In:Advances in Iranian Linguistics II
Edited by Simin Karimi, Narges Nematollahi, Roya Kabiri and Jian Gang Ngui
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 361] 2023
► pp. 180–209
Chapter 7Mood selection in complement clauses in Persian
Published online: 14 April 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.361.07nem
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.361.07nem
Abstract
Similar to Romance and Balkan languages, Persian makes a formal distinction between indicative and subjunctive moods in its complement clauses. This paper proposes several generalizations about the distribution of the two moods, and evaluates the current theories of mood selection against Persian data. The proposal is that indicative appears when the complement is propositional, i.e., of type <st>, and when one of the two other conditions holds: (1) the matrix predicate entails the content of the complement clause is in attitude holder’s context set, in which case the indicative mood makes no special semantic contribution, OR (2) the content of the complement clause or its negation is in speaker’s context set, in which case indicative signals the epistemic commitment of the speaker. Subjunctive, on the other hand, is selected when the conditions for the indicative are not met. As such, I argue that mood selection in complement clauses in Persian makes references to (1) the semantic type of the complement, (2) the semantics of the matrix predicate in terms of (non)veridicality, and (3) the speaker’s stand about the complement.
Keywords: mood selection, complement clauses, subjunctive, Persian
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous studies on Persian mood selection
- 3.Propositional vs. non-propositional predicates
- 3.1Belief reports vs. directive, causative and implicative predicates
- 3.2Desire predicates
- 4.Generalization
- 4.1Mood selection in Group 1
- 4.1.1Factive, assertive and perceptive predicates
- 4.1.2Doxastic predicates
- 4.1.3Desire predicates
- 4.2Mood selection in Group 2
- 4.3A general description of mood selection in complement clauses in Persian
- 4.1Mood selection in Group 1
- 5.Mood selection in Persian in view of the general study of mood selection
- 6.Modifications of Schlenker’s theory for the Persian data
- 6.1Indicative mood
- 6.2Subjunctive mood
- 7.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes Abbreviations References
References (27)
Baglini, Rebekah & Itamar Francez. 2016. The implications of managing. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 541–560.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Post-posed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14. 3–30.
Clements, Clancy Joseph. 1992. Semantics of control, tense sequence, and disjoint reference. In Paul Hirschbühler & Ernst Frideryk Konrad Koerner (eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: Selected papers from the XX linguistic symposium on Romance languages, University of Ottawa, April 10–14, 1990, 45–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2016. Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics & Pragmatics 9. 1–61.
Darzi, Ali & Saera Kwak. 2015. Syntax and semantics of subjunctive clauses in Persian. Lingua 153. 1–13.
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The Logical form of action sentences. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The logic of decision and action, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Dowty, David Roach. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.
von Fintel, Kai. 1999. NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 16. 97–148.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. Nonveridicality and mood choice: subjunctive, polarity, and time. In Renate Musan and Monika Rathert (eds.), Tense across Languages. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.
Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hare, Richard Mervyn. 1968. Wanting: Some pitfalls. In Robert Binkley, Richard Bronaugh & Ausonio Marras (eds.), Agent, action and reason, 44–58. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9. 183–221.
Hoff, Mark. 2018. Settledness and tense/mood variation in Romance: Refining taxonomies of projective contents. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) 29, Salt Lake City, January 4–8.
Ilkhanipour, Negin. 2018. On subjunctive clauses and irrealis mood in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 63(1). 100–111.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Devon Strolovitch & Aaron Lawson (eds.) Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII, 92–110. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Levinson, Dmitry. 2003. Probabilistic model-theoretic semantics for want. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13, 222–239.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 601–609.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive: Speculations on reference to worlds and semantic defaults in the analysis of mood. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken, & Haike Jacobs (eds.) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 269–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.