Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 173–236

Chapter 10
The Ezafe construction revisited

This chapter addresses the nature, distribution and function of the Ezafe morpheme, a distinguishing grammatical feature of many of the Iranian languages. We review three main analyses advanced in the wide literature on the subject: semantic, morphological, and syntactic. We argue that the syntactic account of Ezafe is the most promising, both in its empirical reach, and explanatory power. Looking at an exhaustive range of data from Iranian Persian (iPersian) and other Iranian languages, we note that Ezafe occurs between nominal elements in the NP, PP, AP, and QPs. Following case theory (Chomsky 1981), we propose that Ezafe satisfies a licensing requirement in the following phrase, similar to ‘of’ in English. We then consider in detail the implications of this theory for the occurrence of Ezafe before PPs in iPersian and before finite and nonfinite complement clauses in iPerisan and Kurdish. Finally, we examine the occurrence of Ezafe in Zazaki ‘double Ezafe constructions’ and in Caspian languages showing the so-called ‘Reverse Ezafe construction’ in light of the case-based analysis.

Keywords: Iranian languages, Ezafe , semantic approach, morphological approach, case-based analysis, licensing requirement, NP modifiers and complements, adjective phrases, Partitives, post-nominal PP modifiers, complement clauses, double Ezafe construction, Reverse Ezafe
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Ezafe phenomenon
  • 3.Analyses of Ezafe
    • 3.1Semantic analyses
      • 3.1.1Ezafe as predication marker
      • 3.1.2Ezafe as modification marker
    • 3.2 Ezafe as a morphological affix
      • 3.2.1Ezafe and relative clauses
      • 3.2.2Ezafe and postnominal PP modifiers
    • 3.3 Ezafe as a case-marker
    • 3.4Predictions of the case-marking analysis
      • 3.4.1Relative and complement clauses
        • 3.4.1.1Prediction 1: iPersian
        • 3.4.1.2Prediction 1: iPersian vs. Sorani and Kurmanji
        • 3.4.1.3Prediction 2: Ezafe recursion with RCs
      • 3.4.2Predictions of the case-marking analysis: PPs
      • 3.4.3Predictions of the case-marking analysis: Cross linguistic variation
        • 3.4.3.1Zazaki ‘doubled Ezafe’
        • 3.4.3.2Caspian ‘Reverse Ezafe’
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.10lar
References
Anderson, Stephen
2013 The marker of the English ‘Group Genitive’ is a special clitic, not an inflection. In Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan Scott (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 193–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aghaei, Behrad
2006 The Syntax of ke-clause and clausal extraposition in Modern Persian. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard
1987 Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 91–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Noun phrase internal case agreement in Russian. In Michael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in natural language, 287–304. Stanford, CA: CSLI Stanford.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper
1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bopp, Franz
1848 Über das Georgische in sprachverwandtschaftlicher beziehung. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, philosophisch- historiche Klasse 1846 259–339.Google Scholar
Bork, Ferdinand
1905 Kaukasiches. Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung 8. 184–187.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
1993 The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 591–656.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
2010 The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara
2004 On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 95–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
1987 The morphology/syntax interface: Evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language 63. 299–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
2006 Relators and linkers: A study of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel & Pornsiri Singhapreecha
2004 Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7. 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Bruce
1978 Some universals of relative clause structure. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, volume 4: Syntax, 375–418. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1976 A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Finck, Franz Nikolas
1910 Die Haupttypen des Sprachbaus. Leipzig: Teubner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco, Ludovico, M. Rita Manzini & Leonardo Savoia
2015 Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic Review 32. 277–332.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1990 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake
2005 Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2011 Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle: On the Ezafe in West Iranian. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives, 363–390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer
1998 Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1973 The base rules for prepositional phrases. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 345–356. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1977 X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan
2014 Revisiting the Persian Ezafe construction: A roll-up movement analysis. Lingua 150. 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin & Michael Brame
1986 A generalization concerning the Ezafe construction in Persian. West Coast Conference in Linguistics (WECOL 86), Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
2012 A generalization concerning the Ezafe construction in Persian. Linguistic Analysis 38. 111–144.Google Scholar
Karimi, Yadgar
2007 Kurdish Ezafe construction: Implications for DP structure. Lingua 117. 2159–2177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward
1965 Studies in diachronic syntax. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Krause, Cornelia
2001 On reduced relatives with genitive subjects. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven
1990 EDGE features in GPSG. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26. 221–235. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
1992 Life on the EDGE: Arguments in favor of an autolexical account of edge inflections. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 28. 318–332. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard and Gabriel Segal
1995 Knowledge of meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard & Hiroko Yamakido
2008 Ezafe and the deep position of nominal modifiers. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse, 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard
2009 Chinese as a reverse Ezafe language. Yuyanxue Luncong [Essays on Linguistics] 39. 30–85.Google Scholar
2018 Zazaki ‘double Ezafe’ as double case-marking. Manuscript, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
2018 AP-地adverbs in Mandarin. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 39. 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard & Vida Samiian
2018 Ezafe, PP and the nature of nominalization. Paper presented at the 54th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Larson, Richard, Elias Abdollahnejad, Mohammad Ghaderibaneh, Songül Gündoğdu, Ali Salehi & Vida Samiian
2019 Turkish influence in Iranian relative clause syntax? Paper presented at Tu+4, NYU, February 17, 2019.
Lavine, James
2003 Resumption in Slavic: Phases, cyclicity and case. In Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Steven Franks & Frank Y. Gladney (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13. 195–206. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1986 On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24. 663–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Toward a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita
2010 The structure and interpretation of (Romance) complementizers. In Phoevos Panagiotidi (ed.), The complementiser phase: Subjects and operators, 167–199. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James
2002 Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Samuel Daniel Epstein & T. Daniel Seely. (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2004 Resumptivity and non-movement. Studies in Greek Linguistics 24. 471–481. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip
1991 Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Nevis, Joel
1986 Finnish particle clitics and general clitic theory. Working Papers in Linguistics 33. Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Palmer, Adrian
1971 The Ezafe construction in Modern Standard Persian. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego
2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Kairimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pikkert, Peter
2010 A basic course in Kurmanji. Ontario: Alev Books.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1995 (Re-)Introducing Suffixaufnahme. In Frans Plank (ed.), Double case, 3–110. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1990 Functional prepositions. In Harm Pinkster & Inge Genée (eds.), Unity in diversity, 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samiian, Vida
1983 Structure of phrasal categories in Persian: An X-bar analysis. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
1994 The Ezafe construction: Some implications for the theory of X-bar syntax. In Mehdi Marashi (ed.), Persian Studies in North America, 17–41. Bethesda, MD: Iranbooks.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet
2007 A (phrasal) affix analysis of the Persian Ezafe. Journal of Linguistics 43. 605–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 The Ezafe as a head-marking inflectional affix: Evidence from Persian and Kurmanji Kurdish. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 339–361. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
2014 Complement clauses and complementation systems: A cross-linguistic study of grammatical organization. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena dissertation.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2003 Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 31, 431–445.Google Scholar
Todd, Terry Lynn
1985 A grammar of Dimili (also known as Zaza). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
Yoshie, Satoko
1996 Sari dialect (of Mazandarani language). Tokyo, Japan: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold
1987 Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23. 133–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Gündoğdu, Songül & Betul Erbasi
2023. Chapter 6. Ezafe as a linking feature within DP. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, Mansour Shabani & Sahar Taghipour
2024. Gilaki reverse Ezafe: The two faces of a nominal linker. Syntax DOI logo
Karim, Shuan Osman
2023. Chapter 5. Ezafe and the article. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Larson, Richard K.
2022. Adjectives, case and concord. In A0 – The Lexical Status of Adjectives [Language Faculty and Beyond, 17], ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Samiian, Vida & Richard K. Larson
2023. Chapter 4. Middle Persian Ezafe. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Ryan Walter
2024. Mental states via possessive predication: the grammar of possessive experiencer complex predicates in Persian. Natural Language Semantics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. 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.