Kurdish Ezafe construction: Implications for DP structure

Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Kurdish Ezafe construction: Implications for DP structure Yadgar Karimi Allameh Tabatabaii University, Tehran, Iran Received 31 January 2007; received in revised form 13 February 2007; accepted 17 February 2007 Available online 18 May 2007

Abstract In this paper, we will try to shed new light on the ‘Ezafe’ construction in Kurdish.1 Drawing on historical facts and tracing the Ezafe back to its origins on the one hand, and the unified relation of adjectives and possessors to the head nouns, namely modification, on the other hand, we will argue for the existence of the predicate phrase which Ezafe realizes its head above the NP. The occurrence of the Ezafe will be attributed to the presence of such a functional head which serves to turn a property expression, assigned to the modifier constituent XP, into a propositional function which in turn needs to be saturated by an argument, that is the head noun. Extending the syntactic realization of predication from clausal domain to nominal domain is part of a broader project, which aims at further assimilation of the structure of DPs to clauses. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ezafe construction; Grammaticalization; Definiteness effect; Predicate phrase; Minimality

1. Introduction Before broaching our analysis as to where Ezafe is positioned, we will list some distributional properties of Ezafe:

E-mail address: [email protected]. The Kurdish dialect under discussion is called ‘Sorani’ which is spoken in the Kurdish areas across the border of Iran and Iraq limited to Kurdistan and Azarbaijan-e Gharbi provinces in Iran and Suleymania and Arbil provinces in Iraq. The following abbreviations are used in this paper: 1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person, ACC = accusative, CMPR = comparative, CONJ = conjunction, DEF = definite(ness), EZ = Ezafe, GEN = genitive, INDEF = indefinite(ness), INFX = interfix, MS = masculine, NOM = nominative, PASS = passive, PL = plural, PrC = predicate construction, PsC = possessive construction, RC = relative clause, RP = relative pronoun, SG = singular. 1

0024-3841/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.010

2160

(1)

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

a.

Ezafe appears between a noun and a modifying adjective: kteb-i sur book-EZ red ‘(a) red book’ a¯sma¯n-i sˆin sky-EZ blue ‘(a) blue sky’

b.

between a noun and another modifying noun: drga¯-i da¯r door-EZ wood ‘(a) wooden door’ kra¯s-i kata¯n shirt-EZ cotton ‘(a) cotton shirt’

c.

in a Possessive Construction (PsC), before a possessor: kteb-i Hiwa¯ book-EZ Hiwa ‘Hiwa’s book’ da¯yk-i mıˆn mother-EZ I(1SG) ‘my mother’

d.

between two adjectives, one modifying the preceding modified NP: asp-i zıˆl-i rasˆ horse-EZ big-EZ black ‘(a) big black horse ’ sˆa¯r-i gawra-i xosˆ city-EZ big-EZ nice ‘(a) big nice city’

e.

between nominal collocations: sˆa¯r-i Slema¯ni city-EZ Suleymania ‘city of Suleymania’

As the above data show, Ezafe appears on a noun which is modified (1a,b,c,e) or on a modified noun which is in turn modified by another modifier (1d).2 Previous works (Ghomeshi, 1997; Kahnemuyipour, 2000; Karimi and Brame, 1986; Samiian, 1994; Samvelian, 2005) on Ezafe, which is also found in other Iranian languages, have concentrated on its occurrence in Farsi (Modern Persian). The only works devoted to the analysis of Ezafe in Kurdish are Larson and Yamakido (2005), Holmberg and Odden (2005) and partly Samvelian (2005).3 For the sake of 2

Ezafe in Kurdish also occurs between a head noun and its modifying relative clause, but this pattern will not be discussed in this paper. 3 The Kurdish dialects analyzed in these works are Zazaki and Hawrami, which are structurally much different from Sorani dialect. Though most of Kurdish major varieties are not mutually intelligible but they are still called ‘‘Kurdish dialects’’.

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2161

space, we will not review the previous works on Ezafe, but so long as our analysis draws on such works, we will try to adumbrate the case in point. The structure of the paper is as follows: in section 2 a sketchy diachronic account of a construction will be given which has resulted in the Ezafe construction in Kurdish. Grammaticalization, which seems to give the impetus to this diachronic change will be fully discussed with respect to Ezafe. In section 3, the assumed analysis will be embodied in the current theory of nominal predication within a minimalist framework. Predication in DP, headedness of the Ezafe and definiteness effect in PsCs will be also discussed. Section 4 constitutes the concluding remarks. 2. Diachronic analysis In this section, we will trace back Ezafe to its historical roots, which illuminates some peculiar behavior of modern Ezafe in Kurdish.4 In Old Persian DPs, the order of the noun and the modifying adjective is as follows (adjectives agree in case, number and gender with the head noun): (2)

xsˇa¯yauya-h wazarka-h king-NOM.SG.MS great- NOM.SG.MS ‘the great king’

(Abol-Ghassemi, 2002:32)

The PsC in Old Persian is as exemplified: (3)

wisˇta¯spa-hya¯ puc¸a-h Goshtasp-GEN.SG.MS son- NOM.SG.MS ‘Goshtasp’s son’

(Abol-Ghassemi, 2002:32)

As it is the case in most languages, modification of a noun is also expressed via relative clauses (RC). This paper will make much use of RCs, which bear direct relevance to the analysis of Ezafe in hand. Traditional grammarians and etymologists have correctly; although vaguely, traced the origin of Ezafe back to the morpheme ‘hya’ in Old Persian. At that stage, ‘hya’ is an instance of the inflected class of relative pronouns (RP): (4)

da¯rayatwahu-sˇ hya-h ima-m tacˇara-m a-kunau-sˇ. Dariush-NOM.SG.MS RP-NOM.SG.MS this-ACC.SG.MS palace-ACC.SG.MS PAST-do-AGR ‘Dariush who built(did) this palace.’ (Abol-Ghassemi, 2002:32–33)

Speaking in generative terms, since ‘hya’ takes case, number and gender inflection, it is best considered as an XP, which lands in the specifier position of a null complementizer. Also, in the above example the case ending further corroborates the fact that ‘hya’ has moved from an A-position which in this case is probably [Spec,TP], to an A-bar position [Spec,CP]. For the purposes of this paper, we will concentrate on the RCs which have ‘‘to be’’ as their main verb. Another characteristic feature of the Old Persian, which is clearly revealed through the following examples pertains to the fact that the copular verb ‘‘to be’’, as elsewhere, is phonologically null in RCs5: 4

As far as we know, there is no written archaic document, which directly bears on Sorani, but to the extent that Iranian languages have had some close ancestors, we will be using Old Persian written texts throughout the paper. 5 The historical data references of which are not cited have been drawn from the following URL: (http://www.fas. harvard.edu/iranian/OldPersian/index.html).

2162

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

(5)

martya hya draujana. man RP(NOM) liar ‘A man who is a liar.’

(6)

Da¯rayavaum hya mana¯ pita¯. Dariush RP(NOM) my(GEN) father ‘Dariush who is my father.’

(7)

Kara¯ hya mana¯ army RP(NOM) mine ‘Army who is mine.’ (Lit.)

At the next stage of evolution of Persian, which is called Middle Persian, it seems that ‘hya’ has undergone a process of grammaticalization to the effect that RPs have reduced to one form which lacks inflectional endings. This change lends itself easily to the analysis that XPs turn into X8s in accordance with the following principle of economy: (Gelderen, 2004) Heads-over-phrases: Be a head rather than a phrase (if possible). Through the following examples, taken from the late stages of Old Persian and Middle Zoroastrian which is a more recent language compared to Old Persian, respectively, it is blatant that ‘i’ has replaced ‘hya’ which in turn suggests that the XP(RP) with case inflection in [Spec,CP] has grammaticalized into a bare head X8, that is the head C8: (8)

(9)

puc¸a-h i6 xsˇa¯yauya-h son C8 king-GEN.SG.MS ‘Son who is the king’s.’ (Lit.)

(Bagheri, 1997:163–164)

a¯n i awina¯h-tar. that C8 innocent-CMPR ‘One who is more innocent.’

(Abol-Ghassemi, 2002:84)

Loss of case, number and gender features (ending(s)) of ‘hya’ has turned it into the invariant from ‘i’ which is to be considered as occupying the head C8. In terms inspired by Gelderen (2004), it is more economical to have an operator in [Spec,CP] which is checked by the head C8, realized here as ‘i’, than the overt movement of a RP to [Spec,CP] and being checked by a null C8. This in turn ensues from the minimalist principle of ‘merge-over-move’. Constructions of the types (8) and (9) have been the core structures subject to reconfiguration in the process of the development of the language which eventually resulted in the Ezafe construction. These two structures resemble nominal constructions in the sense that they no longer contain any visible(copular) verbs; moreover, ‘i’ deprived of its inflectional endings has lost 6

Given the gradual typological shift of Iranian languages from inflectional to analytic type and the concomitant loss of inflectional endings, it seems plausible to assume, building on work by Kayne (1994), that genitive case inflection is no longer sufficient as a possessor licensor in a possessive construction like (8). This stage seems to be the one in which case system has nearly lost its force; therefore, the language very naturally calls for compensatory strategies to express the same relations as formerly were held by case inflection. To this end, a functional head is merged to the construction to check-value the genitive case, which we take it to be ‘i’. Arguments in favor of this stance will be given in later sections.

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2163

its relativizing effect and as for word order, these constructions display the then conventional nominal linearizations of N-Adj and N–N. These configurational similarities between RPs and nominals have led to an understanding that RCs are NPs in an intuitive sense.7 In fuller generality, we hold that RCs which have the syntactic structures [DPNP [CP [C8 i [TP. . . AdjP..]]]] and [DP NPpossessed [CP[C8 i [TP NPpossessor ]]]] had been the core structures subject to reanalysis which, consequently, resulted in modern Ezafe construction. The thrust of our argument is that, there should be some kind of relation which assigns the two constructions in hand a unified structure which would have the specification of the status of instances of ‘i’ as its concomitant result. We take this relation to be ‘‘predication’’, a common relation, which holds of both constructions. In these RCs, the adjective phrase and the possessor noun are, respectively, predicated of their head nouns. With this in mind, it is assumed that the impetus to the unification of the two instances of ‘i’ is that it functions as a ‘‘Predication linker’’ (Dikken, 2006). To be more specific, the Predication linker ‘i’ realizes the Predication Phrase’s head (Prd8). Given this line of assumptions, the grammaticalization process, which presumably might have been taking place, this time, is X8 to X8, that is C8 to Prd8, a grammatical shift from clausal to nominal domain. Further evidence for this shift comes from the advent of the new complementizer ‘ke¯’ in that stage, which has survived to present time in Kurdish and Farsi. While ‘i’ had the dual function of being a complementizer in C8 and also a nominal Prd8, ‘ke¯’ exclusively realized C8. Gradually, the distribution of complementizer ‘i’ becomes limited to RCs which have ‘‘to be’’ as their main verb (whereas RCs with eventual verbs took ‘ke¯’ as their C8) which have the similar structure to DPs and finally it dies out as a complenetizer in clausal domain and limits itself to occurring in Prd8 in the nominal domain. The following example which is the continuation of (7) clearly shows the stage when there is the simultaneous occurrence of ‘i’ and ‘ke¯’ both functioning as C8, with the proviso that ‘i’ realizes C8 of a RC which has ‘‘to be’’ as its main verb (remember that the verb ‘‘to be’’ is phonologically null): (10)

a¯n i awina¯h-tar . ke¯ pad da¯d i yazda¯n ra¯st-tar e¯ste¯d. that C8 innocent-CMPR . C8 to justice EZ God straight-CMPR stand.3SG.PRES ‘One who is more innocent. (One) who takes action in line with God’s justice.’ (Abol-Ghassemi, 2002:84–85)

Finally, ‘ke¯’ wins out as the head C8 in all RCs. To summarize this section, we illustrated a hypothetical development of the relative pronoun ‘hya’ to the present ‘i’, which has come to be called Ezafe in Kurdish and Persian. We showed that this shift occurred as the result of reanalysis, which in turn lead to grammaticalization, a process which is prevalent in the historical development of languages. 3. DP structure In this section, we will carefully examine the implications of the historical facts for the Kurdish current DP structure. As discussed in the previous section, the logic behind the reanalysis of RCs as nominal constructions has been, on the one hand, the absence of (copular) verbs, disappearance of the relativizing effect of ‘i’, word order and, on the other hand, the common relation of the adjectives and possessors with respect to the head noun, that is ‘‘modification’’. For the purposes of our analysis, we divide modified DPs into two categories: one is the DP in 7

For a similar idea, see Kent (1953).

2164

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

which an adjective modifies the head noun which; henceforth, we call ‘‘Predicate Construction’’ (PrC) and the other category encompasses those DPs in which a possessor modifies the head noun, hence ‘‘Possessive Construction’’ (PsC). 3.1. PrC structure Bowers (1993, 2001, 2002) has strongly argued for the existence of predicate(ion) phrase as a functional category above VP in the clausal domain.8 Along the same lines, we will extend his argument to nominal domain. Traditionally, adjectives occurring in DPs have been considered to be nominal predicates, which in current theoretical terms (Chomsky, 1995) are merged as adjuncts to maximal projections. As Bowers (2001:302) states ‘‘. . . The semantic function of Pr[d] is to turn a property expression of type p, assigned to the constituent XP, into a propositional function (an unsaturated expression) . . .whose argument position is then saturated by the entity expression assigned to the NP in [Spec,Pr[d]] . . .’’. The crucial observation to be made here is that the same kind of argumentation holds for the nominal domain. The natural parallelism between VP in the clausal structure and AdjP or possessor NP (both are modifying categories) in the nominal structure as ‘‘property expressions’’ leads us to extend the syntactic realization of predication from clauses to DPs. Furnished with the aforementioned considerations the derivation of the DP (11) is as follows: (11)

kteb-i sur book-EZ red ‘(a) red book ’

Step (1)

In step (1) an AdjP is adjunct-merged with the head N which itself projects maximally (see Samvelian, (2005) for arguments regarding the maximal projection of the head N). Along the lines of Bowers, we assume that predication should somehow be codified syntactically in the DP, in other words, we want to make a propositional function out of the property expression, expressed by the AdjP. The Ezafe ‘i’ clearly is the best candidate to accomplish such a task, that 8

Kratzer (1996) has also made arguments pertaining to the presence of predication phrase above VP in the sentence phrase structure.

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2165

of predication or function making. By analogy to vP above VP, we rename the by now called Prd8 as n8 which projects nP.9 Then n8 is merged with the NP. As the Prd8 F-selects VP in clausal domain, we hold that n8 F-selects a predicative category with the category feature [N], in this case a NP. Step(2)

In Step (2), the merged n8 along with its F-selected complement constitutes a function with one unsaturated argument, the NP subject (the head N). The argument saturation by n8, to a great extent, is reminiscent of the EPP on the head T in the clause; therefore, it seems we are finding ourselves close to the idea that functional categories within clausal and nominal domains are roughly the same (Szabolcsi, 1994). We assume that n8 has an EPP feature which triggers the movement of the constituent which is exhaustively dominated by NP (which excludes the AdjP), thereby preventing from the movement of the whole NP to [Spec,nP]. Regarding further modification of the modified NP we propose that: (a) n8 realized as ‘i’ F-selects any predicative category with the feature specification [N] (b) whenever a predicative category is added to the derivation, n8 is merged above it (c) nP is recursive.10 Armed with the above assumptions the derivation of (12) is as below: (12)

9

kteb-i sur-i gawra book-EZ red-EZ big ‘(a) big red book’

The category n8 has previously been employed in Adger (2003), although the theoretical treatment there is rather different from the one adopted here. Furthermore, there is no theoretical implication pertaining to the change from Prd8 to n8. 10 (c) can directly be derived from (b).

2166

Step (1)

Step (2) Adjunction of the next AdjP.

Step (3) Merge of the head n8

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2167

Step (4)

3.2. PsC structure We turn now to the analysis of the structure of the PsC. Crucial to our analysis, on the one hand, is the unifying relation of predication, which obtains both in PrCs and PsCs. On the other hand, owing to fact that in PsCs, the D8 generally checks the genitive case and also PsCs show definiteness effect, it should precisely be illustrated how these descriptive peculiarities are achieved in Kurdish DPs. Adjective addition and possession are the two major ways of noun modification in most languages. So if we would like to maintain the fact that D8 licenses the genitive case on the possessor and also that possessors modify NPs as adjectives do, we are inclined to the following analysis of PsCs: (13)

Step (1)

kteb-i Hiwa book-EZ Hiwa ‘Hiwa’s book’

2168

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

Like the derivation of PrCs, we assume that the NP possessor is adjunct-merged to the head noun (which itself projects maximally) as a modifying phrase. Then n8 is merged so as to establish the predication relation between the possessed and the possessor. As it was mentioned above, n8 F-selects a predicative constituent with the categorical feature [N]. At the same time, in order to satisfy its EPP requirement, n8 absorbs the head noun to its specifier position.11

Step (2)

The head D8 is then merged with the nP (Step (2)). D8 has three crucial features: (a) a genitive case feature, (b) a definiteness feature and (c) an EPP. The genitive feature is responsible for check-valuing (Chomsky, 2001) the case feature on the possessor. At this stage of the derivation, not only does the possessed noun in [Spec,nP] intervene between D8 and the possessor for genitive case checking (since the possessed NP is closer to D8) but also n8 is the closer head to the possessor, both giving rise to the violation of minimality of feature checking. The strategy Kurdish adopts in order to avoid such a minimality violation is the movement of ‘i’ from n8 to D8. As n8 adjoins to D8, the complex now check-values the case feature on the possessor through the head chain maintained by the movement of n8 to D8. In other words, n8 to D8 chain plays a bridge-like role so as to not violate the minimality principle of feature checking (Step (3)).

11 Further evidence for this movement can be drawn from earlier stages of the language. As we showed in previous sections, the PsC in Old Persian has the following from: a. wisˇta¯spa-hya¯ puc¸a-h Goshtasp-GEN.SG.MS son- NOM.SG.MS ‘Goshtasp’s son’ Nominative case on the possessed noun further captures the fact that whatever position, we assume, the possessed noun may occupy, it is clear that it is a subject of which the possessor is predicated.

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2169

Step (3)

As it is usually the case in most languages, the presence of the possessor in a DP renders the whole construction definite. The basic underlying assumption of our analysis for the definiteness effect in Kurdish DPs is that D8 is the locus of [DEF] feature. For the DP to be definite, the emergent generalization is that either D8 is occupied by the definite marker ‘aka’12 or Ezafe moves from its underlying position to occupy D8. In Kurdish PsCs, the latter strategy is invoked to this effect and the complementary distribution of ‘aka’ and the presence of the possessor follows as a natural consequence. Put another way, adjoining ‘i’ to D8 renders the whole PsC definite, a pleasant concomitant result. The last feature of D8 to be considered is the EPP. Since the EPP is an uninterpretable N feature which has to be checked by movement of an NP, the minimal NP with the feature [N] to move to [Spec,DP] is the possessed noun which also results in the desired word order (Step (4)). Step (4)

12

The definite marker in Kurdish is ‘aka’ which attaches as an enclitic to the whole DP.

2170

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

To summarize, we have established that Ezafe ‘i’ is a predication linker in PrCs and PsCs. The difference between these two constructions lies in the further movement of ‘i’ to D8 to satisfy minimality of feature checking between D8 and the possessor NP. 3.3. Headedness If the modern Ezafe is to be considered as occupying a head position, namely n8, we should be able to pin down our assumption on firm grounds. Although, the term ‘‘head’’ appears to be a controversial concept to define, specially after the advent of various functional categories, but we will try, for the purposes our analysis, to list seven criteria proposed by Zwicky (1985) so as to reach a conclusive agreement regarding the headedness of the Ezafe ‘i’: (the following list is drawn from Wintner (2000)) (a) The semantic argument: X is the semantic head if in combination with an argument Y, X + Y describes a kind of the thing described by X. Though this criterion lends itself more suitably to testing lexical heads, not functional ones, it can still be argued that whether the F-selected complement of n8 (Ezafe) is an AdjP or an NP (possessor), the fact remains constant that the head predicates either category of the subject noun. In other words, AdjP or NP modifiers are just different types of modification, while the predication relation by n8 pervades the DP. (b) Subcategorization: The constituent which subcategorizes for its obligatory set of sister constituents. As mentioned in the derivation of Kurdish DPs, n8 which is realized as ‘i’ always F-selects a predicative category of the feature specification [N]. The EPP feature is another obligatory syntactic selection of ‘i’. In other words, it is a predicate with the logical form: F(x,y). (c) The morphosyntactic locus: The constituent which bears the inflection features in case the language has the appropriate morphology. We established the fact that through the movement of n8 to D8, a head chain is created which can be interpreted as a feature inheritance from D8 to n8 in order to respect minimality condition on feature checking (section 3.2). Agreement of the Ezafe ‘i’ with the definite article ‘aka’ is all also another instance of fulfillment of this criterion (definiteness in Kurdish DPs will be discussed fully in the next section). (d) The governor: The constituent that determines the morphosyntactic form of some sister. Ezafe ‘i’ selects a constituent with the feature matrix containing [N]. It can be also argued that through inheritance from D8, it is n8 that assigns (checks) genitive case to the possessor NP. (e) The determination of concord: The constituent that determines concord features, realized inflectionally, on a sister. The latter part of evidence in (d) is also applicable to this part, that is genitive marking. (f) The distributional equivalent: The constituent (X8) that has roughly the same distribution as the construct (XP) as a whole. It is hard to apply this criterion, for it seems that this is much suitably applicable to lexical heads not functional ones, at least most functional heads do not meet such a criterion. (g) The obligatory constituent: The one that has to be present in non-elliptical constructions, one that can be interpreted out of context. Ezafe ‘i’ is present in all DPs as long as there is a predication (modification) relation in DPs. Even when the head noun is missing, elided or realized as pro, presence of the Ezafe is obligatory (Karimi, 2005:101–103):

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

(14)

2171

kteb=xwendnawa-i mn ba pala-ya , bala¯m pro i to book=reading-EZ I with hastiness-be.3SG , but EZ you hewa¯sˆ-a slow-be.3SG ‘My reading the book (pace) is hasty, but yours is slow’.(Lit.)

The criteria proposed by Zwicky, though, antedates the advent of functional heads to the syntactic theory, but as it is the case with ‘i’, we are much inclined to regard it as a functional element heading its own phrase, namely nP. 3.4. Definiteness Since the late 1980’s, beginning (explicitly) with Abney (1987), definite articles along with other determiners have been assumed to head their own phrases (DP), taking NPs as their complements (Abney, 1987; Bernstein, 2001; Larson, 1991; Longobardi, 1994, 1996, 2001; Ritter, 1991; among others). Along the same lines, we will give an account of definiteness in Kurdish DPs. Adopting the arguments of Holmberg and Odden (2005) regarding the headedness of the definiteness marker ‘aka’ in Kurdish, we continue the derivation of the previous example (13) repeated here as (15): (15)

kteb-a sur-a gawra-(a)ka book-EZ red-EZ big-DEF ‘(a) big red book’

Step (1) The next step is adding the definiteness marker ‘aka’ as heading D8.

As soon as the head D8 (‘aka’) is merged (Step (1)), it naturally c-commands the material contained in its nP complement. At this point, Kurdish has a descriptive peculiarity to this effect:

2172

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

whenever the Ezafe morpheme falls within the scope of the definiteness marker ‘aka’ there occurs a phonological change in the form of all instances of c-commanded Ezafe ‘i’, that is: ‘i’ changes into ‘a’ (Step (2)).13 Step(2)

As posited for the definite D8 in PsC that has an EPP, the head ‘aka’ has an EPP feature as well.14 For ‘aka’ to satisfy its EPP, the whole complement of D8 moves to its specifier position (step (3)). Step (3)

Definiteness effect in Kurdish PsCs was discussed previously (section 3.2). 13 We will not go into details of the timing of the PF rule activation with respect to syntax. Of particular interest to our discussion here is that this change heavily hinges on the syntactic hierarchical structure, that is the c-command relation. 14 The EPP feature on the definite D8 can be interpreted another way. We can assume that the definite D8 has a strong interpretable [DEF] feature, which triggers the overt movement of the complement for the establishment of locality for checking (Chomsky, 1995).

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2173

3.5. Residue remarks In this section, two important notes regarding the analysis of Ezafe in previous works are to be considered. We will also give some peripheral comments on the criticisms, which have been leveled against some aspects of the analysis proposed in the text. Ghomeshi (1997) proposes, based on theory-internal assumptions, that nouns in Persian are non-projecting heads and building on this fact she adopts an analysis of Ezafe in which a PF rule inserts Ezafe on an X8 with the feature [N] which is followed by another non-affixal constituent within the same projection. The role of the PF Ezafe insertion rule is constituency marking. Based on empirical data, Samvelian (2005) rejects Ghomeshi’s basic assumption of non-projecting nature of Persian nouns; therefore, it automatically nullifies Ghomeshi’s analysis. The other implication which our analysis has to do with Ghomeshi’s work bears on the realization of Ezafe as part of the numeration in syntax. The change of ‘i’ to ‘a’ takes place as the result of the definite marker ‘aka’ taking scope over (c-commanding) all instances of Ezafe in the derivation; accordingly, it implies that not only is Ezafe insertion triggered by syntax but also falls out in syntax. As for Samvelian’s work (2005) which takes Ezafe as a cliticization process which in her terms ‘‘morphology does better than syntax’’, we would like to reject her claims on the grounds that, although it might be the case for Persian Ezafe ‘e’ to cliticize to the modified NP, but with regard to Kurdish, Ezafe is certainly not a clitic attaching to the modified noun in morphology. This point is illustrated by the following example ((14) repeated here as (16)), which illustrates a kind of construction which is missing in Persian (Karimi, 2005): (16)

kteb=xwendnawa-i mn ba pala-ya, bala¯m pro i to hewa¯sˆ-a. book=reading-EZ I with hastiness-be.3SG, but EZ you slow- be.3SG ‘My reading the book (pace) is hasty, but yours is slow.’(Lit.)

Data like (16) call for a refinement of Samvelian’s analysis, at least for Kurdish, to the effect that in constructions in which the head noun is realized as pro15 (phonologically unrealized) the claim that Ezafe cliticizes to the modified NP is not on the right track. In what follows, we will try to incorporate some objections raised against some facets of the analysis proposed in the text and give our possible solutions. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, there are DPs in Kurdish which seemingly pose a problem for the analysis proposed in the text regarding the complementary distribution of ‘aka’ and the raised ‘i’ to D8 in possessive constructions: (17)

kras-a jwan-a sˆin-aka-i Mari. dress-EZ nice-EZ blue-DEF-EZ Mary ‘Mary’s nice blue dress.’

As this example exhibits, in a PsC, there can be simultaneous occurrence of the definite marker ‘aka’ and Ezafe, contrary to what was established in the text. However, upon closer inspection it is evident that the complementary distribution as held in the text is still 15

That pro occupies the missing head noun position is evident from the verb’s agreement with the head noun number: a. kteb-ak-a¯n-i mn sur-n , bala¯m pro i to sawz-n book-DEF-PL-EZ I red-be.PL , but EZ you green-be.PL ‘My books are red, but those of yours are green.’

2174

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

maintained. The complementary distribution of ‘aka’ and the movement of ‘i’ in possessive constructions is defined with respect to the D8 assigning the genitive case to the noun, to which ‘i’ moves; that is, the outmost D8. In (17), ‘aka’ attaches to the nP ‘kiras-i jwan-i sˆin’, rendering it definite before merging with Mari; therefore, the possessed constituent enters the derivation definite as a DP: [DP [D8 [nP [n8 i [NP [DP kras-a jwan-a sˆin-aka] [NP Mari]]]]]] The whole possessed DP moves to the specifier of the main Ezafe (bold-faced), then Ezafe moves to D8, with the ensuing movement of the possessed DP to [Spec,DP]: [DP [DP kras-a jwan-a sˆin-aka]i [D8 ij [nP ti [n8 tj [NP ti [NP Mari]]]]]] Evidence for this analysis comes from the phonological spell-out of the main Ezafe (the boldfaced one), which is distinct from other instances of Ezafe within the possessed noun. If ‘aka’ were to be merged as the outmost D8, it would induce the phonological change in all instances of Ezafe under its scope, which would lead to the ungrammatical construction: (18) *kras-a jwan-a sˆin-aka-a Mari. The semantic contribution of a possessed noun entering the derivation as a DP, is, simply, addition of a specificity dimension to the definiteness effect of the whole PsC. Another objection has been leveled against the generality of the claim made in the text concerning the phonological change of Ezafe from ‘i’ to ‘a’, as exclusively triggered by falling under the scope of the definite marker ‘aka’. The following examples constitute the basis for this objection16: (19)

kur-a krekar ba zahmat isˆ payda da-kat son-EZ worker with difficulty work found ‘It is difficult for a worker’s boy to find a job.’

(20)

kur-a krekar-ek isˆ-i payda krd. son-EZ worker-INDEF work-3sg found do.PASS ‘A worker’s son found a job.’

In the above nominal constructions (bold-faced), as described by an anonymous reviewer, Ezafe spells out as ‘a’ within NP with no overt definite marker ‘aka’ to trigger such a phonological change. This conjecture is only true to the extent what has been referred to as Ezafe in the above constructions is a real Ezafe, not some other formative. Fortunately, the key to get round this seeming problem lies in the example (20) itself, that is the Indefinite marker ‘ek’. In Kurdish DPs, the indefinite marker ‘ek’, attaches to the head noun, be it a bare noun or a modified noun. Shown in (21)–(23) are examples of the distribution of ‘ek’: (21)

16

kteb-ek book-INDEF ‘a book’

Glosses are those of the anonymous reviewer.

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

(22)

kteb-ek-i sur-i jwan book-INDEF-EZ red-EZ nice ‘a nice red book’

(23)

kteb-ek-i Hiwa book-INDEF-EZ Hiwa ‘one of Hiwa’s books’

2175

But as the (bold-faced) nominal expression in the example (20) readily shows, it is the whole construction to which ‘ek’ attaches and thus gives one piece of proof that whatever the status of the nominal expression in examples (19) and (20), they are not Ezafe constructions. The distribution of ‘ek’ in the example (20) suggests that the whole structure enters the syntactic derivation as a bare noun to which ‘ek’ attaches. Although, these constructions are similar to those in which Ezafe occurs, but this is only superficial. Running some standard tests lends support to the proposal that these constructions be analyzed as compound N–N. In such constructions ‘a’ is merely an interfix with no semantic import, which serves to connect two nominals in a compound N–N; therefore, ‘a’ is a morphological formative with its function restricted to linking compound members.17 The occurrence of ‘a’ as a morphological interfix, unlike Ezafe, is restricted to N–N (but not N-Adj). Even in N–N compounds, ‘a’ shows no derivational productivity and takes part in highly stereotyped nominal collocations. Non-referentiality of the dependent noun in such constructions further corroborates the fact that these are not Ezafe constructions. Interestingly these N–N compounds have their syntactically constructed counterparts (Ezafe constructions) which give further evidence to the distinction we have made between their structures: kur-a krekar ‘worker’s boy’, kur-i krekar ‘a worker’s boy’. These two structures (compound N–N and Ezafe construction, respectively) behave differently when they are put in the elliptical coordination context: (24)

kur-a krekar u hammal. boy-INFX worker CONJ porter ‘worker’s son and porter’

In this example, the intended meaning is the one in which kur-a krekar ‘worker’s son’ as a whole conjoins with the hammal ‘porter’ whereas in (23): (25)

kur-i krekar u hammal. boy-EZ worker CONJ porter ‘worker and porter’s son’

Krekar ‘worker’ and hammal ‘porter’ are conjoined and both are predicated of the head noun kur ‘son’. 4. Conclusion We have provided in this paper a minimalist account of the Kurdish Ezafe. We have argued for the existence of Predication Phrase in the structure of Kurdish DP which we called nP by 17

For more examples of interfixed compounds in other languages, see Haspelmath (2002).

2176

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

analogy to vP in the clausal domain. The head of nP is realized as ‘i’ which has come to be called Ezafe in Iranian languages. The unifying function of Ezafe is predicating a modifier XP of the subject noun, whether the modifier is an AdjP or a possessor NP. We attributed the definiteness of PsCs, without an overt definite marker, to the movement of the head n8 (Ezafe) to D8, motivated on minimalist grounds. Various arguments were also provided to justify the headedness of Ezafe and its presence as part of the numeration in syntax (as opposed to most previous works). Throughout the discussion, we also adhered to Kayne’s ‘‘antisymmetry’’ proposal and also right branching of the syntactic trees with leftward movement of constituents. Extending syntactic realization of predication from clausal domain to nominal domain is part of a broader project, which aims at further assimilation of the structure of DPs to clauses. Acknowledgements The author is greatly indebted to Anna Szabolcsi and several Lingua reviewers for their insightful challenges, suggestions and comments. The author would also like to thank Gholamhossein Karimi-Doostan, Richard Larson and Mojtaba Monshizadeh for their support and encouragement. References Abney, S., 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. MIT. Abol-Ghassemi, M., 2002. Tarikhe-e mokhtasar-e zaban-e farsi. Tahoori Publishers, Tehran. Adger, D., 2003. Core Syntax: A minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bagheri, M., 1997. Tarikh-e zaban-e farsi. Nashr-e Qatr, Tehran. Bernstein, J., 2001. The DP hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain. In: Baltin, M., Collins, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 536–561. Bowers, J., 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656. Bowers, J., 2001. Predication. In: Baltin, M., Collins, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 299–333. Bowers, J., 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 183–224. Chomsky, N., 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, N., 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–52. Dikken, M.d., 2006. Relators and Linkers: A Study of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gelderen, E.v., 2004. Economy, innovation, and prescriptivism: from spec to head and head to head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7, 59–98. Ghomeshi, J., 1997. Non-projecting nouns and the ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 47, 729–788. Haspelmath, M., 2002. Understanding Morphology. Arnold, London. Holmberg, A., Odden, D., 2005. The noun phrase in hawramani. Paper presented at First International Conference on Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, Liepzig. Kahnemuyipour, A., 2000. Persian Ezafe construction revisited: evidence for modifier phrase. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association Conference, Edmonton. Karimi, Y., 2005. PRO in Kurdish. MA thesis. Allameh Tabatabaii University, Tehran. Karimi, S., Brame, M., 1986. A generalization concerning the Ezafe construction in Persian. Paper presented at the Annual Western Conference of Linguistics, Canada. Kayne, R., 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kent, R.G., 1953. Old Persian. New Haven, Connecticut. Kratzer, A., 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In: Rooryck, J., Zaring, L. (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 109–137. Larson, R., 1991. The projection of DP and DegP. [In: Larson, R. Essays on Shell Structure (to appear)]. Routledge, London.

Y. Karimi / Lingua 117 (2007) 2159–2177

2177

Larson, R., Yamakido, H., 2005. Ezafe and the Deep Position of Nominal Modifiers. Paper presented at Barcelona Workshop on Adjectives and Adverbs, Barcelona. Longobardi, G., 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665. Longobardi, G., 1996. The syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory. OTS Working Papers. Research Institute for language and Speech, University of Utrecht. Longobardi, G., 2001. The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters, and problems. In: Baltin, M., Collins, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 562–603. Ritter, E., 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In: Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 26. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 37–62. Samiian, V., 1994. The Ezafe construction: some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax. In: Marashi, M. (Ed.), Persian Studies in North America. Iranbooks, Bethesda, MD, pp. 17–41. Samvelian, P., 2005. When morphology does better than syntax: the Ezafe construction in Persian. MS. Universite´ de Paris 3-Sorbonne Nouvelle. Szabolcsi, A., 1994. The noun phrase. In: Kiefer, F., Kiss, K.E´. (Eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Academic Press, pp. 179–275. Wintner, S., 2000. Definiteness in the Hebrew noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 36, 319–363. Zwicky, A., 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.

Further reading Baker, M., 1988. Incorporation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Borer, H., 1994. Deconstructing the Construct. MS, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89–115. Cinque, G., 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In: Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–309. Cinque, G., 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dobrovie-Sorin, C., 2002. From NP to DP. In: Coene, M., D’Hulst, Y. (Eds.), The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases, vol. 2. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Friend, R.C., 1985. Some syntactic and morphological features of Suleimaniye Kurdish. Ph.D. dissertation. UCLA. Grimshaw, J., 1991. Extended Projection. MS, Brandeis Unversity. Haspelmath, M., 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis. Studies in Language 22, 315–351. Johnson, K., 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In: Baltin, M., Collins, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 439–479. Lobeck, A., 2005. Ellipsis in DP. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. II. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 145–171. Rizzi, L., 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Stowell, T., 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.