects and information structure, volume 131.Cambridge University Press.
Enc, M. (1991).The semantics of specificity.Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1):pp. 1–25.
Farkas, D. F. (1994).Specificity and scope.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
In L. Nash and G. Tsoulas (eds), Langues et Grammaire 1.Citeseer.
Farkas, D. F. (2002).Specificity distinctions.Journal of Semantics, 19(3):213–243.
Karimi, S. (1990).Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions: Ra inPersian.Linguistic Analysis, 20:139–191.
Karimi, S. (1996).Case and specificity: Persian ra revisited.Linguistic Analysis, 26(3/4):173–194.
Karimi, S. (2003).On object positions, specificity and scrambling in Persian.In Karimi, S., editor, Word Order and Scrambling, pages91–124. Wiley-Blackwell.
INTRODUCTION Persian DOM Compositionality Previous Approaches Conclusion
Lambrecht, K. (1996).Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and themental representations of discourse referents, volume 71.Cambridge University Press.
Rodrıguez-Mondonedo, M. (2007).The syntax of objects: Agree and differential object marking.PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.