No abstract

This article proposes that plural marking on nouns in Persian is licensed only if those nouns are contained within D/QPs. This proposal accounts for why plural-marked nouns are construed as definite unless an overt marker of indefiniteness appears, and why plural marking does not cooccur with numerals unless the noun phrase is definite. It is also shown that the indefinite marker in Persian is quantitative rather than cardinal and is thus associated with higher functional structure within the noun phrase than in English. In English, on the other hand, number marking, the indefinite article, and the grammatical distinction between count and mass nouns, are all realized at the level of NumP. Differences in the interpretation of bare noun phrases in English and Persian are therefore explained by the claim that argument noun phrases must minimally be NumPs in English while Persian lacks this projection altogether.

No abstract

In this article it is shown that Persian has core control constructions in which the obligatorily empty subject of an embedded clause takes its reference from an antecedent in the next higher clause. Evidence is provided that these embedded clauses are relatively transparent for scrambling and lack independent tense. It is therefore argued that core control verbs in Persian take complements that lack CP, TP, and a Case position for their subjects. Control complements do manifest subject agreement, however, suggesting that agreement checking takes place within vP. The implications of this view are explored with respect to the periphrastic progressive construction, in which both the auxiliary and the main verb bear subject agreement, and raising constructions, in which preposed subjects do not trigger agreement on the matrix verb. The relevant contrast is presented in minimalist terms as the idea that agreement in Persian is checked within a strong phase (CP or vP).

No abstract