A syntactic analysis of Conditionals in Persian Roya Kabiri, Ali Darzi University of Arizona, University of Tehran  First North American Conference in Iranian Linguistics (NACIL1) April 28-30, 2017

Outline Provide definition of conditional propositions. Introduce two distinct views on the structural position of the conditionals in the literature: Bhatt and Pancheva (2006) Valmala (2009) Introduce sentence-initial, sentence-final and seemingly sentence- medial conditional clauses in Persian. Examine Persian conditionals in order to understand how these constructions are structured, and whether or not the existing theories can account for them. In fact sentence medial clause and sentence initial are the same Do they suggest a revised version of either one?

Conditional structures Conditionals are linguistic expressions expressed by means of syntactically complex forms which consist of a conditional clause (protasis or antecedent) and a main clause (apodosis or consequent). Conditionals involve an adverbial clause which makes the occurrence of one event dependent on the occurrence of another (Inchaurralde 2005).

Conditionals have been one of the most significant topics in the areas of semantics, pragmatics and philosophy of language, and have been studied within different approaches (Kratzer 1986, Kaufmann 2001). They have not been analyzed syntactically in detail, specifically in Persian. Following the literature of various languages, I treat conditional clauses as adverbial clauses in adjunct positions (Haegeman 2004, Iatridoue 1991) as they are not triggered by the need to check features (Chomsky 1995). There is no literature on this topic in Persian

Structural position of conditionals Syntactically, there is a debate as to how these expressions are constructed: First approach due to Bhatt and Pancheva (2006): It is an adjunction-based approach (proposed as equivalent to external merge). The sentence-initial conditional clause in English adjoins to TP and in some cases to CP (when preceding wh-arguments in questions). The sentence-final conditional clause involves VP-adjunction to the right.

Second approach due to Valmala (2009): Spanish and English sentence-initial conditional clauses are in the Spec of TopP or FocP. The sentence-final conditional clauses are in the Spec of a functional projection, CondP. This analysis is based on movement (proposed as equivalent to internal merge) in some cases. The sentence-initial conditional clause has a topic or focus interpretation, and it is usually derived via movement from a post verbal position to the front of the sentence. The main difference between these two is that one of them adjoins conditionals and one of them places it in the spec position.

Conditionals in Persian Conditional marker: ægær ‘if’ or more informally æge. Three different positions of the conditional clause: sentence-initial (1a), sentence-final (1b) and seemingly sentence-medial (1c):   (1)

We show that the adjunction-based approach (proposed by Bhatt and Pancheva (2006)) rather than the other approach advocated by Valmala (2009) best accounts for the data in Persian. Independent syntactic properties such as the interaction of scrambling and principle C of Binding Theory, the structural position of focused wh-arguments, distribution of higher and lower adverbs and vP deletion provide evidence for our analysis.

The sentence-initial conditional clause The movement-based analysis cannot account for a sentence-initial conditional clause containing a referential expression, coindexed with a pronominal in the matrix clause. Taking into account the interaction of scrambling and principle C of Binding Theory, the sentence in (2) would be predicted to be ill- formed under the movement-based analysis due to the principle C violation, contrary to facts. (2)

If the conditional clause is generated in a position following the main clause and then moved to its surface position, it should be ungrammatical since: Reconstruction is well-known to be obligatory for principle C at LF (See Iatridou 1991, Sportiche 2005, Valmala 2009) Scrambling does not bleed principle C in Persian (Karimi, 2005: 179). Thus, the sentence-initial conditional clause is externally merged as an adjunct to TP which is not c-commanded by the subject in the main clause. Dislocating Kimea to a position where it is no longer c-commanded by the matrix subject does not improve the grammaticality of the sentence as evidenced in (4b).

Taking into account principle C and the distribution of lower adverbs in Persian (lower adverbs are adjoined to the vP (Karimi, 2005: 125)): The sentence-initial conditional clause is adjoined to TP. (3) Note that we depart from Karimi (2005) and maintain that the [EPP] feature on T in Persian is strong as in English (Radford 2009). Therefore, the subject moves from the Spec of vP to the Spec of TP in overt syntax.

If a matrix clause containing a focused wh-argument (occupying the Spec of FocP upon movement in Persian (Karimi 2005)), is preceded by a conditional clause, it can be argued: If the wh-argument ki ‘who’ is in the Spec of FocP, it is not possible for the conditional clause to simultaneously occupy this position. Persian allows two elements bearing contrastive focus in the same sentence only if at least one of them bears an inherent focus. Focus position is argued to be unique in Karimi (2005). Following what Bhatt and Pancheva (2006) proposed for English, the conditional clause may adjoin to FocP as well. (4) Considering the distribution of higher adverbs and the position of focused wh-argument: Higher adverbs may adjoin to vP, TP, and TopP (Karimi 2005). Assuming that moteæssefane ‘unfortunately’ is adjoined to the TP in (4), in which the conditional clause precedes the wh-argument: Persian data is consistent with Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2006) analysis

It may be argued that they are in the multiple specifiers of FocP: Karimi (2005): two focused elements moved to Specs of FocP may not be separated by other syntactic objects. Færda ‘tomorrow’ may be construed as a temporal adverb for both the conditional clause and the matrix clause, indicating that there is no adjacency requirement between the wh-argument and the conditional clause. (5) Example from Karimi’s book: *Ki emruz ba ki fek mikoni beraghse. So they are not in the specifiers of the same focp. Conditional clauses may be focused. Under my analysis nothing prevents a conditional clause to be modified by fæqæt

Syntactic position of the sentence-initial conditional clause: It involves TP-adjunction and FocP-adjunction (when preceding the focused wh-arguments which have moved to Spec of FocP). This analysis offers support for the Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2006) analysis. It is also consistent with some other studies (Haegeman 2004, Iatridoue 1991) which consider conditional clauses as adverbial clauses in adjunct positions as they are not triggered by the need to check features (Chomsky 1995). Following the literature of various languages, I treat conditional clauses as adverbial clauses in adjunct positions (Haegeman 2004, Iatridoue 1991) as they are not triggered by the need to check features (Chomsky 1995). They propose that the conditional is adjoined to CP when preceding wh-arguments in English. I suggest that in Persian when the sentence-initial conditional precedes the focused wh-arguments, it adjoins to FocP.

The sentence-final conditional clause Sentence-final conditional clauses involve vP-adjunction: Principle C of the Binding Theory vP deletion Since the adjunction-based approach accounted for the sentence-initial conditionals, to maintain consistency I extend the adjunction-based approach to sentence-final conditionals as well.

Ill-formedness of sentence (6) is due to a principle C violation because the pronominal subject of the main clause binds the subject of the embedded clause adjoined to vP. The sentence-final conditional clause is adjoined to a position lower than TP (the most likely candidate being the vP) inducing principle C violation. (6)

The asymmetry observed in the behavior of sentence-initial and sentence-final conditional clauses: It is possible to have a referential expression in the sentence- initial conditional clause coreferent with a pronominal subject in the main clause. It is impossible to have a referential expression in the sentence- final conditional clause coreferent with a pronominal subject in the main clause. Sentence-initial and sentence-final conditional clauses are merged in different positions in the derivation.

vP deletion shows the sentence-final conditional clause is in a position lower than NegP, the most likely candidate being the vP. In (7), all constituents below the NegP, including the conditional clause are elided, leaving the subject and the head Neg intact. (7)

Syntactic position of the sentence-final conditional clause: It is adjoined to the right of the vP. It is compatible with Bhatt and Pancheva’s (2006) analysis.

Our proposal for the TP and FocP adjunction of sentence-initial conditional clauses can also account for: The grammaticality and ungrammaticality of all the sentences in which the conditional clause appears in the medial position. (8) If we stick to our tp and focp adjunction,…

The sentence in (9) with two topicalized DPs preceding the conditional clause is also explained under our proposal. More than one syntactic object may be topicalized in Persian (Karimi 2005). (9)

The ungrammaticality of (10) is due to: Topicalization of the pronominal un ‘he’ from the main clause subject to the front of the sentence, places it in a structural position from which it binds the referential expression in the conditional clause, inducing principle C violation. Scrambling feeds principle C in Persian (Karimi 2005: 180).  (10)

Syntactic position of the seemingly sentence-medial conditional clause: The merge position of the seemingly sentence-medial conditional clause is in no way different from the sentence-initial position. The relative ordering between the conditional clause and the constituents preceding it, is due to scrambling of syntactic constituents to the sentence-initial position.

Conclusions The adjunction-based approach of conditionals proposed by Bhatt and Pancheva (2006) best accounted for the data in Persian over the other approach advocated by Valmala (2009). The conditional clause was argued to be an adverbial clause in Persian adjoined to the TP or FocP in sentence-initial position, and to the right of the vP in sentence-final position.

Future Research Why left-adjunction is restricted to TP or higher projections such as FocP whereas right-adjunction is restricted to vP? Is there syntactic differences among various kinds of conditional clauses classified in terms of syntax/semantic grounds? Is there any connectivity effects that hold relative to tense/aspect, especially with counterfactuals that may have implications for the syntactic analysis? How does conditional clause interact with negation? How phase theory can account for the syntactic position of the conditionals?

Thanks for your attention! متشکرم

Conditional clauses may be focused Conditional clauses may be focused. Under my analysis nothing prevents a conditional clause to be modified by fæqæt as in (6). It doesn’t mean that it is base-generated in that position. Actually, it is base-generated in the adjunct position of the TP and then may optionally move to Spec of FocP. (6)