ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS*
ABSTRACT. This paperexamines the stress system of Persianwith particularattentionto phrasal stress. Contraryto the long-held belief that Persian stress assignmentis sensitive to lexical category,it is arguedthatthe word-finalstressrule applies to all verbs, as well as nouns and adjectives.Workingin a PhrasalPhonology framework,I show that the superficial uniformityof stressplacementin nouns and the variabilityin verbs follows from an appropriateunderstandingof the differentsyntax of these categories along with mapping to prosodic structure.Several complex constructionsare also examined and it is shown that their unusual behavior with respect to stress can be explained in a straightforward mannerthroughthe prosodic hierarchyif their syntactic structuresare taken into account and differentedge settings are allowed at differentlevels of the prosodichierarchy.
1. INTRODUCTION
The superficialdiversity of stress patternsin Persian has led linguists to suggest a split between Persian lexical categories. Some Persian words and theirmain stress are given in (1).1,2 * Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the 'Word in Phonology' workshop in 2000 in Marburg,Germany,and at the 'Modem Trends in Linguistics' workshop in 2001 in Tehran,Iran.I would like to thank the participantsof these workshopsfor their insightful questions and helpful remarks.Thanks also to Ellen Broselow, Elan Dresher, Tracy Hall, MarzenaRochon, Caro Struijke,HubertTruckenbrodt,and two anonymous NLLTreviewersfor theirinvaluablecomments.I am especially gratefulto KerenRice for her inspiring discussions and thoughtfulsuggestions since the earliest draftof this paper. All shortcomingsand errorsare mine. This work was partiallyfunded by SSHRC Canada # 410-99-1309. 1 The stress datain this paperare originallybased on the author'snativejudgmentand, in addition, the following sources have been consulted for confirmation.The word-level stress facts can be found in Ferguson (1957), Lazard(1992), Mahootian(1997), Same'i (1996), Thackston(1993), and Windfuhr(1979). Phrasalstress within the noun phraseis discussed in Lazard(1992). As for phrasalstress within the clause, four native speakersof Persian (all linguists) were given ten canonical sentences and asked to markprimaryand secondarystress. One markedprimarystress only, while the otherthreemarkedsecondary stress as well. All were in agreementwith respectto the position of stress.Theirjudgments along with the discussionin Same'i (1996) are used in this paper. 2 Throughoutthis paper,the symbol 'a' standsfor the low front vowel (e.g., sag 'dog') and 'a' standsfor the long low back vowel (e.g., ketab 'book'). #
,?'
NaturalLanguage & LinguisticTheory 21: 333-379, 2003. C 2003 KluwerAcademicPublishers.Printedin theNetherlands.
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
334
(I)a.
Nouns and Adjectives 'book' ketab
e.
xarfd
Verbs 's/he bought'
b.
mosabeqe
'competition' f.
xarId-am
'I bought'
c.
ketab-f
'bookish'
g.
raft-am
'I went'
d.
divune
'crazy'
h.
mi-xar-e
's/he buys'
The examples in (la-d) show that for nouns and adjectives,the main stress goes on the final syllable of the word. For the verbs in (le-h), however, the patternis not as clear. Whereas in (le), the main stress is on the final syllable, (If, g) exhibit main stress on the penultimatesyllable and (lh) on the initial (or antepenultimate)syllable. As a result of such superficial differences, scholars have proposed different stress rules for nouns and adjectiveson the one handand verbs on the other. Chodzko (1852) was the first to discuss stress in Persian.He identifies as the basic rule thatstress is word finalin simple, derived,and compound nouns and adjectivesand in nominal verbs (a type of infinitive;see note 9). As to verbalstress,he proposesdifferentrules for differenttenses. Ferguson (1957), too, distinguishesverbalstress from the othercategories."It is certainlysafe to say thatin modernPersianthe verb has recessive stress. This is in sharpcontrastwith the noun, where the stress tends to be near the end of the word"(Ferguson1957, pp. 26-27). Similarly,Lazard(1992) makes a distinctionbetween non-verbalwords and verbs, with the former havingthe stresson the last syllable andthe latterhaving"recessivestress". Mahootian (1997) points out that stress is word-final in simple nouns, derivednouns, compoundnouns, simple adjectives,derivedadjectives,infinitives, and the comparativeand superlativeforms of adjectivesas well as in nouns with plural suffixes, and mentions verbal stress as one of the exceptionsto this rule.Finally,in heraccountof Persianstressin a metrical framework,Amini (1997) proposes two differentword-layerconstruction rules, End Rule Left and End Rule Right, which are sensitive to lexical categories.She uses the firstrule for prefixedverbs and the second one for all other categories. These attemptsshow that even a split between verbs and otherlexical categoriescannotaccountfor the discrepanciesobserved in the stresspatternof Persianverbs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a unified account of Persian stress, independent of lexical categories. I show that by differentiating word- andphrase-levelstressrules, one can accountfor the superficialdifferences exemplifiedin (1) above, dispensingwith manyof the stipulations requiredin previousaccounts.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
335
The presentanalysis is developedin the frameworkgenerallyknownin the literatureas Phrasal(or Prosodic)Phonology (Selkirk 1980a, b, 1981, 1984, 1986; Nespor andVogel 1982, 1986). It has been long observedthat some phonologicalrules appearto be sensitive to syntacticstructurein one way or another.To account for such interactionsbetween phonology and syntax, phrasalphonology adoptsan indirectapproachin which phonological rules are not allowed to look at syntactic structuredirectly.3Phrasal phonology has two components:1. Mappingrules derivephrasaldomains from morphosyntacticconstituents;2. Phonologicalrules then apply with referenceto these phrasaldomains.In this approach,prosodic constituents are organized into a hierarchicalstructure,known as the prosodic hierarchy.There are some controversiesabout the domains thatconstitutethe prosodic hierarchy,but all linguists workingin this frameworkagree that thereare at least four levels, originallyproposedby Selkirk(1980a). These levels, which are the only ones used in this paper,are given in (2).4 (2)
Prosodic Hierarchy Utterance IntonationalPhrase PhonologicalPhrase PhonologicalWord
The prosodic domains in (2) are derived from syntactic constituents via mapping rules that are schematicallyrepresentedin (3) (taken from Truckenbrodt1995).5 (3)
Syntax Utterance (Root) clause XP X ?
e e -
Prosodic Hierarchy ProsodicUtterance IntonationalPhrase PhonologicalPhrase PhonologicalWord
Examining the stress patternof noun and verb phrases in Persian, I will arguefor the prosodicstructuresand the mappingsgiven in (4). For clarity, 3 Alternatively,some authorshave suggested a direct approachin which phonological rules can referto syntacticstructuresdirectly(see, for example, CooperandPaccia-Cooper 1980; Kaisse 1985; Odden 1987, 1990; and Rizzi and Savoia 1992). See Selkirk (1980a, 1981), Nespor andVogel (1986) andHayes (1989) for argumentsagainsta directapproach. 4 Prosodic levels lower than the phonological word have not been shown, as they are irrelevantto the presentpaper. 5 The exact definitionof a syntacticutterance,though an importantissue, is irrelevant to the presentpaper.
336
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
I use regularsquarebracketsfor the phonologicalword,curlybrackets for the phonologicalphrase,andbold curlybracketsfor the intonational phrase.6
(4)a. NounPhrase SyntacticStructure: [DP Dem(onstrative) Numeral [N N(oun)-cohering sufs]non-cohering sufs]] ProsodicStructure: {PPhrase[PWordDem(onstrative)] [PWord [PWord
Numeral] N(oun)-cohering sufs] [PWordnon-cohering sufs]I
b. VerbPhrase SyntacticStructure: [CP/1P [DP SUbj]-[DpObj] [vP/VP -Mood [v Verb]non-coheringsufs]] Prosodic Structure: {IPhrase {PPhrase
ObjI SubjI{PPhrase
{PPhrase ...*IPWord
Mood][PWord Verb][pword non-coheringsufs]II
The uniformityin stress placement in nouns and the variabilityin verbs follows, I argue, from an appropriateunderstandingof the differentsyntax of these categories along with the mapping to prosodic structure.In other words, the same stress-ruleapplies to differentsyntactic categories at a certain level of the prosodic hierarchy.The superficial differences shown above are the result of the mappingof these categoriesto prosodic constituents. To the extent that the presentanalysis is successful in providinga unified account of Persian stress, it offers furthersupport for the prosodic
hierarchyin (2). Moreover,it providessupportfor theproposalthatprosodic domains (at the word-level and higher) serve as stress domains (for the level of the prosodic word, see Dixon 1977a, b; Selkirk 1980a, b; McCarthyand Prince 1993; Peperkamp1997; among others; for higher 6 The followingsymbolsandabbreviations areused throughout the paper:subscript w and PWordfor phonological words, subscriptsoand PPhrasefor phonological phrases, subscriptI and IPhrasefor intonationalphrases, subscriptU for utterances,CP for ComplementizerPhrase,IP for InflectionalPhrase,vP for light verbphrase,VP for verbphrase, DP for DeterminerPhrase, NP for noun phrase, sg for singular,pl for plural, indef. for
indefinite,p.p.for pastparticiple,indic.for indicative,sub.for subjunctive, neg. for negation and acc. for accusative. See section 2 for a definitionof cohering and non-cohering
suffixes.
ANDPERSIANSTRESS CATEGORIES SYNTACTIC
337
levels, see Nespor and Vogel 1986, 1989; Hayes and Lahiri 1991; Nespor 1999; and Hsiao 2002; among others).7Accordingto this analysis,Persian stress is assigned rightmostat the phonologicalword level, leftmost at the phonological phrase level, rightmostat the intonationalphrase level and leftmost at the utterancelevel. It is worth noting that Persian emerges as an interestingexample of differentdirectionalityof stress assignment at each prosodic level from the prosodicword upward.8 The remainderof the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, I look at Persian nouns and adjectives and propose a rule to account for their stress pattern.In section 3, I extend the stress rule to verbs and show the problem this categoryposes for our generalization.I suggest that the solution lies in a distinctionbetween word- and phrase-levelstress rules. The main proposalof this paper is discussed in section 4. I introducethe phrasalstress rule in Persian and show that by differentiatingword-level and phrase-levelstressrules, one can come to an accountof Persianstress that is independentof lexical categories in that it need not refer to these categories. In section 5, higher level stress rules are investigated.Sections 6 and 7 deal with some seemingly problematiccases for the proposed analysis and show how they can fit the same generalizationunder some reasonableassumptions.In section 8, I provide supportfor the direction of alignmentof syntacticXPs with phonologicalphrasesproposedin this paperfor Persian.Section 9 concludes the paper.
2. PERSIAN NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES
Some examples of simple nouns and adjectives are given in (5). Stress is word-final.9The phonological word is the lowest level in the prosodic 7 Alternatively,some authorsprovide accounts of phrasal stress that do not have recourse to Phrasal Phonology (e.g., Gussenhoven 1984; Halle and Verngaud 1987; and Cinque 1993, among others). 8 I would like to thankHubertTruckenbrodtfor bringingthe latterpoint to my attention. 9 Persian long infinitives (what Chodzko 1852 referredto as nominal verbs) pattern with nouns with respect to stress. Note that from a morphologicalviewpoint, too, these long infinitivesbehave like nouns. Thus, for example, they take the nominal pluralmarker (e.g., xordan-a, eating-pl, 'the acts of eating') or take the suffix -i which is otherwiseonly added to nouns to form adjectives(e.g., compareketdb-i,book-i, 'bookish' with xordan-i, eating-i, 'eatable'). A thoroughstudy of the syntax and the stress patternof Persian long infinitivesis beyond the scope of this paper.
338
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
hierarchyin (3) above which is the domain of word stress, phonotactics, and segmentalword-levelrules.10
(5)a.
(mu),
'hair'
e.
(xiib))
'good'
b.
(ketab),
'book'
f.
(boz6rg),
'big'
c.
(tasad6f),
'accident'
g.
(divune)(,
'crazy'
d.
(buqalamun)j,'turkey'
h.
(motefavet),, 'different'
The examplesin (6) show the patternof stresswhen derivationalaffixesare addedto nouns and adjectives.Derivednouns and adjectivesreceive stress on the last syllable, as in (6a-c). (6d) shows thatthe nominalpluralandthe comparativemarkersbehave like derivationalsuffixes and take stress. The superlativemarker,not shown here, also takes stress. Based on morphological evidence, Kahnemuyipour(2000a) shows that adjectivaldegree and nominal numberare derivationalin Persian. Thus, one can maintainthe generalizationthatPersianderivationalsuffixes take stress.
(6)a. b. c. d.
(ketab-f)(, (bozorg-i),, (na-dorost), (ketab-a)t,
'bookish' 'grandeur' 'incorrect' 'books'
(tasadof-),, 'accidental' (divune-gi),, 'craziness' (bi-arzesh)0,, 'worthless' (bozorg-tar)z, 'bigger'
Persianalso has a class of suffixes/encliticsthatarenot stress-bearing,e.g., the indefinitearticle -i, the relativeparticle-i, the direct object marker-o (formally ra), the Ezafe vowel -e (an unstressedvowel -e that links nouns to theirmodifiersand possessors), and the pronominalenclitics. Traditionally, those elements that can substitutefor a full form are called enclitics and the rest suffixes. Whetherthis is a correctdistinction is irrelevantto our discussion. The importantfact is that they are typically consideredto be inflectional in nature, having syntactic consequences. For simplicity, 10 No secondarystresshasbeenreportedatthewordlevel,andthusonlyprimarystress is markedon thewordsin (5). Fora generaldiscussionof secondarystressin Persian,see section5.
ANDPERSIANSTRESS CATEGORIES SYNTACTIC
339
they are hereafterreferredto as suffixes. The stress patterninduced by these suffixes is shown in (7).11 (7)a. b.
(ketab),,-i (ketab)(,-am
'a book' 'my book'
The fact that suffixes can fall into differentclasses with respect to stress has been attestedin many languages.For example, many languages (e.g., Hungarian)parse a sequence of stem plus suffix as a single phonological word,as in (8a), whereasotherlanguagesdo not parse(some) suffixeswith the phonological word of the stem to which they attach,as in (8b) (Hall and Kleinhenz 1999, p. 16). In English, for example, a distinctionis made between stress-shiftingsuffixes (e.g., -ity) and stress-neutralsuffixes (e.g., -ness) (Siegel 1974 and subsequentauthors).It has been proposed that whereasthe formerare incorporatedin the phonologicalword of the stem to which they attach,the latterare not (see, for example, Szpyra 1989). (8)a.
(stem+suffix)<,
b.
(stem),, + suffix
Following Dixon (1977a, b) and subsequentwriters,I referto suffixes that are partof the phonological word (i.e., are of the (8a) type) as 'cohering' and those that are not (i.e., are of the (8b) type) as 'non-cohering'. In other words,the derivationalsuffixes in Persianare cohering,whereasthe inflectionalones are non-cohering.Note the plausibilityof the assumption that the suffixes involved in derivation(i.e., a lexical process) attachto the stem and arepartof the phonologicalword,while inflectionalsuffixes that are often consideredto have syntactic status are outside the phonological word. Whether the non-cohering suffixes (exemplified in (7)) constitute separatephonological words of their own (e.g., (ketab)z,,-(i),)or not is a questionI leave for section 4, when phrasalstressis introduced.The crucial point is that they are outside the phonological word including the stem. It should also be noted that all cohering suffixes in Persian are linearly orderedbefore the non-cohering ones, a fact which supportsthe lexical statusof the former.Some examples are given in (9).
11 The representationsin (7) raise an interesting question concerning the relationship
between phonological word boundariesand syllable boundaries.I take these to be cases of resyllabificationacross word boundaries(following a proposal by Nespor and Vogel 1986 for French). In other words, whereas syllabificationis a word-level phenomenon, resyllabificationis phrasal (see Nespor and Vogel 1986; Rice 1987; Kang 1992a, b; and Hannahs1995).
340
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
(9)a. b.
(ketab-a)(,-i book-pl-indef
'some books'
(divune-gf)s,-am 'my craziness' crazy-ness-my
Finally, compoundnouns and adjectives are treatedas single words and have their stress on the final syllable, as shown in (10).12 From a morphological point of view as well, they are treated as single words, as no affix (inflectionalor derivational)can interruptthe two parts of these compounds. (lO)a. b. c. d.
book-house (bozorg-manesh)z,, great-attitude bad-fortune (bad-baxt)s, flower-sell (presentstem) (gol-forish)z, (ketab-xune),
'library' 'magnanimous' 'unfortunate' "florist'
I assume the syntactic structurein (11) for these compoundsand propose that in Persianthe highest X? is mappedonto a phonological word. Note that while the firstX? is an independentword, the second X? can be an independentword (as in (lOa-c)) or a stem (as in (lOd)). In eithercase, the whole compoundbehaveslike a single phonologicalword with respect to stress.13 (11)
SyntacticStructure:
XP
X?
Xe
Prosodic Structure: (
t
12 In Bengali, too, the same rule that governs word stress applies to compounds (see
Hayes and Lahiri 1991). 13 Nespor (1999) proposes the following mapping for compounds across languages: [stem+stem]compoundsare mappedonto one phonological word and [word+word]compounds onto two phonological words, while [stem+word] compounds may vary as to whetherthey are mappedonto one or two phonological words (see also Nespor and Ralli 1996 and Peperkamp1997). In Persian,the elements constitutingthe compoundare uninflected and can thus be treatedas stems, accordingto Nespor's definition.Their mapping into a single phonological word is thus not unexpected. However, since Persian has an impoverishedinflectional morphology, i.e., adjectives are never inflected and nouns are only inflectedfor numberand accusativecase, the stem/worddistinctionis not robust,and it is difficultto test Nespor's proposal.
ANDPERSIANSTRESS SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES
341
To summarize,we have seen thatthe word stressrule in (12) togetherwith a distinction between cohering and non-cohering suffixes, a distinction which finds its basis in the inflectional/derivationalsplit, can account for the stresspatternin simple nouns and adjectivesas well as compounds.In the following sections, I will extend the word-finalstress rule to verbs. (12)
Word stress rule: The final syllable in the phonological word takes stress.
3. VERBS
In this section and the next, I propose an account of the stress pattern of verbs in Persian. Recall from the examples in (1) that verbs exhibit a patternthat is different from nouns and adjectives, one that can hardly be capturedeven with category-dependentrules (see, for example, Amini 1997 for a formal account). I show that this apparentdifference can be accountedfor if a distinctionis made between word-levelandphrase-level stressrules in Persian. Let us startwith the simplest form of Persianverbs, i.e., those with no verbal affixes (thirdperson preterites).These verbs follow the word-final stress rule proposedfor nouns and adjectives.This is shown in (13). (13)a. (ratft),
's/he went'
b. (xarfd),
's/he bought'
c. (tarashid)<,
's/he sharpened'
Personagreementsuffixes, like otherinflectionalaffixes, are non-cohering in Persian.14Thus, as shown in (14), they do not attractstress. (14)a. (ratft)(,-am b. (xarid) -i
'I went' 'you bought'
c. (tarashfd)c,,-im'we sharpened' The stresspatternof the verbs discussed so far is consistentwith the word stress rule proposedin (12). However,the examples in (15) show that the prefixes marking mood, namely the indicative markermi- and the subjunctive markerbe-, as well as the negative markerna-/ne-, attractmain 14 There area few exceptions to this generalizationwhich arediscussedin the appendix.
342
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
stress. This poses a problem for the word-finalstress rule, which would predict the ungrammaticalforms in (15), in which the stress falls on the final syllable before the agreementsuffixes. Examples like those in (15) have led scholarsto posit that Persian stress depends on lexical category and on morphologicalclasses within a categoryas well. 's/he buys'
(15)a. mi-xar-e *mi-xair-e
indic.-buy-3sg b. be-xar-am *be-xar-am sub.-buy-lsg
'thatI buy'
c. na-xarid-0
's/he didn't buy'
*na-xarid-0
neg.-bought-3sg In section 4, I arguethatthe leftmost stressin (15) is an instanceof phraselevel stress ratherthanword-levelstress.
4. PHRASALSTRESS
In the previous section, it was shown thatthe verbalprefixespose a problem for the word-finalstress rule. In this section I propose that making a distinction between word-level and phrase-level stress rules resolves the problem.Let us begin by looking at phrasallevel stress in Persian.(16a) shows an example of a simple verb phrase, the past perfect form of the verb 'buy'. In (16b), we see an example of a simple noun phrase(dem N). Stress falls on the last syllable of the firstword. (16)a. xaride bud buy (p.p.) was.3sg s/he had bought b. in ketab this book To account for the stress facts in (16) I posit that phrasal stress is leftmost in Persian.This is shown in (17). I use Halle and Vergnaud's(1987)
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
343
bracketedgridsto show prosodicconstituentsandtheirprominence.In this representation,constituentsare markedby brackets,and prominence(i.e., the head of the constituent)is markedby a grid markon the line above it.
(17)a.
x,W
(
~xci
xWX,
(xaride),
b.
(bud),,
PPhrase PWord
x, (xc, (in),,
PPhrase
x.),
PWord
(ketab),
Here is how the stresses are assigned in the examples in (17). In (17a), each word receives prominenceaccordingto the word stress rule in (12). Thus, at the word level, the last syllable in xaride and the only syllable in bud receive a grid mark.At the phrasallevel, however,the stress falls on the leftmost phonological word. As a result, the main stress of the whole phrasefalls on the last syllable of xaride. The stress in example (17b) can be accountedfor in the same manner.The only syllable of the demonstrative in and the last syllable of ketdbreceive a grid markat the word level, but the phrasalstress rule puts the main stress on the firstword, i.e., in. If more elements are added to the phonological phrase,the stress continues to fall on the leftmostphonologicalword. This is shown in (18).
(18)a.
xSo
( xa
x(
xc*
)X
PPhrase
PWord (ketab), (xaride),,, (bud),, book buy(p.p.) was.3sg s/he had boughtbooks (s/he had book-bought)
344
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
b.
x, (x(O
xi
(in), (do), this two these two books
xW)(
(ket"ab) book
PPhrase PWord
The stresspatternof all the examples in (17) and (18) can be accountedfor with the word stress rule in (12) and the phrasalstressrule given in (19).
(19)
Phrasal stress rule: The first phonological word (PWord)in the phonologicalphrase(PPhrase)takes stress.
Now, let us returnto the problematicverbalprefixesin (15). I propose the following as a solution to the problem:The verbal 'prefixes' are phonological words, and the phrase-levelstress rule puts the stress on the initial word in the phrase,here the 'prefixes' (see (20)). Recall that at the word level, the stressfalls on the last syllable. Thus, at this level the one-syllable prefixes as well as the stems receive prominence.15
(20)
xv, (XC,
x5,
x
X
XW,)v?PPhrase
(mi"-),(xar)<,-e (b,6-)c,)(xar),,-am(na'-), (xarid)<, PWord indic.-buy-3sg sub.-buy-Jsg neg.-bought.3sg 15 An anonymousNLLTreviewercorrectlypoints out that there is one exception to the generalizationthat the verbal prefixes receive primarystress. While the verb xastan 'to want' follows the same generalizationwhen it takes a nominal complement (e.g., kdr-rai mi-xah-ad, job-acc. indic.-want-3sg, 's/he wants the job'), when followed by a clausal complement, the agreementmarkerratherthan the verbal prefix receives primarystress (mi-xah-ddbe-xor-ad,indic.-want-3sgsub.-eat-3sg, 's/he wants to eat'). Note that the behavior of this verbis uniquein this respect. All otherverbs that take clausal complements still have the stress on the prefix (e.g., mi-tavan-adbe-rav-ad,indic.-can-3sg sub.-go-3sg, 's/he can go'). I have no explanationfor these facts.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
345
Let us see what happensif more preverbalelements are added before the 'prefixes'.Similarto (18) above, the stresscontinuesto fall on the leftmost phonological word, as shown in (21). (21)
X50
( X
x
xL
),,
(ketab)t,,(mi-), (xund), book indic. read-3sg s/he book-read
PPhrase PWord
That affixes may form independentphonological words has been argued for many other languages (e.g., Nespor and Vogel 1986 on Italian;Cohn 1989 on Indonesian;Selkirk and Shen 1990 on Shanghai Chinese; and Kang 1992a, b on Korean).In particular,in her analysis of the Northern AthabaskanlanguageSlave, Rice (1993) arguesthat a single grammatical word(i.e., a verb)is parsedas a phonologicalphrase,which in turnconsists of 'words' and 'small words'. In Persian,the verbalprefixes that form a separatephonologicalword arethe mood markersandthe negativemarker. These 'prefixes' are inflectional(syntactic)elements, and thus it is not as surprisingthat they function as separatewords. In other words, like the suffixes,the non-coheringstatusof these prefixesis tied to theirinflectional nature. In fact, the phrasalstress rule allows for a unified accountof all inflectional affixes. It was shown in sections 2 and 3 that inflectional suffixes, nominal as well as verbal, are outside the domain of word stress. Two examples are repeatedin (22). (22)a. ketab-i book-indef: a book b. raift-am went-]sg I went In section 2, we put off the question of whetherthe non-coheringsuffixes form independentphonologicalwords or not. Given the phrasalstressrule
346
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
in (19), the stress facts in (22) can be capturedif we assume that the inflectional 'suffixes', like the 'prefixes', constitute phonological words of their own and that the phrasalstress rule (19) puts the stress on the first phonological word,in this case the stem. The mannerof stress assignment for the examples in (22) is shown in (23). (23)a.
x,>
( x,
x,, ),
(ketAb),,(i), b.
PPhrase
PWord
x5> (xW
xW)
(raft),,(am)<,
PPhrase PWord
In other words, all verbal and nominal inflectionalaffixes in Persian are non-cohering and constitute independentphonological words, while the derivationalaffixes are cohering and are part of the same phonological word as the stem. The apparentasymmetrybetween verbs and nouns is a coincidence:the lexical inventoryof Persianlacks verbalderivationalprefixes and nominalinflectionalprefixes.Thus, we do not find an unstressed verbalprefix or a stressednominalprefix. The phrasal stress rule can also account for the stress pattern of a Persian verb constructiontraditionallyknown as compound verbs (e.g., Barjasteh1983; Dabir-Moghaddam1997), also sometimescalled complex verbs (e.g., Vahedi-Langrudi1996; Karimi1997). Persiancompoundverbs consist of a non-verbalelement which can be a noun, an adjective, an adverb,or a prepositionalphrasefollowed by a light verb(see, for instance, Karimi1997). The examplesin (24) show thatstressfalls on the non-verbal element. (24)a. seda zad-i sound hit-2sg you called b. foru kard downwarddid s/he thrust
ANDPERSIANSTRESS SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES
347
c. pas dad-am backgave-]sg I gave back It is worth noting that the two elements in Persian compound verbs can be interruptedby other material,indicatingtheir syntactic (as opposed to lexical) status.This is shown in the examplesin (25) (see also Mohammad and Karimi 1992 and Karimi1997). (25)a. pas
dad-am
pas-esh dad-am back-it gave-]sg I gave it back b. pas na-dad-am backneg.-gave-]sg I didn't give back c. pas xah-am dad backwant-]sg gave I shall give back Given the syntactic behaviorand the stress patternof Persian compound verbs, I propose the syntacticstructureand the prosodic mappingin (26). In (26a), YPCv stands for the whole compound verb construction,XPNV representsthe non-verbalelement and V is the light verb. The compound verbis mappedonto a phonologicalphraseas shown in (26b). The phrasal stress rule correctly predicts the stress on the leftmost element in the phrase,i.e., the non-verbalelement. (26)a. SyntacticStructure:
YPcv
XPNV
b. Prosodic Struture:
(
V
348
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
Recall that in the case of nouns and adjectives,compoundswere treatedas one phonological word. Two examples are repeatedin (27). (27)a. (ketab-xune)(, book-house library b. (bad-baxt), bad-fortune unfortunate According to the presentanalysis, this prosodic differencebetween compound nouns and adjectiveson the one hand and compoundverbs on the other is a consequence of a crucial differencein their syntactic structure. To make the comparisonmore obvious, I have repeatedthe syntacticstructuresin (28). While the compoundnouns/adjectivesaresyntacticallywords whose constituents cannot be separated,compound verbs are syntactic phrases. It is also worth noting that the nominal and adjectival compounds constitutea closed list, indicatingtheir lexical status, whereas the compoundverbs are highly productive,pointingto their syntacticnature. (28)a. Compoundnouns/adjectives
Xo
X?
b.
Compoundverbs YPcv
X?
XPNV
V
To summarize, I have argued so far that verbal inflectional 'prefixes' are phonological words and that all lexical categories in Persian follow the same word-level and phrase-level stress rules. Whereas at the word level stress is rightmost, at the phrase level stress falls on the leftmost phonologicalword. The generalizationthat primarystress falls on the first element in all Persian verb constructions has already been made in the literature.In an exhaustive description of the stress patternof Persian verb constructions, Same'i (1996) shows that in ten types of finite verb constructions in Persian,the primarystress falls on the first element in the string. Some examples from Same'i (1996) are given in (29).16 16 I have adaptedSame'i's examples to the phonetic system and glossing conventions used in this paper.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
349
(29)a. Indicative mi-kesh-am indic.-pull-]sg I pull b. Past Perfect keshide bud-am pull (p.p.) was-]sg I had pulled c. Past Perfect with a compoundverb biruinkeshide bud-am out pull (p.p.) was-Jsg I had pulled out d. (Formal)Future xah-am keshid want-]sg pulled I shall pull'7 There is one exception to the generalizationthat the first element in all verb constructionstakes primarystress, namely the periphrasticprogressive constructionexemplified in (30). Note that the generalizationso far would predictprimarystress on the firstword.'8 (30)
dar-am mi-xor-am have-lsg indic.-eat-Jsg I am eating
To account for this contrast,I argue in the following section that unlike (29), the example in (30) contains two phonological phrases, and that a stress rule of a higherprosodiclevel puts the stress on the rightmostphonological phrase (in this case the VP mi'-xor-am),ratherthan the leftmost element. 17 The presentform of 'want' is used in the (formal)futureconstructionin Persian.For some speculations on why the agreementsuffix in this and a few other verbs is cohering (attractsstress), see the appendix. 18 Same'i (1996) points out a different exception, the fact that at the word level, the agreementsuffix in dar-am attractsstress.I deal with this problemin the appendix.
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
350
THEINTONATIONAL 5. CLIMBING THEPROSODIC HIERARCHY: PHRASE In the previous section, I showed that the leftmost phrasal stress rule accounts for the stress patternof a wide range of verb constructionsin Persian.It was furthersuggested that a higher level stress rule is required to account for an apparentexception, the periphrasticprogressivein (30) above. To move beyond a single phraseand studyphrasesin combination, let us look at the stresspatternof a simple clause (SubjectVerb)in Persian. (31)
ali raft Ali went
Notice thatprimarystressin this case is on the verb,the rightmostelement, ratherthan on the subject noun. This is contraryto the patternseen in section 4, where leftmost stressoccurredat the phrase-level.The rightmost stress is a surprisehere. Before attemptingto account for the above stress pattern,a brief discussion of the mannerof formingphonologicalphrasesis in order.I adopt Selkirk's (1986) end-based approach,according to which the left/right edge of the phonological phrase has to align with the left/right edge of a syntactic XP. In other words, a left/rightprosodic bracketis assumed wherever a left/right bracketdemarcatesthe edge of a syntactic phrase. Whetherit is the left or the right edge that has to be aligned varies across languages.Let us assume,for the moment,thatphrasingis done in Persian via left alignment of the phonological phrase with a syntactic XP. The choice of left alignmentover right alignmentwill be arguedfor in section 8. Let us returnto example(31). The above assumptionsaboutthe manner of forming a phonological phrase impose a left bracketbefore the verb and one before the subject.The rightbracketsare determinedin a manner thatwould respectexhaustivityand nonrecursivity.19 Accordingto the first constraint,all prosodic constituentshave to be parsed.Thus, each x",has to be partof a phonologicalphrase,i.e., enclosed in left andrightbrackets. This rules out xc,,sthat are not contained in a phonological phrase, i.e., *x. (x,) . Nonrecursivity,on the other hand, disallows nested brackets, i.e., *(xw)(xa)),O.This leads to the only possible phrasing,shown in (32). The entire clause then forms an intonationalphrase. Now, by positing 19 It has been argued in the OptimalityTheory literaturethat exhaustivity and nonrecursivity are violable constraints(see Selkirk 1995 and Truckenbrodt1995, 1999, among others). Under this assumption,these constraintsare undominatedin Persian.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
351
that at the level of the intonationalphrase, the stress falls on the rightmost phonological phrase, the stress pattern of example (31) falls out straightforwardly. XI
(32)
(
x
x )
IPhrase
(
x0)), (
xW)q,
PPhrase
(
)W
)c,,
[NPali]
[vpra'ft]
Ali
went
PWord
In (32), the last syllable of each word receives prominence at the word level, thusthe gridmarksrepresentedat the higherlevel, i.e., PPhrase.Each XP constitutes a phonological phrase. The prominence at this level, the phonologicalphrase,falls on the leftmost word, in this case single words. This is shown at the IPhraselevel. Finally, the intonationalphrase stress rule given in (33) puts the stress on the rightmostphrase,resultingin the main stress on the verb.20 (33)
Intonational phrase stress rule: The last phonological phrase (PPhrase)in the intonationalphrase(IPhrase)receives stress
According to the proposals in this paper, different prosodic levels in Persian assign prominence in different directions, rightmost within the phonologicalword,leftmost withinthe phonologicalphrase,andrightmost within the intonationalphrase. Thus, Persian emerges as an interesting example of differentdirectionalityof stress assignment at each prosodic level from the prosodic word upward.21 Let us test the intonationalphrase stress rule with a more complex clause. The patternof stress assignmentis shown for a clause involving 20 Note that adding an IP level stress rule simply adds one grid level and has no effect on the stresspatternof single phonological phrases,i.e., the structuresdiscussed in section 4. 21 Differentdirectionalityof stress assignmentat differentprosodic levels has been proposed for other languages, e.g., Hayes and Lahiri (1991) for Bengali and Truckenbrodt (1995) for Japanese.
352
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
a more complex VP, a direct object and a subject in (34). The intonational level stress rule puts the main stress on the rightmostphonological phrase. Withinthis phonological phrase, the leftmost phonological word, i.e., pas, receives prominence.Thus, this monosyllabic word receives the main stress of the whole clause. (34)
XI
(x<
xq,
(xWX)O( (
) (
x,
WX<>S X(xt, )<
(
~~) (
)I IPhrase xc, )w,
'W4 PPhrase )c,, PWord
[vPpas xah-ad dad] book-acc. back want-3sggive Ali Ali will returnthe book. [NPali]
[NP ketab-o]
It is worthnoting here that while primarystress falls on the preverbalelementpas, all the other words with x5 grid marksreceive secondarystress. The same is true of the subjectAli in the example in (32). The words with xa,grid marks,on the otherhand,do not receive stress. The generalization is that while secondary stress at the phrase level is audible, word-level secondary stresses are leveled. The leveling rule which applies after the phrasalstressrule (19) is given in (35). (35)
Leveling rule: After phrasalstress is assigned, xc, grid marks are deleted.
The effect of the leveling rule in (35) is to delete the x, grid marks, thus accountingfor the fact thatonly two levels of stress are heardin (34). The element with the x, grid markreceives primarystress and those with x,>grid marks (the subject and the object) receive secondary stress. As a resultof the leveling rule, in all cases where the phonological phraselevel prominencedeterminesprimarystress,no secondarystressis heard.These cover all the cases discussedin section 4. Some examplesare given in (36). In these examples,the syllables markedwith xOreceive primarystress and with the xc, grid marks being deleted by the leveling rule no secondary stress is expected. In what follows, secondary stress will be mentioned only if it has any bearingon the discussion, and the effect of the leveling rule will not be shown on the grid structuresfor the sake of convenience.
353
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
(36)a.
b.
x, X( W) X
x, xW
)v
(ket"ab),(i), book-indef:
c. xw X0
(mi),, (xarid),, indic.-bought.3sg
xso xw
xw
x'W
(keta"b),,, (xafid),,-(i)(,, book bought-2sg
Let us returnto the example in (34). This example reveals an interesting contrastbetween the stresspatternof a definite/specificobject, as in (34), and a nonspecific/genericobject, as in (21) (repeatedin (37)). Whereas the definite/specific object is unstressed in (34), its nonspecific/generic counterpartis stressedin (37). (37)
xso
(
xW
xw
x,
XW)q,
[vp (ketfb), (mi-)c,,(xun)@-(am)] book indic.- read- Isg I book-read(I readbooks)
PPhrase PWord
The stress facts in (34) and (37) suggest thatthe nonspecificobject is part of the phonological phrasecontaining the verb, while the specific one is outside this phonological phrase and constitutes a phonological phrase on its own. I propose below that this prosodic difference is rooted in a differencein the syntacticposition of these elements. Evidence that definite/specific objects are syntactically in a higher position than nonspecific ones has been put forward in the literature. Looking at Turkish,Diesing (1992) arguesthatpresupposeddirectobjects are structurallyhigher than true indefinites (see also Mahajan 1990 for Hindi; Koopmanand Sportiche 1991 for Dutch; and Moorcroft 1995 for Icelandic and German).Turningto Persian,Browningand Karimi(1994) propose that the definite/specificobject is in a VP-externalposition (see also Ghomeshi 1996).22Thus, the difference in behavior of the objects in (34) and (37) with respect to stress can be tied to a difference in their syntacticpositions. While the definite/specificone in (34) is VP-external, 22 S. Karimi(to appear)argueson syntacticgroundsthat both the specific and the non-
specific object are VP-internal.I see no easy way of reconciling the stress facts with S. Karimi'sposition.
354
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
thus outsidethe rightmostphonologicalphrase,the nonspecificone in (37) is VP-internal,i.e., within the rightmostphonologicalphrase.To illustrate the differencemore clearly,I provide two minimallycontrastingsyntactic structuresand their mappings in (38). The only difference between (38a) and (38b) is that the formerinvolves a nonspecific object and the lattera specific one. (38)a. (X [vp ketabxund] book read.3sg s/he book-read(s/he readbooks) b.
(
)(p(
[NP ketab-o]
[vp xund] book-acc. read.3sg s/he read the book It has been shown so far that within the intonationalphrase,the rightmost phonologicalphrasereceivesprominence.As a result,the primarystressof a clause falls on the leftmostelementin the rightmostphonologicalphrase, i.e., the leftmost element in the verb phrase. Supportingevidence for this generalizationcomes fromthe behaviorof adverbials.It has been arguedin the literaturethat adverbsmarkthe left edge boundaryof the verb phrase (see Jackendoff 1972; Holmberg 1986; Webelhuth1992; among others). Thus if, as arguedin this paper, the leftmost element in the Persian verb phrasereceivesprimarystress, it is expectedthat,primarystress shouldfall on the adverbs.This predictionis borne out, as shown in the examples in (39). (39)a. ba'danqaza mi-xor-am later food indic.-eat-lsg I will eat food later. b. in ketab-o ba'dainmi-xun-am this book-acc. later indic.-read-]sg I will read this book later. In (39a) and (39b) the adverb ba'dan 'later', which marks the left edge boundaryof the verb phrase,receives primarystress. Note that these examples also support the proposal regardingthe position of specific and
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
355
nonspecific objects. In (39a), the nonspecific object qaza 'food' is inside the verbphrase,thus to the right of the adverb,while the specific object in ketab 'this book' in (39b) is outside the verb phrase,thus to the left of the adverb.23
To end this section, let us returnto the stresspatternof the periphrastic progressiveconstructionin (30), repeatedin (40b). Recall that unlike all the otherverbconstructionsin which stressfalls on the leftmostelement,in the periphrasticprogressiveconstruction,main stressfalls on the rightmost element, thus the contrastin (40).24 (40)a. (Formal)future xah-am xord want-Jsg ate I shall eat b. Periphrasticprogressive dar-am mi-xor-am have-]sg indic.-eat-lsg I am eating Note the obvious morphosyntacticdifferencebetween the constructionsin (40a) and (40b). Whereas the formal future constructionexhibits single agreement,the agreementsuffix -am on the auxiliaryxah-am, the periphrasticprogressive has double agreement,the agreementsuffix -am on both the auxiliarydar-amand the main verb mi-xor-am.Ghomeshi(2001) argues that the auxiliary in the periphrasticprogressiveconstructionlies outside the VP and heads the TP (Tense Phrase).25Ghomeshi'sproposal 23 I would like to thank an anonymousNLLT reviewer for bringing the discussion of adverbsto my attention.The example in (39a) is also due to this reviewer.The example in (39b) was adaptedby the authorfrom an example given in (i) below, originally offered by the reviewer as a problem for the generalizationthat specific objects are outside the verb phrase.I take the example in (39b) to be the unmarkedform with neutralfocus and the example in (i) a derivedform that has undergonescramblingfor focus reasons. In this paper,I have only dealt with unmarkedsentences with neutralfocus.
(i)
ba'dainin ketab-o mi-xun-am later this book-acc. indic.-read-]sg
24 On the cohering status of the agreement suffix in xah-am and ddr-am, see the appendix. 25 For an account of the double agreementand other interestingsyntactic discussions, see Ghomeshi(2001).
356
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
accountof the stressfacts. The VP and paves the way for a straightforward the TP each introducea separatephonological phrase and the rightmost phonologicalphraseattractsstress accordingto the intonationallevel stress rule. The mannerof stress assignmentfor the examplein (40b) is shown in (41). The grid structurein (41) also accountsfor the secondarystresson the Recall the generalizationthatall the elementsbearingan auxiliaryddr-acm. grid mark receive secondarystress. x,, xI
(41) x,O (
xO
IPhrase
xt),p ( xct, xc, x)9), PPhrase ),
() ()
,(),,PWord
[vp mi- xor- am]] [TPdar-nam have-lsg indic.-eat-lsg In the following sections, we will look at some cases that appearto pose problemsfor the proposedanalysis. We will see how they can fit the same generalizationundersome reasonablesyntacticassumptions.
6. THE EZAFE CONSTRUCTION:A COMPLEXPHONOLOGICALWORD
Ezafe is a name for a constructionin Persianinvolving nominalmodification, andis indicatedby an unstressedvowel -e (knownas the Ezafe vowel) which occurs on every noun (or adjective) that is followed by a(nother) modifieror possessor. An example is given in (42), which shows that the stress falls on the rightmostword. Since the example appearsto be composed of threephonological words, 'dog', 'black', and 'big', it appearsto be a counterexampleto the phrasalstressrule (19) which predictsstress on the firstword of a phonologicalphrase. (42)
sag-e siah-e gonde dog-Ez black-Ezbig big blackdog
Before considering a solution to this problem, we need to have a closer look at the syntax of this construction.It is a well-known fact that all the elements in the Ezafe domain (with the exception of a final possessive
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
357
NP not given in (42)) are X?7s (see, for example, Samiian 198326 and Ghomeshi 1996, 1997). This fact makes unavailablean account which would take each noun and adjective as an XP and would put the stress on the rightmostXP accordingto the IntonationalPhrasestressrule.27 Kahnemuyipour(2000b) provides a syntactic account of the Ezafe constructionwithin Minimalism(Chomsky 1995 and subsequentworks), arguing that the modifiers and possessors in this constructionare basegeneratedprenominallyandthattheirfinalpositionis the resultof syntactic movement. According to this analysis, the adjectives are located in the heads of functionalprojections above NP. These adjectives (or modifiers) bear the feature [Mod] (for modifier), and the functionalprojections are thus called Mod(difier)P(hrase)s. The noun, which also has the feature [Mod] (morphologicallyrealized by the unstressedvowel -e, i.e., the Ezafe vowel), moves up and head-adjoinsto the adjective, and checking takes place. If there are more adjectives, and thus more functional projections,this process of head-adjunctionand checking continues until all strong [Mod] featuresare checked. The derivationfor the example in (42) is given in (43). (43a) shows the base-generated(or merge) position. (43b) illustratesthe movementand adjunctionof the noun to the adjective above it. (43c) shows the movement and adjunctionof the whole NounAdjective structureto the adjectiveabove it. For ease of illustration,I have only shown the [Mod] feature on the adjectives.Note, however, that the Ezafe morphemes,too, beara [Mod] feature.Thus, the checking which is shown to takeplace between the [Mod] featureand the Ezafe vowel really involves the [Mod] featureon the Ezafe.
26 Samiian uses XP's in the Ezafe domain, but accounts for the same constraintvia an extra filter.The filterpreventselements in the Ezafe domainfrom having complements. 27 It has been proposedin the literaturethat adjunctsthat are not full XPs do not introduce prosodicboundariesat theiredges, as it would be expectedif they were full XPs. See, for example, Clements (1978), Selkirkand Tateishi(1991), Truckenbrodt(1999).
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
358
(43)
sag-e siah-e
gonde
dog-Ez black-Ezbig a.
ModP
b.
ModP
ModP
Adj0 gonde [Mod]
NP
Adj0
ModP
Adj0 gonde [Mod]
NP
AdjO
siih-e Nio Adj0 sag-,/ si3h-e [MA]
[Mod] NO
(CP)
sag-e
ti
(CP)
c.MModP
Adj?j
/\ Ni0 Adj0 sag-e siah/
Adj0 gonde [iMd]
NP
ti ti
(CP)
It can be seen in (43c) that the final structureof this phrase (circled in the tree diagram)is an X?-level element. Recall from the discussion of compoundsin section 2 that the phonological word in Persianis defined as the highest X?-level element. Thus, the observed stress patterncan be attributedto the word stress rule (12) which puts the main stress on the final syllable of the word, here the whole Ezafe construction.
7. FOCUSANDPHRASING: THECASEOFTHENEGATIVE MARKER ne-/naThereremainsone exception to the generalizationthat in the verb phrase, stress always falls on the leftmost element. In the case of the negativeverb phrase,stress remainson the negativemarkerna-/ne-, even if other words precede it. This can be seen in (44).28 (44)a. nai-xarid-am neg.-bought-]sg I didn't buy 28 This fact has been observedby Same'i (1996). He has an extrarule that statesthatthe main stress falls on the negative markerin negativeconstructions.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
359
b. ketabna-xarid-am book neg.-bought-]sg I didn'tbook-buy(I didn'tbuy books) c. birunna-keshide bud-am out neg.-pull(p.p.)was-]sg I had not pulled out In (44b), for example, the main stress falls on the negative markerrather than on the leftmost element, the nonspecific object ketab 'book'. Note that omitting the negative markergives the affirmativeform ketabxaridam 'I bought books', with the stress on the first element ketdb 'book', as expected, since the nonspecific object ketab is the leftmost word in the phonologicalphrase(see (21) and (37) for very similarexamplesand their prosodic structures). Let us see how we can reconcile the behavior of the negative verb constructionwith the analysis proposed in this paper. According to our analysis so far, only the leftmost phonological word of a phonological phrase can receive prominence.In other words, the negative markerpatterns as if it were at the edge of a phonologicalphrase.It has been argued (see, for instance, Kanerva1990 for Chichewa29and Truckenbrodt1995 for Japanese) that focused elements are often at the edge of a phrase. I propose that the behavior of the negative markerin Persian is due to the same phenomenon,i.e., the negative markergenerally behaves like a (contrastively)focused element. This assumptionis quite plausible, given the usual contrastivesense of negation.In fact, while negationis generally contrastive,contexts exist in which negation is used in a non-contrastive sense. Considerthe context given in (45). (45)
A non-contrastivecontextfor negation A: What can you tell me about Ali's activities during his visit? B: Not much, though I know that Ali did not read books during his visit.
Interestingly,in such non-contrastivecases in Persian,the negativemarker does not affect the stress pattern,i.e., stress falls on the leftmost element in the verb phrase,ratherthan on the negative marker.Thus the response 29 Kanervacalls such phrases'focal phrases'.Truckenbrodt(1995), however,shows that this level should be identifiedwith phonologicalphrases.
360
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
in B can be roughly translatedinto the Persiansentence in (46), with the stress falling on ketab,i.e., the leftmostelementin the verbphrase.In (46), the relevantpart,within squarebrackets,illustratesthe placementof stress when negation is non-contrastive,showing a clear contrast to examples such as (44b).3? (46)
Non-contrastiveuse of negation valla che arz-kon-am?vali mi-dun-am [ketabna-xund] but indic.-know-Jsg book neg.-read well what say-lsg Well, what can I say? But I know he didn't readbooks.
Since stress placement with non-contrastivenegation, with stress falling on the first element in the verb phrase, has already been accounted for (see section 4), let us now returnto the contrastiveuse of the negative markerexemplifiedin (44). Assuming thatthe negativemarkerconstitutes a phrasalboundaryin Persian,its main stress can be attributedto a higher phrase-levelstress rule. According to this proposal, the focused element, the negative markerhere, introducesan extraphrasalboundary,i.e., a left
bracketto the left of the negativemarker,andstressis assignedbasedon the alreadyexistingstressrules.(47) showsthe stressassignmentfor the examplein (44b). (47)
xI (
x0
x$
( x), (x., )C ketab book
-
)i
xW Uc,
IPhrase
x)O PPhrase
,(),
PWord
na -xarid -am neg. -bought -lsg.
The assumptionthatthe negativemarkerconstitutesa phonologicalphrase boundaryputs a left bracketto the left of the negativemarkerat the PPhrase level in additionto the left bracketat the edge of the VP. The bracketimposed by the negativemarkeris highlighted.I follow Truckenbrodt(1995) 30 I thank Hubert Truckenbrodtfor drawing my attention to the expected contextdependencyand for sharingthe above context.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
361
in the direction of boundaryinsertion here. According to Truckenbrodt (1995), if a languageassigns defaultstress to the right/lefton the prosodic level n, then it may show boundaryinsertionat that level to the right/left of a focus. Since stress is assigned leftmost at the phonological phrase level in Persian, a left boundaryis inserted at that level. The result of this boundaryinsertion can be seen at the PPhraselevel in (47). At the intonationalphrase level, the stress falls on the rightmost phonological phrase, na-xarid-am,neg.-bought-lsg. This phonological phrase, in turn, consists of three phonological words, na and xarid and am. According to the phonological phrase stress rule, the stress falls on the leftmost word, i.e., the negativemarker.The negativemarkeris monosyllabic and is thus stressed based on the word-level stress rule. As a result, the main stress of the whole phrase falls on the negative marker.Furthersupportfor the grid structurein (47) comes from the fact thatthe nonspecificobject ketaib 'book' receives secondarystress, as expected based on the generalization that all elements with x, grid marksreceive secondarystress while those with xc, grid marksare leveled. We have seen so far that with a reasonableassumptionabout the interactionbetween the negativemarkerand phonologicalphrasing,we can account for the behaviorof the negativemarkerwith respect to stress in a straightforwardmanner.Let us see whathappensif more thanone focused element is present. For this purpose, we need to look at anothercase in Persianthathas been arguedto be tied to focus. Kahnemuyipour(2001) argues for a preverbalfocus position in Persian which is the locus of contrastively focused elements as well as wh-phrases.Interestingly,these elements share stress propertieswith the negativemarker,thus the stressedwh-phrasein (48). If we assume thatthe wh-phraseis at the left edge of the verbphrase,i.e., the specifier of vP in a theory which allows multiple specifiers(Chomsky 1995 and subsequent works), we can accountfor the main stresswithoutthe insertionof an extra boundary.The edge of the VP/vP gives us the phrasalboundaryfor free and the main stress is assigned leftmost withinthe phonologicalphrase. (48)
[vPkoja raft-i]
wherewent-2sg Wheredid you go? If both the wh-phraseand the negative markerare present, stress falls on the leftmost element, i.e., the wh-phrase,as shown in (49).
362
(49)
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
ali] [vPkoja na-raft] Ali whereneg.-went Where did Ali not go? [NP
Nothing in our analysis so far can account for the main stress on the wh-phrase. Our assumptions so far would force brackets to the left of the negative marker,the wh-phrase (being at the edge of vP) and the subject NP. The intonationalphrase stress rule, however, would wrongly predict main stress on the leftmost phonological word in the rightmost phonologicalphrase,i.e., the negativemarker.This is shown in (50). (50)
*x
( x
xs,
( x x0x)q0 ( ( )a)( ali Ali
( x)c, (
koja where
Where did Ali
)1
IPhrase
x')W
PPhrase
)
PWord
x50
(
na- raft neg.-went not go?
Workingin an OptimalityTheory framework,Truckenbrodt(1995) considers different possible rankings of alignment constraints at different prosodic levels and introducesthe following typology for boundaryinsertion triggeredby focus: no insertion,insertionon the phonologicalphrase level, and insertionon both the phonological phrase level and the intonationalphraselevel. We have alreadyseen thatby insertinga boundaryat the phonological phrase level, the stress patternof a clause with single focus follows straightforwardly(see (47)). What about two focused elements? The insertionof a single boundaryis inadequate,as shown in (50). Let us then see if we can account for the stress patternof the multiple focused clause in (49) by inserting two boundaries,i.e., one at the phonological phrase level and a second one at the intonationalphraselevel. Recall that the directionof boundaryinsertionis tied to the directionof stress assignment. Thus, at the phonologicalphraselevel, the boundarywas insertedto the left of the focused element because at that level stress is assigned leftmost. At the intonationalphrase level, since stress is assigned rightmost,
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
363
the boundaryshould be insertedto the rightof the focused elements. This will add a rightbracketto the rightof the grid markon the wh-wordat the IPhraselevel. Note thatthe grid markon the negativemarker,being at the edge of the clause, alreadyhas a right bracketto its right. In other words, insertionof a boundaryat the intonationalphraselevel becomes important only in clauses with multiple focus. The resulting phrasing is shown in (51). The rightmoststress rule at the level of the intonationalphraseputs prominenceon the negativemarkerand the wh-word,thus the grid marks at the Utterancelevel. We are now only one step away from accountingfor the main stress on the wh-word.If we furthersuggest that a stress rule at a higher level, i.e., the utterance,puts the stress on the wh-phraseor the leftmost element, the stresspatternis accountedfor. The stressassignment is shown in (51).31 XU
(51)
( x,, ( XJ
XI
XI
x,,)
(x9,
( xW)V (x, )zt (
Utterance )i
IPhrase
xj,,)
PPhrase
)c, ( )<.,
)t,
ali
koja
Ali
where neg.-went
PWord
na- raft
Wheredid Ali not go? To the extent that this analysis is on the right track, it supportsTruckenbrodt'sproposal that the direction of boundaryinsertion is tied to the directionof stress assignment.Note thatinsertinga boundaryto the left of the focused elements at the intonationalphrase level would predict stress on the subject, an unwantedresult. This is shown in (52). No matterwhat directionone assumes for the assignmentof stress at the Utterancelevel, the stress on the middle x1,i.e., the wh-word,is impossible to capture.
31 See Truckenbrodt(1995) for an analysis of multiple foci in Japanese which shares some similaritieswith the presentproposal.
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
364
(52)
XU
*
XI
Utterance
xI
xI
)I
IPhrase
(xw ),>( xct,), (xc,, x,),>
PPhrase
(xw
( ali Ali
)I(
U,
XfO )I (Xw
)zt,( ), ( )zt,
koja where
PWord
na- raft neg.-went
Wheredid Ali not go? While a thoroughstudyof the utterancelevel in Persianis beyondthe scope of this paper,simple exampleslike (53) suggest thatthe proposalthatstress is leftmost at the Utterancelevel is on the right track.Recall from section 1 thatroot clauses are typically mappedonto IntonationalPhrases(see, for example, Nespor and Vogel 1986). The examples in (53) involve two root clauses (markedby syntacticIP/CP)thatare semanticallyrelated.In these examples the main stress appearson an element within the first clause, or the first intonationalphrase. This indicates that the stress rule at the utterancelevel puts the stress on the leftmost intonationalphrase.Within the first clause, stress is assigned to the leftmost word in the rightmost phonologicalphrase,or the firstelement in the verbphrase.This is exactly what we see in (53a) and (53b). (53)a. [wp/cpage to zang be-zan-i], [wp/cpman beh-esh I to-him/her if you ring sub.-hit-2sg mi-g-am] indic.-say-Jsg If you call, I'll tell him/her b. [IP/cp man beh-et zaingzad-am], [Ip/cp chon tavallod-et I because birthday-your to-you ring hit-Jsg bud] was I called you, because it was your birthday.
ANDPERSIANSTRESS SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES
365
In this andthe previoussection, we examineda few cases which seemed to pose problemsfor our proposalthatwithinthe phonologicalphrase,stress is leftmost.It was shown, however,thatthese cases fit the proposedsystem, given reasonableassumptionsaboutthe interactionbetweenPersiansyntax and phonology. In particular,it was argued that the Ezafe construction, which behaveslike a word with respectto stress,is in fact an X? syntactically. Moreover,the fact that the negative markerblocks main stress from falling on elements to its left within the verb phrase was attributedto its inducing a phraseboundary,a not unexpectedconsequence of its being a contrastiveelement. The analysis presentedin this paperis based on left-edge alignmentof phonologicalphrasesand syntacticXPs, which was adoptedin section 5 as a workingassumption.In the following section, I providesome supporting evidence for this choice.
8. WHYLEFT-EDGE ALIGNMENT? This section deals with the directionof alignmentbetween the phonological phrase and syntactic XP's. Left-edge alignment was adopted as a workingassumptionin section 5. In this section I provide some empirical supportfor this choice. The first piece of evidence comes from the compound verb constructions discussed in section 4. Recall that these constructionsconsist of a nonverbalpart and a light verb, i.e., [yp XPNV V]. Recall also that in Persian the stress falls on the non-verbalelement, e.g., seda zad, sound hit.3sg, 's/he called'. In (54), I show thatonly left-edge alignmentcorrectly accountsfor the stress pattern.In (54a), as the left edge of the non-verbal XP and the verb phrase coincide, the whole compoundverb construction is mappedonto one phonological phrase.The phonological phrase stress rule (19) is leftmost,assigning stressto the non-verbalelement.Right-edge alignment,however, forces an extra phrasalboundaryto the right of the non-verbalXP, dividing the whole compoundverb constructioninto two phonologicalphrases.The IntonationalPhraselevel stress rule (33) would then wrongly predict the primary stress on the rightmost phonological phrase,i.e., the verb.This is shown in (54b).
366
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
(54)a. Left-edge alignment XI x,> (IPhrase
)
(
PPhrase
V]
[YP XPNV
b. *Right-edgealignment XI X5O
( [YP XPNV
)(
~ X*0
IPhrase
)
PPhrase
V]
The second piece of supportingevidence for left-edge alignment comes from the possessive construction in Persian. The possessor is another element that can appear in the Ezafe domain. However, there is a major difference between this element and the other elements in the Ezafe construction.Whereasall the otherelements in this constructionare XD's, the possessor is an XP. The examples in (55) show the phrasalnatureof the possessor by demonstratinghow it can be expandedinto more complex phrases. In (55a), the possessor (in squarebrackets)is a full clause (i.e., a CP) and in (55b), it is an NP (or a DP), itself involving an Ezafe construction. ke diruz umad] (55)a. ketab-e jaleb-e [cp mard-i book-Ezinteresting-Ez man-indef:thatyesterdaycame The interestingbook of the man who came yesterday b. ketab-e jaleb-e [DP/NPun mard-e bahush] that man-Ezintelligent book-Ezinteresting-Ez Thatintelligentman's interestingbook The possessor, however, respects the same stress facts of the Ezafe construction.That is, stress falls on the final element, the possessor. This is
SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES ANDPERSIANSTRESS
367
shown in (56) with the primarystress on the final syllable of the possessor 'Ali'. (56)
NP (poss)] ali ketab-e jaleb-e book-Ez interesting-EzAli Ali's interestingbook [DpN0-EzAdj?-Ez
The fact that the possessor in the Ezafe constructionis an XP makes a successive head-adjunctionaccount along the lines of the one presentedin section 6 unavailableto account for the stress on the final element, here the possessor XP. Recall that for the Ezafe constructioninvolving adjectives and a head noun, it was proposed that the adjectives are prenominal at merge, and their final post-nominalposition is the result of successive head-adjunctions.The outcomeof these movementsis a complex X? structure (see (43c) above). Being an X0, the position of stress was shown to follow from the word-level stress rule, assigning stress to the last syllable of the whole Ezafe structure.While the details of a syntacticaccountof the possessive constructionare beyond the scope of this paper,the important point is thatthe possessor is an XP and thus cannotbe partof the complex X? structure.For the reasonsdiscussed above, the primarystresson the last syllable of the possessor, i.e., Ali, cannot be attributedto the word-final stress rule.32 Let us see how different directions of edge-alignment fare with the stress fact in (56). Based on left-edge alignment, we need to put a left bracketto the left of each XP. This resultsin the structuregiven in (57a).33 Note thatin this structure,the possessor constitutesa phonologicalphrase on its own. On the other hand, right-edge alignment would put a right bracketto the rightof each XP. This resultsin the structuregiven in (57b), which takes the whole DP as one phonologicalphrase.
32 For a syntacticaccountof the possessive constructionwithinthe frameworkdiscussed
in section 6 for the Ezafe construction,see Kahnemuyipour(2000b). 33 For ease of illustration,I do not show the phonological word level.
368
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
(57)a. Left-edge alignment XI
x,>
(
JPhrase
x,>
) (
)
PPhrase
NP (poss)] [DpN0-Ez Adj?-Ez ail ketab-e jaleb-e book-Ez interesting-Ez Ali Ali's interestingbook b. *Right-edgealignment
(
)
PPhrase
NP (poss)] [DpN0-Ez Adjo-Ez ketab-e jaleb-e all book-Ez interesting-Ez Ali Ali's interestingbook Let us check whatpredictioneach structuremakeswith respectto stress.In (57b) we are dealing with a single phonologicalphrase.The phrasalstress rule puts the stress on the leftmost phonological word, a wrong prediction. In (57a), however,thereare two phonological phrases.According to the intonationalphraserule, the stress falls on the rightmostphonological phrase, i.e., the possessor NP. This phrase consists of a sole word which will have its primarystress on the final syllable, i.e., the last syllable of Ali. This is the correctresult, indicatingthat left-edge alignmentis in fact the correctoption. Finally, the behavior of conjoined NP's (or DP's) in Persian offers furthersupportfor left-edge alignment.Note that differentchoices of direction resultin differentphonologicalphrasingsfor a [NP & NP] structure. As a result of puttingeither-a left bracketto the left of each NP (for leftalignment),or a rightbracketto the rightof each NP (for right-alignment), we get one of the two phrasingsshown in (58).
ANDPERSIANSTRESS CATEGORIES SYNTACTIC
(58)
[NP
a. (NP
&
369
NP]
&),o(NP)X,
b. (NP)J<(& NP)Co
Left-edge alignment Right-edgealignment
The behaviorof the conjunctionin Persian favors the structurein (58a). The conjunctionis an enclitic -o; when it is syllabifiedinto a nucleus the final consonant of the preceding NP serves as onset to the syllable. An example is shown in (59), where '.' representsa syllable boundary.Note thatstressassignmentis irrelevantto the point being made hereand is thus not shown in the example. (59)
hasa.n-o ali Hassan-andAli
The examplein (59) shows obligatorysyllabificationof the finalconsonant of the first conjunctand the conjunctionenclitic - the alternativesyllabification, *hasan.o, is impossible. Let us see how this fact interplayswith the structuresin (58).-While the structurein (58b), with the conjunction separatedfrom the first conjunct by phrasal boundaries,would involve syllabificationacross phrases,the one in (58a) shows syllabificationonly across words. On the other hand, whereas syllabification across word boundariesis attested in Persian (e.g., ketd.b-i, book-indef. 'a book' vs. *ketdb.i;recall from section 4 that the indefinite markeris non-cohering and I treatit as an independentphonological word), syllabificationacross phrasalboundaries,at least at a normalrate of speech, is highly unusual (e.g., [Npha.san.][vpoftdd] Hassan fell vs. ?? [Npha.sa.n][vpoft&dd).34 The structurein (58a) with syllabificationacross word boundarieseasily allows for the enclitic behaviorof the conjunction.The structurein (58b) with syllabificationacross phrase boundaries,on the other hand, would requirethe stipulationof an extralexical propertyfor the conjunctionthat can overruleedge-alignment.Thus, the structurein (58a) with left-edge alignmentis the preferredchoice.35 34 The above facts about syllabificationin Persian are based on impressionisticjudgments of the authorand anothernative speaker.I am not awareof acoustic measurements in this respect. 35 The facts about syllabificationin Persian offer extra supportfor the domain of the phonological word posited in this paper.I have not come across any other phonological phenomena (besides stress) in Persian that would supportthe domains proposed in this paper.Whetherthere are unnoticedprocesses in Persian that would confirmor challenge the proposeddomainsis a questionI leave for futureresearch.
370
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
To end the section, it is worth noting that the choice of left-alignment over right-alignmentin Persian is furthercorroboratedby a correlation discussed in the literatureabout the direction of alignment. According to this correlation(see Truckenbrodt1995), languages that have alignment of right edges of phonological phraseswith the right edges of XP's (e.g., Chi Mwi:ni, Chichewa,Kimatuumbi,English, Italian)assign prominence rightmost within the phonological phrase, while languages with left-edge alignment(e.g., Japanese,Korean)assign prominenceleftmost. Persian supportsthis correlationas a language with left-edge alignment and leftmostprominenceat the phonologicalphraselevel.
9. CONCLUSION
I have arguedthat the word-level stress rule is rightmostin Persian. According to this rule, the final syllable in a word receives stress. Contrary to the long-heldbelief thatPersianstress assignmentis sensitive to lexical category, this rule applies to all verbs, as well as nouns and adjectives. It was shown in this paper that the superficiallyunusual stress patternof 'prefixed' verbs can be accounted for if the so-called prefixes are taken to be phonological words and a distinction is made between word- and phrase-levelstressrules in Persian.The phrase-levelstress rule is leftmost andputs the stress on the initial word in a phonologicalphrase.In the case of the prefixedverbs, the 'prefixes'enter the combinationas phonological wordsandthe initial stressis the resultof the phrase-levelstressrule,rather than the word-finalrule. The same patternpersists if more elements are addedwithin the verbphrase.We have thus been able to providea unified accountof Persianstressthatis independentof lexical categories. There is still a fundamentaldifferencebetween verb phrasesand noun phrases, but one that is connected to their syntactic structure.It is generally accepted that verb phrases (VPs or CPs) have a more complicated structurethan noun phrases (NPs or DPs). As a result, verb phrases are divided into multiplephonologicalphrasesby edge-alignment,which has the consequence that the intonationalphrase level rightmost stress rule plays a role. Noun phrases, on the other hand, in the simpler cases, lack phonological phrase subdivisions,and consist of a series of phonological words. Thus the stress rule on the level of the intonationalphrase is irrelevantin determiningtheir main stress.36Leaving aside conjoinedNP's and othercases with non-basicinternalstructure,the prosodic structureof 36 I would like to thankHubertTruckenbrodtfor an illuminatingdiscussion of this point.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
371
Persiannoun and verb phrasesand their mappingto syntactic structureis given in (60), repeatedfrom (4).37 (60)a. Noun Phrase SyntacticStructure: Numeral [N N(oun)-coheringsufs] non-coheringsufs] Prosodic Structure: [DP Dem(onstrative)
tPPhrase [PWordDem(onstrative)][PWord
[PWord
Numeral]
N(oun)-cohering sufs][PWordnon-cohering sufs]}
b. VerbPhrase SyntacticStructure: Obj] Mood [v Verb]non-coheringsufs]] Prosodic Structure: [CP/LP[DP SUbj]-[DP
[vP/VP... -
{IPhrase {PPhrase
SubjI{PPhraseObjI
{PPhrase * *[PWord Mood][PWord
Verb][pwordnon-coheringsufs]}}
Let us first look at the Noun Phrase sketched in (60a). Startingfrom the right edge and moving to the left, the non-cohering suffixes, the noun and all the morphosyntacticelements to the left of the noun constitute phonological words of their own. The word-level stress rule puts prominence on the final syllable of each phonological word. The edge of the phonological phraseis mappedonto the edge of the DP (the whole noun phrase).At the phraselevel, the stress goes on the leftmost element. Noun phrasestypicallylack multiplephonologicalphrases.Thus the last syllable of the leftmost word in a nounphrasetakes the primarystress of the whole phrase. Let us now turn to the verb phrase in (60b). Startingfrom the right edge and moving to the left, the non-coheringsuffixes, the verb and all the morphosyntacticelements to the left of the verb constitutephonological words of their own. The edge of the phonological phraseis mappedonto the edge of the vP or VP in verb phrases. As a result, in the absence of focused elements (see section 7), the verbal prefixes take phrasal level stress. The syntacticphrasesto the left of the vP (e.g., the specific object and the subject)constituteseparatephonologicalphrases.These phonological phrasestogethermake up the intonationalphrase,the edge of which 37 The syntactic structuresof Persian noun and verb phrases are simplified for ease of illustration.
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
372
is determinedby the edge of the clause. However, since the intonational phiiaselevel rule is rightmost,the final stress is unaffected,falling on the leftmost element in the verbphrase. I have also examined several more complicated cases and shown that theirunusualbehaviorwith respectto stresscan be explainedin a straightforwardmannerthroughthe prosodichierarchyif theirsyntacticstructures are taken into account and differentedge settings are allowed at different levels of the prosodic hierarchy.The analysesproposedin this papershow a high level of interactionbetween prosodic constituents and syntactic structure(e.g., the Ezafe construction,the distinctionbetween specific and nonspecific objects, etc.). If these analyses are on the right track,this indicates that a deeper syntactic analysis might prove useful in the area of prosodic phonology in general.Conversely,the phonological behaviorof some prosodic constituentsin a certain language might point to a deep syntactic difference. Such deep interactionsbetween prosodic phonology and syntax seem to have receivedless attentionthan they deserve.
APPENDIX: ON THE COHERING STATUS OF SOME AGREEMENT SUFHXES
The analysis of Persianstressproposedin this paperrelies on the idea that some suffixes in Persian are cohering (i.e., are part of the phonological word), whereas others are not. The derivation/inflectiondistinction was arguedto be the determiningfactor.Withrespectto verbs,it was proposed that all agreementsuffixes are non-cohering.Thus, primarystress falls on the final syllable of the verb stem in all the examples in (i). (i)
xord-am nev'sht-i ate-Jsg wrote-2sg
tarashid-an sharpened-3pl
I ate
they sharpened
you wrote
Two exceptions to this generalizationexist, the auxiliaryverb dashtan 'to have' (used in the periphrasticprogressive)and the auxiliaryverb xastan 'to want' (used in the formal future construction),leading to examples like (ii) below. Each of these auxiliariesposes its own difficulties. In the periphrasticprogressivein (iia), primarystress falls on the main verb in a mannerdescribed in section 5. The issue here is the secondary stress on the agreementsuffix of the auxiliary,which is unexpectedgiven the noncohering status of agreementsuffixes. In the (formal) futureconstruction
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
373
in (iib), main stress falls on the agreementsuffix of the auxiliary,which indicates the coheringbehaviorof this suffix, again unexpectedgiven the non-coheringstatusof agreementsuffixes. (ii)a.
b.
daar-am mi-xor-am have-lsg indic.-eat-lsg I am eating
xah-am raft want-lsg went I shall go
Same'i (1996) points out the same exceptions and proposes that the unusualbehaviorof the auxiliaryverbsin (ii) mightbe due to grammaticalization. While the proposalthatthese auxiliaryverbs are grammaticalized may appear plausible at first due to their grammaticalfunction, it suffers from two problems. First, the auxiliaries are conjugated according to person and number, not typical of grammaticalizedelements (e.g., lsg: ddr-am mi'-xor-am,2sg: ddr-i mi'-xor-i,lpl: ddr-i'mmi'-xor-im,etc.). Second, the agreementsuffixon the past form of the auxiliaryverbdashtan 'to have' does not show the same idiosyncrasyand is non-cohering(e.g., daisht-immi-xord-im,have (past)-lpl indic.-went-lpl, 'we were eating').38 The auxiliary verbs thus do not patternas a class, but the present form is unique in its patterning.It would be ratherunusualto suggest that the present form of the auxiliary has undergone grammaticalization,but its past form has not. Same'i does not addressthe firstproblem.As for the second problem, he tries to account for the differentbehavior of the past form using the notion of contrast.He suggests that the agreementsuffix on the past form does not take stress to contrastwith the colloquial presentperfect form of the main verb ddshtan 'to have', whose only differencewith the auxiliary is its stress pattern,thus, the progressive auxiliarydasht-im, had-lpl vs. ddsht-im,had-lpl 'we have had'.39In otherwords, the presentform of the 38 The other auxiliary,xadstan'to want', denoting a future event, cannot be used in the past. 39 A full account of how the stressfalls on the agreementsuffix in the colloquial present perfect is beyond the scope of this paper and irrelevantto the point being made. The full form is ddsht6-imwith stress on the last syllable of the (pastparticiple)stem as expected. In short,the final segment of the stem, i.e., the vowel -e, is dropped,giving its stress to the adjacentvowel in the suffix -im.
374
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
auxiliaryhas undergonegrammaticalization,as it has nothing to contrast with. Its past counterpart,however,has not allowed grammaticalization,to keep its contrastwith the presentperfect form of the main verb 'to have'. Even thoughcontrastmight be able to accountfor some facts, the use of it in linguisticanalysisrequiresformalization.If contrastin this sense is to be incorporatedinto linguistic theory,the mechanismsthat govern it have to be determinedfirst.From a synchronicpoint of view, how does a child use contrastto acquirea language?How does it not lead to differentchildren taking differentpaths, resulting in differentindividual grammars?What are the constraintson contrastas a linguistic cue? Why, for example, does Persian (or a child acquiringPersian)not put the stress on the agreement suffix in the past form of the auxiliary(e.g., *ddshtim)to contrastit with the past form of the main verb (e.g., dashtim)?Why is a contrastbetween the past auxiliaryandthe presentperfectmoresignificantthanone between the formerand the simple past form? I propose that the differentbehaviorof the present form and the past form of the auxiliarydckshtan'to have' lies in a more general distinction between the agreementsuffixes in the presentand in the past. The surface generalizationis the following: the agreementsuffixes are non-cohering in the past, but cohering in the present.This can account for the stress on the agreementsuffix of the auxiliaryverbs 'to have' and 'to want' in the present form. Note, however, that this contrastis obscured for all other verbs, due to the fact that in contemporaryPersian, all present verbs are used with the indicativeprefixmi-, which takesprimarystress in a manner explainedin detailin section 4. Interestingly,however,in classical Persian, where the presence of the prefix was not obligatory,the agreementsuffix would attractstress in the present. An example is given in (iii), with the relevantverb in bold.40Persianspeakerstoday always use the prefix (except in some literaryforms), but have clear intuitionsaboutthe placement of stress if the prefixis omitted.41 (iii)
guy-and ma-racho zad madar... say-3pl I-acc. when bore mother They say when mothergave birthto me ...
While the present-pastsplit with respect to the coherence of agreement suffixes describes the facts, it in no way provides an explanation.Let us 40 Only the relevantstressis shown in the example. 41 Just recently,I overhearda woman saying to a baby: to-ro xor-am, you-acc. eat-lsg, 'I eat you'. That is to say, while she droppedthe prefix mi-, perhapsfor rhymingreasons, she placed the main stress on the agreementmarker.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
375
see if there is a deeper explanationfor the fact that agreementsuffixes in Persian are cohering in the present. For this purpose, we need to have a closer look at the present and past verb stems in Persian.Note that, while there is no systematic way of derivingthe past stem from the present,the past stem always ends in It! or Id/. To begin, I posit that the so-called 'presentstem' is in fact only a verbal root, while the past stem is a true stem.42Following tradition,I continue to use the terms present and past stems. One piece of supportingevidence for the fact that 'present stems', or verbal roots, are to be distinguishedfrom past stems is that the former never appear without any suffixes. While the third person agreement markeris null in the past, in the presentit is the vowel -e, thusxord 'he/she ate' vs. mi-xor-e,indic.-eat-3sg, 'he/she eats'. This is surprising,as all the other agreementsuffixes have the same form in the present and the past. There is thus a fundamentaldifference between the past and present in termsof morphologicallevel. I now integratethe root-stem contrastwith the cohering-noncohering distinction.According to my proposal,the agreementsuffixes that attach to the verbroot in the presentandrealizebothtense (as defaultpresent)and agreement,are cohering, or take stress. In the past, however, the tense is realizedby the final /dl or It!in the stem andthe agreementsuffixes, which function as pure agreementsuffixes, are non-cohering.The generalization is now that the (tensed) verb stem in Persianconstitutesthe phonological word.In the past, the (tensed)verbstem excludesthe agreementsuffix.The 'presentstem', on the otherhand,is really only a verbalroot andbecomes a stem only when the agreementsuffix is attachedto it. Thus, the agreement suffix is part of the phonological word. I leave furtherexplorationof this proposal for future research. Finally, it should be mentioned that there are still two exceptions to the generalizationthat the present agreement suffixes are cohering, the main verb dashtan 'to have' and the main verb hastan 'to be'. The agreementsuffixeson these verbsdo not normallytake stress.43Note, however, that these are two verbs that have been arguedto have differentsyntacticandphonologicalpropertiescross-linguistically.
42 There is a large body of cross-linguistic evidence on the different phonological behaviorof boundroots and stems (See Inkelas 1990 and works cited therein). 43 While the agreement suffix on the verb 'to be' is consistently unstressed, the one on the verb 'to have' seems to allow stress on the agreementsuffix in some (emphatic) constructions,an impossibility for past agreementsuffixes.
376
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR REFERENCES
Amini, Afsaneh. 1997. 'On Stressin Persian',TorontoWorkingPapersin Linguistics16(1), 1-20. Barjasteh,Darab. 1983. Morphology,Syntax and the Semantics of Persian Compound Verbs:A LexicalistApproach,unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Browning,MargueriteA. and Ezzat Karimi. 1994. 'Scramblingto Object Position in Persian', in N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies in Scrambling, Mouton de Gruyter,Berlin, pp. 61-100. Chierchia,Gennaro.1986. 'LengthSyllabification,and the Phonological Cycle in Italian', Journalof Italian Linguistics8, 5-34. Chodzko, Alexander. 1852. Grammairepersane ou principes de l'iranien moderne, accompagnees de fac-similes pour servir de modele d'ecriture et de style pour la correspondencediplomatiqueetfamiliere, Maisonneuve& Cie, Paris. Chomsky,Noam. 1995. TheMinimalistProgram,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. 'A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress', Linguistic Inquiry24, 239-297. Clements,G. N. 1978. 'Toneand Syntax in Ewe', in D. J. Napoli (ed.), Elementsof Tone, Stress,and Intonation,GeorgetownUniversityPress, Washington,D.C., pp. 21-99. Cohn, Abigail. 1989. 'Stressin Indonesianand BracketingParadoxes',NLLT7, 167-216. Cooper,WilliamE. and JeannePaccia-Cooper.1980. Syntaxand Speech, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts. Dabir-Moghaddam,Mohammad. 1997. 'Compound Verbs in Persian', Studies in the LinguisticSciences 27(2), 25-59. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts. Dixon, R. M. W. 1977a.A Grammarof Yidip,CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge. Dixon, R. M. W. 1977b. 'Some Phonological Rules of Yidijl', LinguisticInquiry8, 1-34. Ferguson,CharlesA. 1957. 'WordStress in Persian',Language33, 123-135. Ghomeshi, Jila. 1996. Projection and Inflection: A Study of Persian Phrase Structure, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Toronto. Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. 'Non-projectingNouns and the Ezafe Constructionin Persian', NLLT19, 729-788. Ghomeshi,Jila. 2001. 'ControlandThematicAgreement',CanadianJournalof Linguistics 46(1/2), 9-40. Gussenhoven,Carlos. 1984. On the Grammarand Semantics of Sentence-Accents,Foris, Dordrecht. Hall, T. Alan and Ursula Kleinhenz. 1999. Studies on the Phonological Word,John Benjamins,Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Halle, MorrisandJean-RogerVergnaud.1987. An Essay on Stress,MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hannahs, Stephen. 1995. Prosodic Structureand French Morphophonology,Niemeyer Verlag,Tiibingen. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. 'The Prosodic Hierarchyin Meter', in P. Kiparskyand G. Youmans (eds.), Rhythmand Meter, Academic Press, Orlando,pp. 201-260. Hayes, Bruce and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. 'Bengali IntonationalPhonology', NLLT9, 47-96. Holmberg, Anders. 1986. WordOrderand Syntactic Features in the ScandinavianLanguages, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Stockholm.
SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES ANDPERSIANSTRESS
377
Hsiao, Franny.2002. 'Tonal Domains Are Stress Domains in Taiwanese:Evidence from Focus', MIT WorkingPapers in Linguistics42, pp. 109-140. Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic Constituencyin the Lexicon,Garland,New York. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretationin Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts. Kahnemuyipour,Arsalan. 2000a. 'On the Derivationalityof Some InflectionalAffixes in Persian', paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Conference,Chicago. Kahnemuyipour,Arsalan. 2000b. 'Persian Ezafe ConstructionRevisited: Evidence for ModifierPhrase', Ottawa WorkingPapers in Linguistics,Proceedings of the Canadian LinguisticAssociation conference,Edmonton,Canada,pp. 173-185. Kahnemuyipour,Arsalan. 2001. 'On Wh-questions in Persian', Canadian Journal of Linguistics46(1/2), 41-61. Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. ConnectedSpeech, Academic Press, San Diego. Kanerva,Jonni. M. 1990. 'Focusing on PhonologicalPhrasesin Chichewa', in S. Inkelas and D. Zec (eds.), The Phonology-Syntax Connection, Chicago University Press, Chicago,pp. 145-161. Kang, Ongmi. 1992a. 'Word-InternalProsodic Wordsin Korean', in Proceedings of the North East LinguisticSociety 22, 243-257. Kang, Ongmi. 1992b. Korean Prosodic Phonology, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,University of Washington. Karimi, Simin. 1997. 'Persian Complex Verbs:Idiomatic or Compositional', Lexicology 3(2), 273-318. Karimi,Simin. To appear.'On Object Positions, Specificity, and Scramblingin Persian', in S. Karimi(ed.), WordOrderand Scrambling,Blackwell, London. Koopman,Hilda. and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. 'The Position of Subjects', Lingua 85, 211-258. Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A Grammar of ContemporaryPersian, Mazda, Costa Mesa, Califomia. Translatedfrom Frenchby ShirleyLyons. Mahajan,Anoop. 1990. TheA/A-barDistinctionand MovementTheory,unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,MIT. Mahootian,Shahrzad.1997. Persian, Routledge,London. McCarthy,John and Alan Prince. 1993. 'GeneralizedAlignment', in G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbookof Morphology1993, Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp. 79-153. Mohammad,Jan and Simin Karimi. 1992. 'LightVerbsAre TakingOver:Complex Verbs in Persian',Proceedings of WECOL,pp. 195-212. Moorcroft,Regina. 1995. Clause-levelFunctional Categoriesin GermanicV2 Languages, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Universityof Toronto. Nespor, Marina.1999. 'Stress Domains', in H. van der Hulst (ed.), WordProsodic Systems in the Languagesof Europe,Mouton de Gruyter,Berlin,pp. 117-159. Nespor, Marina and A. Ralli. 1996. 'Stress Domains in Greek Compounds:A Case of Morphology-PhonologyInteraction',TheLinguisticReview 13(3/4), 357-382. Nespor, Marinaand Irene Vogel. 1982. 'ProsodicDomains of Extemal Sandhi Rules', in H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.), The Structureof Phonological Representations, Part I, Foris, Dordrecht,pp. 225-255. Nespor, Marinaand Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht. Nespor,Marinaand IreneVogel. 1989. 'On Clashes andLapses', Phonology 6(1), 69-116. Odden, David. 1987. 'KimatuumbiPhrasalPhonology', Phonology Yearbook4, 13-26.
378
ARSALANKAHNEMUYIPOUR
Odden, David. 1990. 'Syntax, Lexical Rules and Postlexical Rules in Kimatuumbi',in S. InkelasandD. Zec (eds.), ThePhonology-SyntaxConnection,Chicago UniversityPress, Chicago,pp. 259-277. Peperkamp,Sharon. 1997. Prosodic Words,HollandAcademic Graphics,The Hague. Rice, Keren.1987. 'OnDefining the IntonationalPhrase:Evidence from Slave', Phonology Yearbook4, 37-59. Rice, Keren. 1993. 'The Structureof the Slave (NorthernAthabaskan)Verb', in Sharon Hargus and Ellen Kaisse (eds.), Studies in Lexical Phonology, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 145-171. Rizzi, Luigi and LeonardoM. Savoia. 1992. 'Conditionson /u/ Propagationin Southern ItalianDialects: A Locality Parameterfor PhonosyntacticProcesses', in A. Belletti (ed.), SyntacticTheoryand the Dialects of Italy, Rosenbergand Seller, Torino,pp. 252-318. Same'i, Hossein. 1996. 'VerbStressin Persian:A Reexamination',Name-ye Farhangestan 1(4), 6-21. Samiian, Vida. 1983. Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian, an X-bar Analysis, unpublishedPh.D dissertation,UCLA. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1980a. 'Prosodic Domains in Phonology: Sanskrit Revisited', in M. AronoffandM.-L. Kean(eds.), Juncture,AnmaLibri,Saratoga,California,pp. 107-129. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1980b. 'The Role of Prosodic Categories in English Word Stress', LinguisticInquiry11, 563-605. Selkirk,Elizabeth. 1981. 'On Prosodic Structureand Its Relation to Syntactic Structure', in T. Fretheim(ed.), Nordic Prosody II, TAPIR,Tondheim,pp. 111-140. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure,MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1986. 'On Derived Domains in Sentence Phonology', Phonology Yearbook3, 371-405. Selkirk,Elizabeth. 1995. 'The Prosodic Structureof FunctionWords', in J. Beckman, S. Urbanczykand L. Walsh (eds.), Papers in OptimalityTheory,University of Massachusetts OccasionalPapers 18, University of Massachusetts,Amherst,pp. 439-469. Selkirk, Elizabeth and Tong Shen. 1990. 'ProsodicDomains in ShanghaiChinese', in S. InkelasandD. Zec (eds.), ThePhonology-SyntaxConnection,ChicagoUniversityPress, Chicago,pp. 313-337. Selkirk, Elizabeth and Koichi Tateishi. 1991. 'Syntax and Downstep in Japanese', in C. Georgopoulosand R. Ishihara(eds.), InterdisciplinaryApproachesto Language.Essays in Honor of S.-Y Kuroda,Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp. 519-543. Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English Morphology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Szpyra,Jolanta.1989. The Phonology-MorphologyInterface,Routledge, London. Thackston,WheelerM. 1993. An Introductionto Persian, IranBook, Bethesda,Maryland. Truckenbrodt,Hubert. 1995. Phonological Phrases: TheirRelation to Syntax,Focus, and Prominence,unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,MIT. Truckenbrodt,Hubert.1999. 'On the Relationbetween SyntacticPhrasesandPhonological Phrases',LinguisticInquiry30(2), 219-255. Vahedi-Langrudi,M. M. 1996. The Syntax, Semantics, and the ArgumentStructureof Complex Predicates in Modern Farsi, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa. Webelhuth,Gert. 1992. Principles and Parametersof SyntacticSaturation,OxfordUniversity Press, New York. Windfuhr,GernotL. 1979. Persian Grammar,Mouton,The Hague.
SYNTACTICCATEGORIESAND PERSIAN STRESS
Received 31 August 2001 Revised 17 July 2002 Departmentof Linguistics Universityof Toronto 130 St. George Street RobartsLibrary,6th floor Toronto,ON, M5S 3H1 Canada
379
