Cover not available

Article published In: Aspects of Metaphor
Edited by Maria Theodoropoulou
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:1] 2025
► pp. 257–285

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

RA-marking, delimitation, and TA-headed directional PPs in Persian

 | Shahrood University of Technology
 | Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Published online: 13 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00169.moe
Abstract
In this article, we examine the semantics of RA in Persian, focusing on the aspectual notion of delimitation. Delimitation is a term commonly used in the study of aspect and information structure. We distinguish between two functions of RA: as a semantic operator that measures delimited events involving mereological theme and incremental path verbs, and as an information-structural marker where RA serves as frame-setting accusative adjuncts. We also explore the aspectuality of RA in correlation with a motion construction involving a TA-headed goal phrase within the scope of RA. The motion event with TA, representing the vector, is rendered bounded through the influence of RA, indicating the endpoint of the path. Using Croft, W. A. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar two-phase dimensional model of aspect, we demonstrate that TA and RA are both associated with delimitation, but operate on different axes of boundedness – TA on the qualitative axis and RA on the temporal axis.
Article outline
  • 1.RA-marking in Persian
  • 2.Delimitation
    • 2.1Delimitation as frame-setting
    • 2.2Delimitation as measuring out
      • 2.2.1Mereological incremental themes
      • 2.2.2Path incremental themes
    • 2.3Accusative adjuncts vs. objecthood
  • 3.TA-marking vs. (a)telicity in motion events
    • 3.1TA as an event delimiter
    • 3.2TA and the imperfective paradox
    • 3.3RA as resolving the imperfective paradox
  • 4.The aspectual composition of TA and RA: A geometric account
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • The other glosses that are not available on the list include
  • References
References (65)
References
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. BLS 151, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J. (2008a). On the nature of goal marking and delimitation: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), 283–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). Multiple incremental themes and figure/path relations. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 181, 90–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language, 86(4), 821–864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 291, 335–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. In V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (pp. 23–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), pp 331–377. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J., & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2017). Result verbs, scalar change, and the typology of motion verbs. Language, 93(4), 842–876. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2003). The unique vector constraint: The impact of direction changes on the linguistic segmentation of motion events. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space (pp. 86–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borik, O. (2006). Aspect and reference time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, D. (1997). The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Declerck, R. (2005). Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 889–917. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clair, N. (2016). Differential object marking in spoken Persian: Towards an enriched typology [Unpublished master’s thesis]. California: University of California.
Croft, W. A. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, S. (1996). Movement and direction in French and English. Papers in Linguistics, 151, 31–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1992). On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: evidence from the postposition ra in Persian. In D. Stein (Ed.), Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts (pp. 549–573). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1981). On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Tense and Aspect (pp. 79–90). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I. (2011). Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Declerck, R., Reed, S., & Cappelle, B. (2006). The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I. (1995). On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 181, 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht & Boston: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (2019). Stage topics and their architecture. In V. Molnár, V. Egerland & S. Winkler (Eds.), Architecture of topic (pp. 223–248). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faghiri, P., & Samvelian, P. (2014). Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor. In C. Pinon (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, (pp. 215–232). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Word order preferences and the effect of phrasal length in SOV languages: evidence from sentence production in Persian. Glossa, 5(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feiz, P. (2011). Traveling through space in Persian and English: A comparative analysis of motion events in elicited narratives. Language Sciences, 33(3), 401–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Beyond motion: ‘Come’ and ‘go’ in Persian oral narratives. Linguistics, 57(3), 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, C., & Krifka, M. (2008). Information structure: Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and diversity of languages (pp. 123–135). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folli, R., & Ramchand, G. (2005). Prepositions and results in Italian and English: An analysis from event decomposition. In H. Verkuyl, H. de Swart & A. van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect (pp. 81–105). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J. (1997). Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua, 102(2&3), 133–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haig, J. H. (1981). Are traversal objects objects? Papers in Linguistics, 14(1), 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (2001). The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics, 39(4), 641–681. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2007). Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language, 31(3), 607–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jasbi, M. (2020). The meaning of the Persian object marker ra: What it is not, and what it (probably) is. In R. Larsen, S. Moradi & V. Samiian (Eds.), Advances in Iranian linguistics (pp. 119–135). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jügel, T. (2019). The development of the object marker in Middle Persian. In P. B. Lurje (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth European conference of Iranian studies (pp. 203–219). St Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kagan, O. (2020). The semantics of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimi, S. (1990). Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions: -Ra in Persian. Linguistic Analysis, 20(3–4), 139–191.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Case and specificity: Persian -ra revisited. Linguistic Analysis, 26(3–4), 174–194.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimi, S., & Smith, R. W. (2020). Another look at Persian rā: A single formal analysis of a multi-functional morpheme. In R. K. Larson, S. Moradi & V. Samiian (Eds.), Advanced in Iranian linguistics (pp. 155–172). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 197–235). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3–4), 243–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (2001). Le morpheme ra en Persan et les relations actancielles [The morpheme ra in Persian and actantial relations]. In G. Lazard (Ed.), Études de linguistique générale: Typologie grammaticale [General linguistic Studies: Grammatical typology] (pp. 327–357). Leuven: Peeters Publishers. (Original work published 1982).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahootian, S. (1997). Persian. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moezzipour, F. (2015). A functional characterization of the Persian left-periphery in an RRG-constructional account [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
Muehleisen, V., & Imai, M. (1996). Transitivity and the incorporation of ground information in Japanese path verbs. In K. Lee, E. Sweetser & M. Vespoor (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 329–346). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, J., Delforooz, B., & Jahani, C. (2009). A study of Persian discourse structure. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadrai, M. (2014). Cognitive status and ra-marked referents of nominal expressions in Persian discourse [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota.
Samvelian, P. (2018). Specific features of Persian syntax. In A. Sedighi & P. Shabani-Jadidi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Persian Linguistics (pp. 226–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sasse, H. (2002). Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state? Linguistic Typology, 6(2), 199–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shokouhi, H., & Kipka, P. (2003). A discourse study of Persian ra. Lingua, 113(10), 953–966. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Song, S. (2017). Modeling information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. (1987). Grammaticalization aspect and affectedness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
(1992). The aspectual interface hypothesis. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 1–27). California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Virtanen, T. (2004). Point of departure: Cognitive aspects of sentence-initial adverbials. In T. Virtanen (Ed.), Approaches to cognition through text and discourse (pp. 79–98). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P. (2004). A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion event typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 159–190). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue