Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 14:1 (2024) ► pp.31–57

Different functions of ‘rā’ in New Persian

A semantic map analysis

ORCID logo | Bu-Ali Sina University
| Bu-Ali Sina University
Persian has a polyfunctional case marker, ‘rā’, which diachronically varies greatly in the range of functions it covers. In this paper, we give an account of different case functions of ‘rā’, in New Persian, an era from the 8th century (C.E.) to present. To analyze the functionality of ‘rā’ in different texts, we selected 78 books from the New and Contemporary Persian eras and studied one thousand tokens of ‘rā’ from each century. The data show that ‘rā’ has been a polyfunctional case marker in New Persian, marking about 13 different case roles. Its main role was to mark direct objects, and gradually it has become its sole function in Contemporary Persian. However, during the time span, some of the ‘rā’-marked roles remained constant and some of them replaced ‘rā’ with other adpositions. We follow a historical semantic map approach as a typological grid to examine our data. The findings show that ‘rā’ has shifted from animate to inanimate concepts gradually. While in the 12th century about 750 out of 1000 (about 75%) roles marked with ‘rā’ were animate, it has decreased to about 400 out of 1000 (about 42%) in the 19th century and less than 30% in the 20th century. Our data show that ‘rā’ has not gone further to mark inanimate relations, and it has gone toward core case roles, specifically direct object.
Keywords: case role, semantic map, unidirectionality, grammaticalization, New Persian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.‘rā’ functions in New Persian
  • 4.Grammaticalization of ‘rā’
  • 5.Summary
  • Note
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.21056.ras
References (49)
References
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1982. The ‘Perfect’ as a Universal and as a Language-Particular Category. Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics ed. by Paul J. Hopper, 227–264. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1986. Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically Regular Asymmetries. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Encoding of Epistemology ed. by Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols, 273–312. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Vladimir, Plungian A. 1998. Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology 2:1.79–124.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring Universals from Grammatical Variation: Multidimensional Scaling for Typological Analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34:1.1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2007. Building Semantic Maps: The Case of Person Marking. New Challenges in Typology ed. by Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli, 225–248. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (In)dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the Postposition ‘rā’ in Persian”. Cooperating with Written Texts: The Pragmatic and Comprehension of Written Texts ed. by Dieter Stein, 549–573. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stephane Polis. 2018. The Semantic Map Model: State of the Art and Future Avenues for Linguistic Research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:2.1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. Grammaticalization and Inflectionalization in Iranian. Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective ed. by Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, 57–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand. 2022. HamBam: The Hamedan-Bamberg Corpus of Contemporary Spoken Persian. Online: [URL]
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
. 2003. The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-Linguistic Comparison. The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2 ed. by Michael Tomasello, 211–242. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2009. Grammaticalization of Cases. The Oxford Handbook of Case ed. by Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, 458–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The Development of the Object Marker in Middle Persian. Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference of Iranian Studies − Held on 14–15 September 2015 at the State Hermitage Museum and Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Vol I: Studies on Pre-Islamic Iran and Historical Linguistics ed. by Pavel B. Lurje, 203–219. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1989. Aspects of Persian Syntax: Specificity and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Thesis, University of Washington.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Andrej Malchukov. 2009. Varieties of Accusative. The Oxford Handbook of Case ed. by Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, 549–561. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, Silke. 2010. Beyond Recipients: Towards a Typology of Dative Uses. Doctoral Thesis, the University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1957. Grammaire du persan contemporain. Translated into Persian by Mahasti Bahreini (2018). Tehran: Hermes Publications.Google Scholar
. 1963. La langue des plus anciens monuments de la prose persane. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 1970. Etude quantitative de l’évolution d’un morphème: la postposition ra en persan. Mélanges MARCEL Cohen ed. by David Cohen, 381–388. The Hauge: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982 [1995]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, Vol.1. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. (Reprinted by LINCOM Europa, München, 1995).Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2001. Syncretism and the Classification of Semantic Roles. STUF -Language Typology and Universals 54:1.35–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Plotting Diachronic Semantic Maps: The Role of Metaphor. Perspectives on Semantic Roles ed. by Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog, 99–150. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Dative of Agent in Indo-European Languages. STUF -Language Typology and Universals 69:1.15–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Heiko Narrog. 2009. Case Polysemy. The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, 518–534. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mohammadirad, Masoud. 2020. Predicative Possession in Western Iranian Languages. Folia Linguistica 54:3.497–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammadirad, Masoud & Mohammad Rasekh-Mahand. 2017. Instrumental Semantic Map in Western Iranian Languages. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 70:4.579–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Functions of the Dative: An Iranian Perspective. STUF-Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 71:4.539–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Ǻshild. 2009. Varieties of Dative. The Oxford Handbook of Case ed. by Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, 572–580. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Naghzguy-Kohan, Mehrdad & Tania Kuteva. 2016. On Competition and Blocking in Inflectional Morphology: Evidence from the Domain of Number in Persian. Folia Linguistica 50:1.65–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Najafi, Abolhasan. 1999. Farhange Fārsiye Āmiāne. Tehran: Niloofar.Google Scholar
. 2010. A Diachronic Dimension in Maps of Case Functions. Linguistic Discovery 8:1.233–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The Grammaticalization Chain of Case Functions: Extension and Reanalysis of Case Marking vs. Universals of Grammaticalization. Perspectives on Semantic Roles ed. by Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog, 69–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Shinya Ito. 2007. Reconstructing Semantic Maps: The Comitative-Instrumental Area. STUF: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60:4.273–292.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Grammaticalization and Semantic Maps. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization ed. by Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, 318–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Ludwig. 2008. Some Remarks on Persian Suffix -râ as a General and Historical Issue. Aspects of Iranian Linguistics, ed. by Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo, 329–337. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2018. Persian. The Language and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 569–624. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kataba. 2007. Crosslinguistic Grammaticalization Patterns of Allative. Linguistic Typology 11:3.451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2018. Specific Features of Persian Syntax: The Ezafe Construction, Differential Object Marking, and Complex Predicates. The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics ed. Anushe Sedighi & Pune Shabani-Jadidi, 226–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stilo, Donald. 2009. Case in Iranian: From Reduction and Loss to Innovation and Renewal. The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer, 700–715. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot & John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. The Iranian languages ed. by Gernot Windfuhr, 416–544. London: Routledge.Google Scholar