In Modern Persian the interrogative pronoun, the relative pronoun and the complementizer ke are homophonous and formally identical. The present paper based on the historical data from Persian, attempts to find the cause of this identity. Do they come from the same source or is this just an accident?Harris and Campbell (1995: 282-313) on discussing the development of complex constructions make the point that “certain devices that mark subordination do indeed originate in questions and are then extended to subordination” (ibid: 308).Examining the formal devices used for marking subordination, complementation and forming questions in Old Persian, Middle Persian and Modern New Persian shows that:a. In Old Persian the interrogative pronoun is quite distinct from the relative pronoun and the complementizer.b. In Middle Persian the interrogative pronoun is homophonous with the relative pronoun but the complementizer is still distinct.c. In Early New Persian, in some cases the complementizer overlaps with the other two forms.d. In Modern New Persian the three forms have become the homophonous Ke, formally resembling the interrogative pronoun in Old Persian.So it seems that the Persian data give support to Harris and Campbell's point.

In this article, the formal structure of the Persian relative clauses (restrictive and nonrestrictive) is examined. This study focuses on the possibility of extraposition of the relative clause to the right of its canonical position and it’s adjunction to TP or FocP. In general there are three approaches to extraposition in languages: rightward movement account, late merge analysis by which the relative clause should be late mereged with the constituents which they modify, leftward movement of the non-clausal part of an argument and stranding the clause. Based on some syntactic considerations in Persian such as having multiple clauses at the end of the sentence, movement of result clauses to the final position of the sentence, movement of relative clause with coordinate antecedent; relative clauses can moved to the right of the sentence and the extra posed element would be adjoined to TP or FocP and hence out the c-command domain of its trace.

This paper deals with the movement of subject in Persian sentences. In the traditional model of X bar syntax, sentence is considered as a maximal projection of inflection which is functional category (IP) in which subject is base generated in Spec of IP where it is assignednominative case by the tense and agreement features of INFL. There are some types of evidencein Persian which show that the movement of subject is an example of topicalisation in which the subject moves to the Spec of CPoIt seems that this movement as an A-movement is not case-driven and therefore can not be considered as a Raising Transformation. An analysis of some Persian sentences in which subject movement takes place supports the fact that there is no Raising Verb in Persian. The position of Pro in persian embedded finite clauses also shows that the PRO theorem can not be maintained by generating it in Spec of VP.

IntroductionEver since the onset of generative tradition in the nineteen fifties, probing into the nature of the theory of grammar received its greatest impact from the English-type accounts. Finite theory of control, as such, was not considered a mainstream approach at the time (Landau, 2004; Landau, 2013; Landau, 2024) with PRO appearing only in nonfinite clauses, receiving no case (Chomsky, 1981). As a result, this study aims at investigating control constructions in Persian in their finite subjunctive clauses and comparing and contrasting them to the infinitive control constructions typically found in languages like English.To do so, we juxtapose the clausal architecture of finite subjunctive control as seen in Persian and the clausal architecture of non-finite infinitive control as found typically in a language like English. Whereas control constructions in a language like English appear in their bare infinitive clauses, with no overt manifestation of formal properties, the same type of constructions in Persian appear productively in non-bare finite clauses of the subjunctives. This dissimilarity in clausal architecture of English and Persian can be compared and contrasted in (1) and (2) respectively.Sara tæsmim=gereft ke    æz   talar  birun be-r-e.Sara decision=took.3Sg. that from hall   out    Sbj-go-3Sg.[1]“Sarah decided to leave the hall.”Generally, these differences amount to saying that the two constructions in the two languages have two different types of embedded clause architectures, i.e. infinitive vs. finite complementation for the relevant embedded clause. The architecture, interestingly includes several properties that mark these clauses absolutely different from the infinitives. In what follows, we will demonstrate these differences by contrasting the two types of constructions in English and Persian as seen typically in examples (1) and (2) above.The juxtaposition of the two types of embedded constructions, as seen in the two types of languages above, provides us with two relevant types of architectures for the embedded clause cross-linguistically, i.e. the non-finite infinitive clause and the finite subjunctive complementation. While the embedded clause in (1) is a typical non-finite clause of the type bare infinitive construction found in a language like English, the parallel construction in (2) is a finite construction in Persian (Darzi, 2008; Karimi, 2008a; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Pirooz, 2010; 2016). As a result of the finite complementation, the embedded clause in (2) includes person and number endings, and as such introduces a TP projection in the embedded clause with [parson], [number], and [tense], similar to that of the matrix clause. As such, these embedded clauses are finite clauses (Cowper, 2016) as the verbal element obligatorily receives person and number ending completely similar to that of the matrix clause verbal element. This divorces the infinitival nature of the embedded control construction in these constructions, and as a result, integrates finite complementation into the embedded control constructions, as found similarly in other languages (Landau, 2004; 2013; 2024; Terzi, 1997). This is interesting when we also find non-finite control in the Persian with nominal infinitives, or gerunds in this language as well (Darzi, 2001; Pirooz, 2011; 2021).Interestingly, PRO actively appears in finite control constructions, similar to the non-finite, infinitive found typically in a language like English, contra the GB approach of the time (Chomsky, 1981) and as such, values/checks structural Nominative in the course of the embedded clause derivation, contra the Null Case approach (Martin, 2001), divorcing the PRO Theorem (Chomsky, 1981) in these finite environments (Landau, 2006; Sigurdsson, 2008; Pirooz, 2016). The construction of an embedded control construction in a sentence like (2) above has a TP, with the [person], [number], and [tense] actively present in the derivation, where the verbal element obligatorily receives person and number ending. As such, PRO base-generated within vP moves Spec;TP to check Nominative structurally (Pirooz, 2016). These appear in (2) above, repeated as (3) below with the relevant elements added to the derivation, shown in boldface for the convenience sake.Sara tæsmim=gereft …[TP PRONom. [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]].Secondly, whereas the embedded clause in (1) typically appears in a bare infinitive construction, the embedded clause in (2) appears in the subjunctive construction, with the subjunctive clitic be- prefixed to the verbal element. This makes it possible to introduce a mood phrase (i.e. MoodP) into the derivation, headed by the subjunctive clitic be- prefixed ultimately to the beginning of the verbal element. These elements that appear in (2) above, are included in the derivation (4) below in boldface the for convenience sake.Sara tæmim=gereft … [MoodP [TP PRO [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]]].Thirdly, whereas the embedded clause in a control construction in a language like English does not hold a CP projection, the embedded clause in (2) inadvertently includes a CP projection, with the complementizer ke “that” appearing as the head of the CP (Darzi, 2008; Hashemipour, 1989; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Karimi, 2008a; Pirooz, 2010; Pirooz, 2016). The CP projection and its relevant complementizer head ke in (2) above, are added to the derivation shown in in boldface in (5) below:Sara tæsmim=gereft [CP ke [MoodP [TP PRO [vP PRO æz talar birun be-r-e]]]].Therefore, the difference between the infinitive-type English complementation for a language like English and the finite-subjunctive complementation in embedded control constructions can be linearized below.Finite vs. Infinitive ComplementationInfinitive complementation (English)… [InfP PRO …]Finite complementation (Persian)… [CP ke [MoodP be- [TP PRONom. [vP [ PRO … be-v …]]]]]]These differences undoubtedly show a change of the idea of the control constructions from the early English-type accounts of non-finite control complementation, to the inclusion of finite and/or subjunctive complementation in the minimalist accounts. More specifically, the finite-subjunctive theory of control, as we see here, and as we see cross-linguistically, results in a shift of attention from merely considering finite and/or subjunctive control constructions as something marginal to the mainstream control constructions of the GB-type era, to embracing them as a new typology of control constructions with a new clausal architecture that shares its architectural properties with those ones in the matrix clause architecture (Landau, 2004; 2013; 2024).  Conclusion In what follows, we will demonstrate how this theory of finiteness, as we illustrated here and as are found in the relevant literature of control complementations in other languages, resulted in the development and/or extensions in the theory of control, starting from the pre-GB era to the most recent minimalist accounts.Firstly, as the theory of generative grammar took its earliest explanations from the English-type languages, the earlier accounts of the theory of control and PRO dissociated finiteness from control constructions altogether, and related them to infinitive complementation found in a language like English. Therefore, a language like Persian at the time with the finite,  non- infinitive control construction (Hashemipour, 1988; 1989) or having a subjunctive clause having merely a bare vP (Wurmbrand, 2001) to lack a CP projection (Ghomeshi, 2001) was considered exceptional, or marginal to the conception of the infinitive control, found in the mainstream-type languages like English. Secondly, since English does not typically utilize the subjunctive complementation, or alternatively, since the class of subjunctives in English does not generate control constructions, the earlier accounts of control in subjunctive constructions in the languages that have these constructions appeared marginal to the mainstream generativist accounts, though these studies have a history of their own, beginning in the 1980s and the 1990s (1998; Terzi, 1997; Hashemipour, 1988; 1989), among many others.Thirdly, the earliest accounts of infinitive-type control constructions considered the empty category PRO to be ungoverned with no Case, appearing only in the subject position of the infinitive clause (Chomsky, 1981). This was again to the exclusion of this empty category PRO in the finite clauses in the theory of syntax. Subsequently, at the time PRO was considered an exceptional nominal empty category, appearing only in the subject position of a non- finite infinitive construction, and not in that of a finite construction. However, with the development of the idea that PRO is a regular empty category, checking regular structural Case, and having regular morphological case similar to any other nominal elements elsewhere in the sentence (Sigurdsson, 2008; Landau, 2008), a regular Case/case was valued/checked for the PRO, and was received morphologically by PRO in languages like Persian that show PRO having regular Case/case (Pirooz, 2016).Finally, with the overt manifestation of the CP, and with the overt complementizer head ke “that” in these control constructions (Darzi, 2008; Ilkhanipour, 2014; Pirooz, 2016; Karimi, 2008a), Persian illustrates that the presence of a controlled CP is a possibility in control constructions. This makes the language similar to other languages that have this type of projection in their embedded control construction (Witkos, 2010; Sevdali, 2012), and dissimilar to the infinitive-type languages with no CP in their control environments. Nonetheless, as these control CPs in Persian are porous to a matrix probe, they allow for the ϕ-features of PRO to be controlled, i.e. valued/checked phase-externally, the theory of finite control in Persian provides challenges for the Phase Impenetrability of Condition. [1]. 3Sg.: third person singular, Sbj.: subjunctive, tæsmim=gereft: a complex-predicate control verb

1. Introduction This study is an attempt to overview the focus marker in some Persian dialects of Khorasan (including the three Khorasan provinces). As it is known, there are different ways of focalization in various languages including syntactical, morphological, and phonetic strategies. One of the morphological tools that is used in Persian language is /ke/ that appears after the constituent under emphasis. In modern Persian, /ke/ can make any constituent focalized. This study intends to discover whether there is any similar focus tool in Persian dialects of Khorasan. In case the answer would be positive, the research will investigate whether there are any other functions along with the focus markers or not...

Within the Minimalist Program (MP), Relative clauses (RCs) are considered complementizer clauses (CPs) containing a C with an edge feature [EF] in the form of [wh] and [EPP] but no tense feature. This study investigates Persian RC derivation based on MP. By proposing two approaches, namely: (1) ‘ke-movement’ and (2) ‘null wh-operator (OP) movement’, we will consistently argue and show that the null wh-OP approach provides an appropriate generalization for Persian restrictive RCs. Adopting the latter, the results display Persian RCs can be analyzed as CPs with a null wh-OP assuming to undertake wh-movement as copying and deletion from different syntactic positions, i. e., subject, direct object, object of preposition, etc. This operator allows a small pro in the subject position, leaving an optional null copy, either allowing an optional resumptive pronoun (RP) behind in direct object position or attaching to the verb, and obligatorily in indirect object and object of preposition positions as well as Ezafe-construction. Also, the edge feature of the probe, the complementizer ke, attracts the null wh-OP to Spec-C, for checking and valuing the unvalued [wh] and [EPP] features. The long relative clause derivations can, correspondingly, work as expected by the successive cyclic movement of OP through intermediate Spec-C positions as well.

Vocatives are small but important expressions in the meaning of an utterance. They are defined as a means of drawing an addressee's attention, in order to “ establish or maintain a relationship between this addressee and some proposition” (Lambrecht, 1996, p. 267). In spite of their importance, we can claim that the investigation of the vocatives has been neglected in linguistic inquiry until very recently. Meanwhile, the vocatives do not take any syntactic or semantic role in the sentence and are not parts of the sentence structure, they have been considered as peripheral to syntax as well. Traditionally, vocative phrases have been considered purely pragmatic phenomena; as a result, they have been studied from the pragmatic viewpoint. Alternatively, recent studies (Rizzi, 1997; Spease & Tenny, 2003; Speas, 2004; Hill, 2007, 2013) propose that there are syntactic projections that encode information relevant to the interface between syntax and pragmatics. According to these studies, in a structural field above CP, some pragmatic phenomena such as vocatives can be studied. This assumption is based on the observation in some languages that there is agreement between pragmatic phenomena such as vocatives or interjections and syntactic features such as case, number and persons. Hill (2007) studies vocatives in the speech act domain above CP. He claims that markers surrounding vocative nouns that express pragmatic notions and are thought of as attention drawing interjections show restricted pattern of co-occurrence and ordering in languages that call for syntactic analysis. Hill (2007) believes that vocative phrases are derived through the same set of computations that apply to the core syntax, except for the point that the fields in which these computations occur are in the domain of discourse. In this approach, which tries analyzing pragmatic phenomena in the syntax-pragmatics interface, a vocative phrase is a functional projection whose head (V0) contains a vocative particle which, in turn, selects a DP (vocative nouns) as its complement. Hill (2013) focuses on the internal structure of vocatives and their relations with the clause. He considers a vocative phrase as the indirect object of the speech act head mapped at the left periphery of the clause. Therefore, the present study aims to survey vocatives and vocative particles based on Hill’ s (2007, 2013) study in the syntax-pragmatics interface in Persian. The advantage of this approach is that it is possible to account for a whole range of pragmatic phenomena occurring in an utterance. The linguistic data in the study were selected from diverse texts including poetic, formal and colloquial writings to account for the formal and informal vocative particles in Persian. Vocatives in Persian are formed by an optional vocative particle and some grammatical categories such as proper or common nouns, adjectives and pronouns (Anvari & Givi, 1997, p. 95). Vocative particles (as the head) can be overt or covert in a vocative phrase. By covert, it means that a vocative particle is present in the head position; however, it does not have any phonetic realization. Thus, in some instances, the vocative particle specifies a null vocative in Persian, therefore, it can be understood from the context. The results of the study indicate that a vocative phrase in Persian is a type of syntactic phrase named “ a vocative phrase projection” in the speech act layer in the syntax-pragmatics interface. A vocative phrase contains a vocative either overt or covert particle in the head position of the vocative phrase that selects a vocative as its complement. The vocative particle in the head position of a vocative phrase projection contains a [2nd person] feature and [inter-personal (i-p)] feature. The [i-p] feature is specified by three other functional features, including [+/-Deictic, +/-formality, +/-familiarity]. Interpersonal features refer to all kinds of interpersonal relationships between the speaker and hearer. A vocative sometimes refers to a hearer that can be the speaker hence it has deictic property. If no referent is available, the deictic feature is inactive. The feature formality refers to the usage of formal or informal vocative particles in Persian. The feature familiarity refers to the speaker-addressee relations. Sometimes, there is a close relationship between the speaker and hearer; therefore, the feature of familiarity is active. In conclusion, this study proposes that the interpretation of vocatives requires correlating syntax and pragmatics in the interface and a vocative phrase is a functional projection bearing pragmatic features above the complementizer phrase layer (CP). By considering a speech act layer above the CP, vocatives, interjections, and other pragmatic phenomena can be studied syntactically.

The present paper aims to determine the position of the Q-particle ‘ aya’ in Persian within the Minimalist framework (e. g. Chomsky, 1995, 2001). To this end, first, evidence is provided against the idea that the Q-particle ‘ aya’ is in the head of the Complementizer Phrase (CP) (Lotfi, 2000; 2003). Then, the paper employs some pieces of evidence including the different distributional behavior of ‘ aya’ compared to the mood markers, their co-occurrence in the sentence, the hierarchical position of the negation marker as well as the interaction of the modality and mood to argue against the hypothesis that assigns ‘ aya’ to the Mood Phrase (MoodP) (Raghibdoust, 1993). Following that, it is proposed that ‘ aya’ is placed, by external merge, in the head of the Interrogative Phrase (IntP), aiming to check and value the unvalued [Q] feature on this head, satisfy the requirements of the linear order of Persian, and derive the interrogative interpretation of the clause.

Background and Aim: An interesting area of research in deaf studies concerns the idea that various language components and particularly different functional categories such as ten-se, mood, and agreement are not impaired to the same extent. The present study aimed to explore the performance of Persian speaking deaf individuals on tests dealing with five functional categories, namely complementizer/Wh-words, tense, aspect, mood, and agreement.Methods: This research was a cross-sectional study with two groups, first of which included 11 (4 boys and 7 girls) profoundly deaf students with hearing loss above 90 dB for both ears, aged between 14 and 22; and second group of 15 students with normal hearing with mean (SD) age of 14 (2) years. In addition to inter-views, we also conducted sentence-completion and grammaticality judgment tasks to explore their performance in each category.Results: The deaf group performed significantly worse than hearing group in all the tests. Our results also demonstrated a significant numerical gap between all five categories in the deaf group, beginning from the lowest least impaired category, which is in agreement, and ending up to the most impaired category, that is, complementizer.Conclusion: We found a dissociation of functional categories in deaf individuals. Also, higher nodes are more vulnerable to impairments than lower nodes.

Dependency is one of the significant relations in syntactic elements. In subordination, a unit is subordinated to another. One kind of subordination is complement clauses. In this study, the rate of semantic and syntactic integration is discussed. Relying on semantic factors, successfulness of main clause verb, co-reference and co-temporality of main clause and complement clause, complement-taking verbs of Farsi are put in different classes of dependence. the presence or absence of complementizer in complement clauses, co-lexicalization or case-marking of the subject and the object are marked in clauses to see which verbs show the most bond in main clauses and complement clauses by studying the semantic factors including the tense of complement clauses. The complement clauses with the most bonds dealing with main clauses tend to join to in a single sentence. It is revealed in this research that manipulation verbs have the most bonds between complement clauses and main clauses and their tendency in such verbs to join in a single sentence is high, so, they are placed above the complementation continuum. beside manipulation verbs, modality verbs with the same bonds are placed in the category, then, below complementation continuum, perception-cognition-utterance verbs are placed afterwards which have the lowest bond between main clause and complement clause. While studying semantic factors dealing with complement clauses and main clauses, it is revealed that Persian doesnot use co-lexicalization joined with complement clauses. This research provides a continuum of complement-taking verbs in Persian and the effect of iconicity on linking these verbs.