image of RA-marking, delimitation, and TA-headed directional PPs in Persian
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aske, J.
    (1989) Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. BLS, –. 10.3765/bls.v15i0.1753
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v15i0.1753 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beavers, J.
    (2008a) On the nature of goal marking and delimitation: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0022226708005136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226708005136 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008b) Multiple incremental themes and figure/path relations. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, , –. 10.3765/salt.v18i0.2495
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v18i0.2495 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2010.0040
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0040 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2011) On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, , –. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9124‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2012) Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. InV. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693498.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
    (2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, (), pp–. 10.1017/S0022226709990272
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990272 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beavers, J., & Koontz-Garboden, A.
    (2017) Result verbs, scalar change, and the typology of motion verbs. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2017.0060
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0060 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bohnemeyer, J.
    (2003) The unique vector constraint: The impact of direction changes on the linguistic segmentation of motion events. InE. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199260195.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199260195.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Borik, O.
    (2006) Aspect and reference time. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291298.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291298.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Büring, D.
    (1997) The meaning of topic and focus: The 59th Street Bridge accent. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cappelle, B., & Declerck, R.
    (2005) Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, W.
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InC. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. –). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Clair, N.
    (2016) Differential object marking in spoken Persian: Towards an enriched typology [Unpublished master’s thesis]. California: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, W. A.
    (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cummins, S.
    (1996) Movement and direction in French and English. Papers in Linguistics, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dabir-Moghaddam, M.
    (1992) On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics: evidence from the postposition ra in Persian. InD. Stein (Ed.), Cooperating with written texts: The pragmatics and comprehension of written texts (pp. –). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110881196.549
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110881196.549 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dahl, Ö.
    (1981) On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction. InP. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Tense and Aspect (pp. –). New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373112_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373112_006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dalrymple, M., & Nikolaeva, I.
    (2011) Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511993473
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473 [Google Scholar]
  20. Declerck, R., Reed, S., & Cappelle, B.
    (2006) The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199888
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199888 [Google Scholar]
  21. Depraetere, I.
    (1995) On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, , –. 10.1007/BF00984959
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984959 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dowty, D.
    (1979) Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht & Boston: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  24. Erteschik-Shir, N.
    (2019) Stage topics and their architecture. InV. Molnár, V. Egerland & S. Winkler (Eds.), Architecture of topic (pp. –). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501504488‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504488-008 [Google Scholar]
  25. Faghiri, P., & Samvelian, P.
    (2014) Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor. InC. Pinon (Ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, (pp. –). Paris: CNRS.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2020) Word order preferences and the effect of phrasal length in SOV languages: evidence from sentence production in Persian. Glossa, (), –. 10.5334/gjgl.1078
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1078 [Google Scholar]
  27. Feiz, P.
    (2011) Traveling through space in Persian and English: A comparative analysis of motion events in elicited narratives. Language Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2019) Beyond motion: ‘Come’ and ‘go’ in Persian oral narratives. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2019‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Féry, C., & Krifka, M.
    (2008) Information structure: Notional distinctions, ways of expression. InP. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and diversity of languages (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.141.13kri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.141.13kri [Google Scholar]
  30. Folli, R., & Ramchand, G.
    (2005) Prepositions and results in Italian and English: An analysis from event decomposition. InH. Verkuyl, H. de Swart & A. van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect (pp. –). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3232‑3_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3232-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ghomeshi, J.
    (1997) Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(97)00005‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00005-3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haig, J. H.
    (1981) Are traversal objects objects?Papers in Linguistics, (), –. 10.1080/08351818109370525
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818109370525 [Google Scholar]
  33. Iemmolo, G.
    (2010) Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language, (), –. 10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem [Google Scholar]
  34. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jacobs, J.
    (2001) The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.2001.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027 [Google Scholar]
  36. Janda, L. A.
    (2007) Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language, (), –. 10.1075/sl.31.3.04jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.04jan [Google Scholar]
  37. Jasbi, M.
    (2020) The meaning of the Persian object marker ra: What it is not, and what it (probably) is. InR. Larsen, S. Moradi & V. Samiian (Eds.), Advances in Iranian linguistics (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.351.07jas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.07jas [Google Scholar]
  38. Jügel, T.
    (2019) The development of the object marker in Middle Persian. InP. B. Lurje (Ed.), Proceedings of the eighth European conference of Iranian studies (pp. –). St Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kagan, O.
    (2020) The semantics of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108236867
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108236867 [Google Scholar]
  40. Karimi, S.
    (1990) Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions: -Ra in Persian. Linguistic Analysis, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1996) Case and specificity: Persian -ra revisited. Linguistic Analysis, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Karimi, S., & Smith, R. W.
    (2020) Another look at Persian rā: A single formal analysis of a multi-functional morpheme. InR. K. Larson, S. Moradi & V. Samiian (Eds.), Advanced in Iranian linguistics (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.351.09kar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.09kar [Google Scholar]
  43. Krifka, M.
    (1998) The origins of telicity. InS. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. –). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2008) The basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, (), –. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lazard, G.
    (2001) Le morpheme ra en Persan et les relations actancielles [The morpheme ra in Persian and actantial relations]. InG. Lazard (Ed.), Études de linguistique générale: Typologie grammaticale [General linguistic Studies: Grammatical typology] (pp. –). Leuven: Peeters Publishers. (Original work published 1982).
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mahootian, S.
    (1997) Persian. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Moezzipour, F.
    (2015) A functional characterization of the Persian left-periphery in an RRG-constructional account [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
  50. Muehleisen, V., & Imai, M.
    (1996) Transitivity and the incorporation of ground information in Japanese path verbs. InK. Lee, E. Sweetser & M. Vespoor (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Roberts, J., Delforooz, B., & Jahani, C.
    (2009) A study of Persian discourse structure. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Sadrai, M.
    (2014) Cognitive status and ra-marked referents of nominal expressions in Persian discourse [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota.
  53. Samvelian, P.
    (2018) Specific features of Persian syntax. InA. Sedighi & P. Shabani-Jadidi (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Persian Linguistics (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sasse, H.
    (2002) Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state?Linguistic Typology, (), –. 10.1515/lity.2002.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2002.007 [Google Scholar]
  55. Shokouhi, H., & Kipka, P.
    (2003) A discourse study of Persian ra. Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(02)00145‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00145-6 [Google Scholar]
  56. Slobin, D. I.
    (1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. InM. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InS. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. –). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Song, S.
    (2017) Modeling information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tenny, C. L.
    (1987) Grammaticalization aspect and affectedness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  61. (1992) The aspectual interface hypothesis. InI. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. –). California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (1994) Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1150‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8 [Google Scholar]
  63. (1995) How motion verbs are special: The interaction of semantic and pragmatic information in aspectual verb meanings. Pragmatics & Cognition, (), –. 10.1075/pc.3.1.06ten
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.3.1.06ten [Google Scholar]
  64. Virtanen, T.
    (2004) Point of departure: Cognitive aspects of sentence-initial adverbials. InT. Virtanen (Ed.), Approaches to cognition through text and discourse (pp. –). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892895.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892895.79 [Google Scholar]
  65. Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P.
    (2004) A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion event typology. InS. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. –). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: measuring out ; RA ; TA ; delimitation ; Persian ; frame-setting ; directional path
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error