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
    • 3.2Ezafe as a morphological affix
      • 3.2.1Ezafe and relative clauses
      • 3.2.2Ezafe and postnominal PP modifiers
    • 3.3Ezafe 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 (62)
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 (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Asghari, Habibollah & Heshaam Faili
2024. Persian Ezafe Recognition Using Neural Approaches. Journal of Information Systems and Telecommunication (JIST) 12:45 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Gündoğdu, Songül, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour & Sable Peters
2024. The morphosyntax of Ezafe in Southern Zazaki. The Linguistic Review 41:3 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, Mansour Shabani & Sahar Taghipour
2024. Gilaki reverse Ezafe: The two faces of a nominal linker. Syntax DOI logo
Smith, Ryan Walter
2024. Mental states via possessive predication: the grammar of possessive experiencer complex predicates in Persian. Natural Language Semantics 32:3 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
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
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
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
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
[no author supplied]
2024. Elementary Predicates and Related Categories [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 285], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 september 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.