PLURAL MARKING, INDEFINITENESS,

AND THE NOUN PHRASE*

Jila Ghomeshi

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.

1. Introduction
This article explores some differences in the interpretation of singular and
plural noun phrases in Persian and English under the assumption that
noun phrases can consist of at least three distinct layers: DP, the locus of
definiteness, NumP, the locus of number marking, and NP, the lexical or
substantive layer.1 One of the virtues of this articulated structure is that it
parallels that of clauses, which also contain at least three layers: CP, TP,
and VP. Based on consideration of the differences that exist between the
two languages, I will make several claims. First, with respect to the
internal syntax of noun phrases, I will argue that Persian lacks a NumP
projection and that number marking is instead connected to the DP
layer.2 Second, with respect to the external syntax of noun phrases, I will
argue that Persian allows bare NPs in argument positions while English
arguments must minimally be NumPs. Third, I will show that the Persian
indefinite enclitic ±i is associated with higher functional structure than its
English counterpart a.
* I have discussed the data and the ideas in this article with so many people and, in some
cases, so long ago that I risk leaving someone out if I attempt to list each person by name. I
am sincerely grateful to all. I am particularly grateful to the audiences at Allameh Tabataba'i
University in Tehran and Islamic Azad University at Khorasgan where I presented earlier
versions of this work in 2001. I would like to acknowledge my research assistants Nima
Sadat Tehrani and Saeed Ghaniabadi who have painstakingly gathered data and provided
judgements, along with my long-standing Persian consultant, Azar Ghomeshi. I would also
like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and my colleague H. C. Wolfart for their helpful
comments. All errors are my own.
1
The most frequently cited references for DP and NumP are Abney (1987) and Ritter
(1991), respectively. There are many other relevant references, however. For a brief overview
of the literature on functional categories within the noun phrase see Lyons (1999, section 8.2)
or Vangsnes (2001:253±54).
2
I will show later that this `layer' includes quantifiers as well.
Studia Linguistica 57(2) 2003, pp. 47±74. # The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
48 Jila Ghomeshi

The seemingly small differences between Persian and English that I

wish to explain are illustrated in the following examples:3
(1) Persian
a. sñg did-ñm.
dog see.past-1sg
`I saw dogs.' [lit: `I saw dog.']
b. sñg-a-ro did-ñm.
dog-pl-om see.past-1sg
`I saw the dogs.'
c. sñg-o did-ñm.
dog-om see.past-1sg
`I saw the dog.'
d. un sñg(*-i)-e.
that dog(*-ind)-3sg
`That is a dog.'
e. un sñg-e bozorg*(-i)-e.
that dog-ez big*(-ind)-3sg
`That is a big dog.'
f. un-a sñg-a-ye bozorg*(-i)-ñn
that-pl dog-pl-ez big*-(-ind)-3pl
`Those are big dogs.'
In (1a) a bare singular count noun appears in object position in the Persian
sentence. The literal translation of this sentence into English yields a mass
interpretation for the direct object ± something I will refer to as a `coerced'
reading.4 The mass interpretation for sñg `dog' in Persian is not impossible
though, for obvious reasons, it is not the most salient one. Given that the
direct object in (1a) is best translated by a bare plural, we might wonder how
a plural object in Persian is interpreted. As shown in (1b), plural marking on
the object noun sñg `dog' results in a definite reading for the noun phrase,
which in turn requires the presence of the object marker ±ra.5 (1c) shows
3
Persian is a null subject language with SOV word order. The dialect discussed in this
paper is the one spoken in and around Tehran and referred to as `standard' Persian. The
following abbreviations are used: om ˆ the object marker ±ra (±o after consonants and ±ro
after vowels); ez ˆ the Ezafe vowel which links nouns with their modifiers and possessors (±e
after consonants, ±ye after vowels); cl ˆ classifier; ind ˆ indefinite marker; dur ˆ durative
prefix; pastpart ˆ past participle; foc ˆ focus particle. The equals sign (ˆ) connects
elements of a complex predicate.
4
This particular type of coercion is sometimes referred to as the universal grinder
attributed to Pelletier (1975:5±6) by Gillon (1992:601). According to Gillon, the opposite
type of coercion whereby mass nouns are construed as count nouns has been referred to as
the universal sorter (Bunt 1985:11). I will refer to the latter as the taxonomic reading (cf.
Krifka et al. 1995).
5
I will treat ±ra as a Case marker that appears on definite direct objects and that attaches
syntactically to DPs. In actual fact, things are more complicated as ±ra appears both on
noun phrases that are not necessarily definite and on noun phrases that are not necessarily
direct objects. It can also appear more than once in a single clause. For various perspectives
on this marker see Dabir-Moghaddam (1992), Karimi (1996), Ghomeshi (1997b), and
references therein.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 49

that formal Persian has no overt marker of definiteness, though later in

the paper a colloquial marker of definiteness will be discussed. In (1d) we
see that predicate nominals cannot appear with the indefinite enclitic,
while (1e) shows that modified predicate nominals cannot appear without
the indefinite enclitic. In (1f ) we see that plural marking and the indefinite
enclitic can cooccur, thereby showing that the plural marker itself does
not encode definiteness.
The article is organized as follows. In the next section there is a brief
discussion of generic noun phrases, the main purpose of which is to
explain why they are not relevant to the rest of the paper. The discussion
also distinguishes genericity from non-referentiality, which does play a
role in what follows. The second part of section 2 looks at the count vs.
mass distinction. I argue that Persian has a lexical distinction between
count and mass nouns but that this contrast is realized grammatically in a
different way than in English. In section 3 properties of the plural marker
in Persian are presented. It is shown that plural marking yields a definite
interpretation for a noun phrase unless an overt marker of indefiniteness
is present. In section 4, I show that the indefinite markers in Persian are
quantitative rather than cardinal and thus differ from the English
indefinite article. I propose that the indefinite enclitic should be taken
to head a QP rather than NumP in Persian. This leads to the general-
ization that plural marking in Persian is licensed only on nouns contained
within D/QPs. In section 5, I compare Persian and English noun phrases
followed in section 6 by a brief discussion of the colloquial definiteness
marker in Persian to show that the claims made about plural marking
extend to this construction also. Section 7 concludes the paper.

2. Background Assumptions

2.1. Genericity
For the purposes of this article I want to distinguish generic noun phrases
from non-referential nouns. Generic noun phrases refer to kinds rather
than to objects. As the following examples show, in English definite
singular count nouns, bare plural count nouns and bare mass nouns can
be generic, or kind-referring:
(2) a. The lion is a predatory cat.
b. Lions are predatory cats.
c. Gold is a precious metal. [Krifka et al. 1995:5.5]
Krifka et al. (1995:10) state that some predicates can only take kind-
referring arguments. For instance the subject argument of be extinct
and the object argument of invent are always kinds. These predicates
can be used to show that indefinite noun phrases do not normally refer
to kinds:
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
50 Jila Ghomeshi

(3) a. The lion will become extinct soon.

b. Lions will become extinct soon.
c. *A lion will become extinct soon. (nontaxonomic reading)
[Krifka et al. 1995:10.23]
The situation is a little more complex once we take into account the fact
that genericity can hold of propositions as well as noun phrases. Krifka
et al. (1995) state that generic or `characterizing' sentences express a kind
of generalization. Characterizing sentences can contain indefinite noun
phrases:
(4) a. John smokes a cigar after dinner.
b. A potato contains vitamin C, amino acids, protein and thiamine.
[Krifka et al. 1995:2.2]
(5) A lion has a bushy tail. [Krifka et al. 1995:9.20a]
This brief discussion is intended to show that some DPs (e.g. those
headed by a definite determiner) can be used as generic noun phrases and
that generic sentences can contain both definite and indefinite DPs (cf.
Longobardi 1994 for an analysis of generic DPs in English and Romance
languages). Persian behaves the same way. Both singular definite and
plural noun phrases can be used as generics. In (6), singular direct objects
are construed as generic and are marked with the direct object marker
±ra, indicating that they are definite,6 while in (7) plural noun phrases
function as generics:
(6) a. SõÅrka shõÅr raÅ mõÅ-burrad.
vinegar milk om dur-curdle.3sg
`Vinegar curdles milk.'
b. mõÅ-daÅnid chi-tawr guÅsfand raÅ mi-kushand?
dur-know.2pl how sheep om dur-kill.3pl
`Do you know how a sheep is killed?'
[Dabir-Moghaddam 1992:557.24±25]
(7) a. dolñt-ha dñr ˆ moqabel-e moxalef-an-e xod
government-pl against-ez dissenter-pl-ez self
moqavemñt ˆ mi-kon-ñnd.
resistance ˆ dur-do-3pl
`Governments stand firm before their dissenters.'
[From the newspaper Hñyat-e no, January 1, 2002]

6
Dabir-Moghaddam (1992) takes these examples from Phillott (1919:455, 459) and
points out that they reflect a different pronunciation from today's standard Persian. I
have, therefore, left the transcription as given by Dabir-Moghaddam but have changed the
glosses to conform to the system I am using here. Note also that the Persian sentence in (6b)
is not passive and so may perhaps be more accurately translated as: `Do you know how they
kill sheep?'

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 51

(7) b. xod-ñt ke mñrd-ha-ra mi-sÏenas-i.

self-2sg.cl foc man-pl-om dur-know-2sg
`You yourself know men.'
[Like Water for Chocolate, p. 130, by Laura Esquivel,
translated by Maryam Bayat]
While the presence of functional structure (e.g. definite determiners,
Case marking) does not prevent a noun phrase from being construed as
generic, it does play a significant role in whether or not a noun phrase
can be construed as non-referential. Non-referential nouns appear, for
example, in the non-head position of English compounds:
(8) a lion tamer, a lion cage, the lion hypothesis, some lion stories . . .
Non-referential noun phrases, like generic noun phrases, do not pick out
objects ± i.e. do not refer ± but differ from generic noun phrases in that
they need not refer to kinds. Moreover, a bare singular count noun in the
non-head position of a compound differs from a bare singular count noun
in an argument position in that it is not construed as mass:
(9) a. We went lion hunting today. (non-referential, no mass reading)
b. We saw lion today. (referential, coerced mass reading)
Non-referential nouns do not only appear in compounds. Bare nouns
can be used as modifiers7 (lion hypotheses, banana muffins), and as
classifiers:
(10) a. a ten second song b. That song lasts for ten seconds.
a three foot pole This pole is three feet (long).
a ten mile race John runs ten miles every day.
nine inch nails Her nails measure nine inches.
Bare noun phrases may also be used as qualities, as illustrated in the
following examples, taken from Muromatsu (1995):
(11) a. She has more sense than Mary, child though she is.
(Jespersen 1933:130)
b. She is more mother than wife. (Muromatsu 1995:5.8b)
Observations like these have led a number of researchers to propose
that only NPs introduced by D can serve as arguments (Szabolcsi (1987,
1994:181), Stowell (1989), Longobardi (1994), Cheng & Sybesma (1999) ).
DeÂchaine & Wiltschko (2002) extend this claim to pronouns, showing
that the presence or absence of functional structure correlates with
7
Following Liberman & Sproat (1992), I assume that nouns can either be generated as
sister to the head noun under N0, in which case the string is assigned lefthand stress, or as
sister to the head noun under N1, in which case the string is assigned righthand stress. Thus
[banana bread] is a compound under N0, while [banana muffin] is an instance of a modifier-
head construction under N1 (where the items in small caps bear the main stress).

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

52 Jila Ghomeshi

whether pronouns can be used as arguments or predicates respectively.

Hopper & Thompson (1985) suggest that the absence of any sort of
``nominal trappings'' ± e.g. number marking, determiners, adjectives,
demonstratives, and the appropriate Case morpheme if the language is
a Case-marking one ± may result in a non-referential reading for a noun.
To summarize, while generic noun phrases do not refer in the same way
that `regular' referential noun phrases do (referring instead to kinds), they
can, and in some languages must, include functional structure. Non-
argument noun phrases (e.g. the non-head elements in compounds,
modifiers, classifiers, and qualities) are at most bare NPs and are
construed as non-referential. As for noun phrases in argument positions,
one of the claims of this article is that some languages permit bare NPs in
argument positions also, resulting in a non-referential reading.

2.2. Count vs. mass nouns in Persian

As observed in the introduction, bare singular nouns can appear in direct
object position in Persian and, if they are count nouns, do not necessarily
receive a coerced mass reading:
(12) a. (mñn) diruz qñhve xord-ñm.
I yesterday coffee drink.past-1sg
`I drank coffee yesterday.'
b. (mñn) diruz gusÏt poxt-ñm.
I yesterday meat cook.past-1sg
`I cooked meat yesterday.'
c. (mñn) diruz ketab xund-ñm.
I yesterday book read.past-1sg
`I read books [lit. book] yesterday.'
d. (mñn) diruz sÏir did-ñm.
I yesterday lion see.past-1sg
`I saw lions [lit. lion] yesterday.'
Data such as these may suggest that Persian does not have a count/mass
distinction for nouns. In this section I present evidence showing that this
conclusion is false. Persian does have a count/mass distinction, though
this is not manifested for bare nouns in direct object position.
There are a number of properties that distinguish count nouns from
mass nouns in English (see, for example, Pelletier 1991, Gillon 1992).
Three of these distinguishing properties also hold in Persian. First, certain
quantifiers select count nouns while others select mass nouns:
(13) Quantifiers selecting count nouns
a. each [bookcount]
b. few [bookscount, pl]
c. *each [saltmass]
d. *few [saltmass]
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 53

(14) Quantifiers selecting mass nouns

a. *much [book(s)count, (pl)]
b. *a little [book(s)count, (pl)]
c. much [saltmass]
d. a little [saltmass]
In Persian, the quantifiers that distinguish count vs. mass nouns are fewer
in number than in English, but such quantifiers do exist:
(15) Quantifiers selecting count nouns
a. hñr [ketabcount]-i b. cÏñnd-ta [ketabcount]
each book -ind some-cl book
`each book' `some books'
c. *hñr [nñmñkmass]-i d. *cÏñnd-ta [nñmñkmass]
each salt -ind some-cl salt
(16) Quantifiers selecting mass nouns
a. *ye zñrre [ketabcount] b. ye zñrre [nñmñkmass]
one bit book one bit salt
`a bit of salt'
Second, in English mass nouns are always singular, appearing with plural
morphology only for the taxonomic reading or for understood quantities.
The same is true in Persian:

(17) a. *salts [unless we are talking about kinds of salt or packets of salt]
b. *nñmñk-ha [ " " ]
salt-pl
Third, mass nouns in English and Persian cannot appear with the
indefinite article (excluding the taxonomic or understood-quantity
reading):

(18) a. *a salt
b. *nñmñk-i
salt-ind
These facts, taken together, suggest that both English and Persian have
a lexical distinction between count and mass nouns. Coercion ± the
interpretation of count nouns as mass (the Universal Grinder) or mass
nouns as count (the Universal Sorter) ± can be understood as an
overriding of this lexical specification.8 That is, in English, it is not the
case that mass nouns can't appear with plural marking or the indefinite
8
What I am calling a `lexical' specification of count vs. mass may actually be a conceptual
one, as one reviewer points out. Coercion effects would then be deviations from the normal
syntactic use for a given noun (cf. Vangsnes 2001). I intend what I say in this paper about the
syntax of count vs. mass to be compatible with both views.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

54 Jila Ghomeshi

article. It's just that the resulting interpretation will have to be taxonomic
or of the understood-quantity type. Similarly, it is not the case that count
nouns can't appear as bare singulars, but when they do they will be
interpreted as mass nouns. These facts can be captured if, in addition to
the lexical distinction of count vs. mass, there is also a grammatical
distinction between count (singular or plural) and mass. As the following
diagrams show, I assume the relevant information is encoded within the
Number Phrase:9
(19)

These representations yield six potential readings: (19a) represents plural

count nouns (lions) and plural mass nouns (coffees); (19b) represents
singular count nouns (a lion) and singular mass nouns (a coffee); and (19c)
represents mass count nouns (lion) and mass mass nouns (coffee).
As noted in section 2.1, coercion effects do not hold of non-referential
nouns. This is shown below where the lexical specification of a noun as
count or mass is not represented on the NP node:
(20)

The grammatical distinction between count and mass need not be

realized at the same level or in the same projection cross-linguistically.
For instance it has been suggested that languages in which all nouns
require a classifier in order to be countable, as Persian does, lack the
count/mass distinction (cf. Chierchia 1998). Cheng & Sybesma (1999)
offer evidence from Chinese to show that while classifiers are obligatory
with all nouns, they also reflect the count/mass distinction. Specifically,
they claim that there are two kinds of classifiers: those that create a unit
9
Regarding the indefinite article a in NumP see, for example, Stroik (1994) and Lyons
(1999:33±36). More arguments that a is not a determiner but a marker of agreement or
cardinality can be found in Valois (1991), Muromatsu (1995), Campbell (1996), and
references therein.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 55

of measure, which they call massifiers, and those that simply name the
unit in which the entity denoted by the noun naturally occurs, which they
call count classifiers:
Mandarin (Cheng & Sybesma 1999:514.10, 11)
(21) a. san ping jiu b. san ba mi
three bottle liquor three handful rice
`three bottles of liquor' `three handfuls of rice'
c. san wan tang
three bowl soup
`three bowls of soup'
(22) a. san ge ren b. san zhi bi
three cl people three cl pen
`three persons' `three pens'
c. san ben shu
three cl book
`three books'
Evidence that there is a semantic (or lexical) distinction between count
and mass nouns comes from the modification marker de. This marker can
intervene between mass classifiers and their nominal complements but
does not appear following count classifiers:
Mandarin (Cheng & Sybesma 1999:515.12, 516.13)
(23) a. san bang (de) rou b. liang xiang (de) shu
three cl-pound de meat three cl-box de book
`three pounds of meat' `three boxes of books'
(24) a. ba tou (*de) niu b. jiu gen (*de) weiba
eight cl-head de cow nine cl de tail
`eight cows' `nine tails'
c. shi zhang (*de) zhuozi
ten cl de table
`ten tables'
Like Chinese, Persian employs classifiers in order to make nouns
countable. That is, numerals must be accompanied by a classifier even
if the nominal complement is a count noun:
(25) a. se kilo gusÏt b. se livan ab
three kilo meat three glass water
`three kilos of meat' `three glasses of water'
c. se-ta nñmñk
three-cl salt
`three salts'
(26) a. se nñfñr kargñr b. se ÅÏjeld ketab
three person worker three volume book
`three workers' `three books'
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
56 Jila Ghomeshi

(26) c. se-ta ketab

three-cl book
`three books'
In the (c) examples above, the default classifier ±ta appears. This classifier
is always available to be used in the place of a more specific one.
Significantly, the use of this classifier with a mass noun results in a
coercion effect. That is (25c) can only mean packets of salt (the quantity
reading). This shows that the type of coercion effects found in English are
not absent in Persian but are found in classifier constructions.
We have seen that English realizes the count/mass and the singular/
plural distinction at the level of NumP. Chinese and Persian make the
count/mass distinction at the level of the classifier. However, Persian,
unlike Chinese, also has plural marking, the absence of which is often tied
to the use of obligatory classifiers (Chierchia 1998, Cheng & Sybesma
1999). In the next section, we will turn to the properties of the Persian
plural marker showing that it is connected to the determiner/quantifier
(D/QP) system rather than the number (NumP) system.

3. Plural Marking in Persian

One of the main points of this paper is that plural marking in Persian,
unlike in English, is not located within a syntactic projection such as
Number Phrase. Generally, the kinds of affixes that correspond to
syntactic nodes such as tense, Case, and number, are inflectional. For
this reason it is worth noting that plural marking in Persian meets some of
the criteria for being a derivational rather than inflectional affix.
In Persian most affixes affect stress placement in the words to which
they attach, while a handful of affixes do not. The latter category includes
the case marker ±ra, the indefinite marker ±i, the pronominal enclitics and
the agreement affixes. By virtue of their position (±ra, ±i, and the
pronominal enclitics are all phrasal affixes) or function (agreement) this
collection of affixes can be classified as inflectional. This makes stress one
determinant for the split between inflectional and derivational affixes.
The plural marker ±ha, as a stress-attracting affix, thus falls on the
derivational side of the split (see also Ghomeshi 1996, Kahnemuyipour
2000).
While ±ha is the most commonly used plural maker it is not the only
one. For example, Lazard (1992 [1957] ) states that nouns denoting
animate entities take their plural with ±an (e.g. mñrd `man', mñrd-an
`men'; ñsb `horse', ñsb-an `horses'. There are also a handful of inanimate
nouns that fall into this category, such as derñxt `tree', derñxt-an `trees').
Further, Lazard notes that in formal language, words of Arabic origin
will take their plural form according to Arabic rules, yielding a variety
of ways to mark plurality (e.g. mosafer `traveller', mosafer-in `travellers';
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 57

heyvan `animal', heyvan-at `animals'; tñrñf `side', ñtraf `sides'; sÏñxs

`person', ñsÏxas `people'). Sometimes these rules are extended to words
of non-Arabic origin. Choice of plural marking is therefore rather
complicated and may be determined by factors such as register, level
of education of the speaker, etc. Given that a fair amount of
variation exists, I take this also as evidence that plural marking is
derivational.

3.1. Plural marking and definiteness

In this section I show that the presence of the plural marker triggers a
definite meaning for the noun to which it is attached. That is, I show that
plural marking is licensed in the following configuration:
(27) [dp [npN-pl]édef]
There is no overt definite article in Persian. Putting aside generic noun
phrases, this means that bare nouns in subject position are construed as
definite:10
(28) bñcÏcÏe gerye ˆ kñrd.
child cry ˆ do.past.3sg
`The child cried.'
In direct object position, non-referential bare nouns are distinguished
from definite bare nouns by the presence of the Case marker ±ra:
(29) a. ketab xund-ñm. b. ketab-o xund-ñm.
book read.past-1sg book-om read.past-1sg
`I read books.' `I read the book.'
I will assume, following Ghomeshi (1997b) that ±ra heads a KP and takes
a DP as its complement, and that definite direct objects must appear with
±ra:
(30) [kp [dp [npN-pl]édef]-ra]
Bare plurals in Persian must be construed as definite. When they
appear as direct objects this means that bare plurals pattern with
pronouns, proper names, and possessed noun phrases in that they
obligatorily appear with ±ra:
(31) a. bñcÏcÏe-ha gerye ˆ kñrd-ñnd. b. ketab-ha*(-ro) xund-ñm.
child-pl cry ˆ do.past.3pl book-pl*(-om) read.past-1sg
`The children cried.' `I read the books.'

10
In the colloquial spoken language it is far more usual for a definite noun phrase to
appear with a demonstrative or the colloquial definiteness marker. This marker is discussed
in section 4.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

58 Jila Ghomeshi

(32) a. zÏian*(-ro) did-ñm. b. to*(-ro) did-ñm.

Jian*(-om) see.past-1sg you*(-om) see.past-1sg
`I saw Jian.' `I saw you.'
c. ketab-e zÏian*(-o) did-ñm.
book-ez Jian*(-om) see.past-1sg
`I saw Jian's book.'
The fact that bare plurals, pronouns, proper names, and possessed noun
phrases must appear with ±ra can be explained if we assume that they are
all definite DPs. The non-occurrence of ±ra on the bare noun in (29a), on
the other hand, along with its non-referentiality can be explained by
assuming that it is an NP.11 That is, the following configuration is not
possible in Persian:
(33) *[npN-pl]
This definiteness effect of plural marking is also evident if we consider
predicate nominals. In Persian, predicate nominals are normally singular,
even if the subject is plural. This is shown in (34a) where the singular
noun danesÏÅÏju appears as the predicate, followed by the clitic form of the
copula verb. If this noun is inflected for plural, as shown in (34b), then it
must be construed referentially yielding an equative reading for the
sentence.
(34) a. anha danesÏÅÏju-ñnd. b. ? anha danesÏÅÏju-ha-ñnd
they student-be.3pl they student-pl-be.3pl
`They are students.' `They are the students.'
This equative reading in (34b) is difficult, but not impossible, for
speakers to get. For instance, in a context where a group of students
and a group of professors have been under discussion, a speaker can point
out a group and utter (34b), meaning ``those are the students (we've been
talking about)''. The fact that sentences like these are judged as ques-
tionable by Persian speakers reflects the fact that they are uncommon, not
11
There is one exception to the rule that bare plurals cannot appear in direct object
position. The plural marker can appear on a noun that forms a compound or complex
predicate with the following verb:
(i) bñhs ˆ kñrd-im. dñrd ˆ kesÏid-im. kar ˆ kñrd-im.
debate ˆ do.past-1pl pain-pl ˆ pull.past-1pl work ˆ do.past-1pl
`We debated.' `We suffered.' `We worked.'
(ii) bñhs-a ˆ kñrd-im. dñrd-ha ˆ kesÏid-im. kar-ha ˆ kñrd-im.
debate-pl ˆ do.past-1pl pain ˆ pull.past-1pl work-pl ˆ do.past-1pl
`We have debated often.' `We have suffered repeatedly.' `We have done many things.'
In these cases it is not the noun that is pluralized. Rather, the event described by the complex
predicate is understood as having been repeated or iterated. These examples may fall in with
the so-called `adverbial' function of the plural marker in Persian (see Windfuhr 1979:31 and
references therein). I set this use of the plural marker aside since its construction-specific
properties, while deserving of further exploration, are tangential to the main thread of this
paper.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 59

that the contribution of the plural marker is unclear. Given that the
configuration in (33) is not possible, plural marking forces a referential
reading for predicate nominals.12
The definiteness effect of plural marking is also found in noun phrases
involving numerals. Generally plural marking and overt numerals cannot
cooccur, as shown in (35b). As we see in (35c), however, if a noun phrase
involving numerals is definite, plural marking can (and for some, must)
occur:
(35) a. se-ta ketab xñrid-ñm.
three-cl book buy.past-1sg
`I bought three books.'
b. *se-ta ketab-ha xñrid-ñm.
three-cl book-pl buy.past-1sg
c. se-ta ketab(-ha)-ro xñrid-ñm.
three-cl book(-pl)-om by.past-1sg
`I bought the three books.'
In subject position the same fact holds. For a noun phrase containing a
numeral to be construed as definite, plural marking is obligatory:13
(36) a. se-ta ketab ru-ye miz bud.
three-cl book on-ez table be.past.3sg
`Three books were on the table.'
b. se-ta ketab-ha ru-ye miz bud-ñnd.
three-cl book-pl on-ez table be.past-3pl
`The three books were on the table.'
In this section I have shown the link between plural marking and
definiteness. On the basis of the data shown so far, it may seem that plural
marking is definite. I will show in the next section that this hypothesis is
too strong.

3.2. Plural marking and indefiniteness

In Persian, plural marked nouns can coocur with the indefinite enclitic ±i
as the following examples show:
(37) a. bñcÏcÏe-ha-ye bahusÏ-i unjÅÏa bazi ˆ mi-kñrd-ñn.
child-pl-ez clever-ind there play ˆ cont-do.past-3pl
`Clever children were playing there.'

12
Hopper & Thompson (1985:162) show that classifiers have the same effect in Man-
darin, cuing a referential reading for the predicate nominal.
13
The fact that plural marking can be used to signal definiteness is the relevant point here
but it is actually rarely used in this way. The most common and natural way to indicate
definiteness in translating an English sentence like (35b) is with the demonstratives in `this/
these' and an `that/those'.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

60 Jila Ghomeshi

(37) b. bñcÏcÏe-ha-ye bahusÏ unjÅÏa bazi ˆ mi-kñrd-ñn.

child-pl-ez clever there play ˆ cont-do.past-3pl
`The clever children were playing there.'
(38) a. ketab-ha-ye ÅÏjaleb-i xund-ñm.
book-pl-ez interesting-ind read.past-1sg
`I read (some) interesting books.'
b. *ketab-ha-ye ÅÏjaleb xund-ñm.
book-pl-ez interesting read.past-1sg
c. ketab-ha-ye ÅÏjaleb-o xund-ñm.
book-pl-ez interesting-om read.past-1sg
`I read the interesting books.'
In (37a) we see the cooccurence of the plural marker and the indefinite
enclitic on a subject and in (38a) we see the same thing on a direct object.
In both cases we see that the absence of the indefinite enclitic results in a
definite reading for the noun phrase. For direct objects, this entails that
they must appear with ±ra. Clearly, then, plural marking is licensed in the
following configuration:
(39) [?? [npN-pl]-i]
What is unclear is what sort of projection the indefinite enclitic heads. It
cannot be the same projection that houses numerals, as we have already
seen that they are incompatible with plural marking. Indeed, it appears
that we are dealing with a mirror image of English: in English, numerals
must appear with plural count nouns while in Persian they must appear
with singular count nouns; in Persian the indefinite marker can appear
with plural count nouns while in English it must appear with singular
count nouns. In the next section I will argue that the indefinite marker in
Persian is not a marker of cardinality like the numeral one but rather a
quantitative indefinite like some, any, and no. I therefore propose that it is
best classified as an element heading a QP.

4. Indefiniteness in Persian
The Persian indefinite enclitic ±i can occur on noun phrases in subject
(40a) and direct object (40b) positions, as well as on noun phrases that
occur as objects of prepositions (40c):
(40) a. mñrd-i amñd. b. mñrd-i did-ñm.
man-ind come.past.3sg man-ind see.past-1sg
`A man came.' `I saw a man.'
c. ketab-o be pesñr-i dad-ñm.
book-om to boy-ind give.past-1sg
`I gave the book to a boy.'
Thackston (1983) claims that ±i means `a certain, a particular' thing, or
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 61

`one of a class', while Lyons (1999:90) states that ``it is approximately

equivalent to any in non-assertive contexts and some . . . or other in
positive declarative contexts.'' As both of these characterizations suggest,
the Persian indefinite enclitic ±i is somewhat different from the English
indefinite article a. In section 3 we saw one difference: ±i can cooccur with
plural marking. In this section I will discuss another difference between
the two markers followed by a proposal as to how these differences can be
captured.
In Persian predicate nominals do not appear with ±i:
(41) a. *bizÏñn danesÏÅÏju-i-e.
Bijan student-ind-be.3sg
`Bijan is a student.'
b. bizÏñn danesÏÅÏju-e.
Bijan student-be.3sg
`Bijan is a student.'
Modified predicate nominals, on the other hand, must appear with ±i:
(42) a. bizÏñn danesÏÅÏju-ye xub-i-e.
Bijan student-ez good-ind-be.3sg
`Bijan is a good student.'
b. *bizÏñn danesÏÅÏju-ye xub-e.
Bijan student-ez good-be.3sg
`Bijan is a good student.'
This phenomenon is found in other languages also. For example, in
French, names of professions and occupations do not usually require an
indefinite article in predicate position. If they are modified by an
adjective, however, the indefinite article is obligatory:
French
(43) a. Mme Lalonde est architecte.
`Ms. Lalonde is an architect.'
b. Mme Lalonde est *(une) excellente architecte.
`Ms. Lalonde is an excellent architect.'
The same facts obtain in Spanish (GivoÂn 1984), Romanian (Gabriela
Alboiu, p.c.) and European Portuguese (Mike Barrie, p.c.). Beyond
names of professions, some languages require indefinite marking on
any modified nouns. In Dutch (Dik 1980) and Hawaiian English Creole
(GivoÂn 1984) indefinite articles are not required on bare predicate
nominals but are obligatory if predicate nouns are modified by a relative
clause.
GivoÂn (1984) connects the presence of an indefinite marker to a
referential reading for the noun. He states that ``[t]he use of the contrast
between the numeral `one' and zero to code the referential-indefinite
vs. non-referential contrast is also found in Israeli Hebrew, Turkish,
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
62 Jila Ghomeshi

Mandarin Chinese, Persian, Sherpa, Romance, Germanic and others. . . . ''

(p. 411). Under this view, the fact that the indefinite article appears with
non-referential nouns in English requires explanation. In fact, it has been
proposed that the English indefinite article shows up on predicate
nominals because predicates must agree with their subjects (Stroik 1994):
(44) a. We consider her a fool/*fools.
b. We consider them *a fool/fools. [Stroik 1994:45.11]
In English, then, the indefinite article functions as the singular counter-
part to the plural marker in these contexts and not as a true determiner.
Returning to Persian ±i, the fact that it cannot appear on bare predicate
nominals makes it very much like the English quantitative indefinites
some and non-affirmative any. These elements too cannot appear in
predicative complements (Huddleston & Pullum 2002:383, from whom
I am taking the term ``quantitative indefinite''):
(45) a. *John is some student.
b. *John wasn't any student.
Indeed, in negative contexts the indefinite enclitic is often best translated
as no highlighting its determinative (rather than cardinal) function. This
use occurs very frequently in conversation:14
(46) a. goft-ñm nñ ehtiyajÅÏ-i nist
say.past-1sg no need-ind neg.be.pres.3sg
qñsñm ˆ bo-xor-i.
oath ˆ sbj-eat.pres-2sg
`I said no, there is no need for you to swear (an oath).'
b. xñbñr-i nñ-sÏod?
news-ind neg-become.past.3sg
`Is there no news?'
c. prablem-i nist.
problem-ind neg.be.pres.3sg
`It's no problem.' [CALLFRIEND Farsi]
When ±i appears on nouns that could also appear bare it has the effect of
providing a quantitative reading, akin to the difference in English between
There are problems with this analysis and There are some problems with this
analysis. In the following examples, a possible translation for the same
sentence without ±i is provided:
(47) a. mñn-ñm fe'lñn ke xñbñr-i nñ-dar-ñm-o . . .
I-too presently foc news-ind neg-have.pres-1sg-and
`I too don't have any news right now and . . . '
[without ±i ˆ I too don't have news right now and . . . ]
14
These and many following examples are taken from the CALLFRIEND Farsi corpus.
This corpus, made available by the Linguistic Data Consortium, consists of recorded
telephone conversations between speakers of Persian.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 63

(47) b. . . . ina fand-i nñ-dar-ñn

they fund-ind neg-have.pres-3pl
`. . . they don't have any funds'
[without ±i ˆ they don't have funds]
c. kar-i ke ne-mi-yay-m bo-kon-im.
work-ind foc neg-dur-come.pres-1pl subj-do.pres-1pl
`We're not coming to do anything in particular.'
[without ±i ˆ we're not coming to work]
[CALLFRIEND Farsi]
The claim in this paper, that the presence of ±i on a noun entails that
the noun must be referential, accounts for the fact that the resulting noun
phrase is often construed as `specific':
(48) a. bñraye hñme-ye anha bayñd mñtaleb-i-ra
for all-ez them must matter.pl-ind-om
be-xan-ñm.15
sbj-read.pres-1sg
`I must read certain things for all of them.'
[From J. Campbell 1998]
b. atñsÏsuzi dñr post-e 66-kilo-volt-e bñrq-e bovanat-e fars
fire in post-ez 66-KV-ez electricity Bovanat-ez Fars
xesarat-i be ˆ bar ˆ avñrd.
damage.pl-ind to ˆ fruit ˆ bring.past.3sg
`A fire in the 66-KV electricity post in Bovanat brought about
some damages.'
[From the newspaper Qods, February 1, 2003]
c. monteha momken ˆ ñst tñfavot-ha-i
but possible ˆ be.pres.3sg difference-pl-ind
vojud ˆ dasÏt-e basÏ-ñd vñ in tñvavot-ha niz
existence ˆ have.pastpart be.sbj-3sg and this difference-pl too
tñbi'i-st.
normal-be.pres.3sg
`But there may be certain differences and these differences are
normal too.' [From the newspaper Qods, January 31, 2003]
The connection between referentiality and specificity is not clear and, to
further complicate matters, they both blur together with `topicality'.
Fodor & Sag (1992), for instance, state that the wide scope reading of
the indefinite in a sentence like: Every teacher likes a student is the
referential interpretation ± something that is now more commonly
referred to as the specific reading of the indefinite. Specific indefinites
15
Note that in this case the `indefinite' noun phrase appears with the direct object marker
±ra that prototypically appears on definite direct objects. It is for this reason that some have
analyzed it as a specificity marker (e.g. Browne 1970 and Karimi 1990, 1996). Again, I refer
the reader to the references cited in footnote 5 for a variety of perspectives on this marker.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

64 Jila Ghomeshi

have in turn been said to have a `topic' reading (Cresti 1995). In a similar
vein GivoÂn (1981) characterizes referentiality as a signal that the referent
of an argument noun phrase is going to play some role in subsequent
discourse. While it may be difficult to identify which of these three
properties, `referentiality', `topicality', or `specificity', an ±i-marked
noun phrase in Persian takes on (and it may be all three, depending on
the context) what is certain is that a bare noun has none of these
properties.
So far we have seen that the indefinite enclitic cannot appear on
unmodified predicate nominals, that it occurs in contexts in which
English any/some/no occur, and that its presence can result in a specific
reading for a noun. For these reasons, I suggest that ±i is a quantitative
indefinite determiner which heads a QP. Further evidence for this
proposal comes from the fact that this enclitic cooccurs with a number
of quantifiers and that it obligatorily occurs on kñs `person' and cÏiz
`thing' to form `someone' and `something':
(49) a. hñr ketab-i b. hicÏ ketab-i
each book-ind no book-ind
`each/every book' `no book'
c. kñs(-an)-i d. cÏiz(-a)-i
person(-pl)-ind thing(-pl)-ind
`someone (pl)' `something(s)'
The focus of this section has been the indefinite enclitic ±i. Persian has
another indefinite marker, ye(k)16 `one', however, as well as another use
for ±i. Before concluding this section, I will briefly discuss these two
phenomena though in each case further research is required to determine
how they can be accommodated within the analysis presented in this paper.
The numeral yek `one' is used as a marker of indefiniteness which may
be unsurprising given that indefinite articles often evolve from one (Lyons
1999:95). Yek can cooccur with ±i or replace it entirely. This means that
there are three ways in which indefiniteness can be expressed:
(50) a. ketab-i b. ye ketab c. ye ketab-i
book-ind a book a book-ind
`a book' `a book' `a book'
There are two facts that suggest that yek should be considered a pre-
nominal counterpart to ±i rather than a cardinal numeral. First, in its
indefinite use it cannot be followed by a classifier. This makes it unlike all
other numerals which do have to appear with a classifier:17

16
In conversation the last consonant is usually dropped and yek is pronounced ye. From
here on, I will use the citation form in the text, however.
17
Yek can be used as a cardinal numeral (`one') in which case a classifier is required. The
choice of classifier depends on the following noun.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 65

(51) a. se-*(ta) ketab b. ye-(*ta) ketab

three-*(cl) book a-(*cl) book
`three books' `a book'
Second, unlike all other numerals it can cooccur with plural marking:
(52) ye ketab-ha-i
a book-pl-ind
`some (certain) books'
(53) ye cÏiz-a-i dasÏt-ñm mñn, ye cÏiz-a-i
one thing-pl-ind have.past-1sg I one thing-pl-ind
dasÏt-ñm ke edare-ye mohajÅÏerñt dad-e
have.past-1sg that office-ez immigration give.pastpart
bud be mñn.
be.past.3sg to me
`I had certain things, I had certain things that the Immigration
Office had given to me.' [CALLFRIEND Farsi]
Having drawn parallels between yek and ±i, I should note that there are a
number of differences as well. Yek does not appear in negative contexts
such as the ones given in (46) above and does not have the additional
function of appearing on nouns modified by restrictive relative clauses ± a
function of ±i to which I will be turning shortly. Lyons (1999:90±91) in his
brief consideration of Persian yek and ±i proposes that they are both
``quasi-indefinite articles really encoding cardinality''. While I am claim-
ing in this paper that this is not the correct view for ±i, it may be the
correct characterization of yek.
Another phenomenon that must be addressed in future work on ±i is
the fact that this same morpheme, or one that is homophonous, appears
on nouns modified by restrictive relative clauses. In fact, the restrictive vs.
non-restrictive distinction is often signalled by the presence/absence of
this marker:
(54) a. ñhmñd, ke diruz amñd, injÅÏa-st.
Ahmad that yesterday come.past.3sg here-3sg
`Ahmad, who came yesterday, is here.'
b. ñhmñd-i-ke diruz amñd, injÅÏa-st.
Ahmad-iÇ-that yesterday come.past.3sg here-3sg
`The Ahmad who came yesterday is here.'
(as opposed to the one who came today) [Thackston 1983:82]
In traditional grammars, and even more recent ones (Mahootian 1997),
two morphemes ±i are posited to account for the indefinite vs. relative
uses. There are also those who have suggested that the two uses of the
morpheme ±i can be united (Samiian 1983, see also Windfuhr 1979 and
references therein). Note, however, that the English translation of (54b)
uses the definite determiner. Moreover, in direct object position a noun
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
66 Jila Ghomeshi

modified by a restrictive relative clause must appear with ±ra, the marker
that prototypically appears on definite direct objects:
(55) mñn ketab-i-*(ro) ke ñli pisÏnñhad ˆ kñrd xñrid-am.18
I book-iÇ-*(om) that Ali suggestion ˆ do.past.3sg buy.past-1sg
`I bought the book that Ali suggested.'
While uniting indefinite and relative uses of ±i is highly desirable in the
interests of elegance and simplicity, this seems to lead to the view that the
same morpheme can function both as an indefinite marker under Q0 and
as a definite determiner under D0 (cf. Karimi 2001). It remains to be seen
whether such a seemingly contradictory view can be maintained.

5. The Syntax of plural and indefinite morphemes in Persian and English

In section 3 I showed that plural marking is not possible on bare nouns in

Persian nor on nouns appearing with numerals unless, in both cases, the
resulting noun phrase is definite. I also showed that plural marking can
cooccur with the indefinite enclitic. In section 4 I argued that the
indefinite enclitic is a quantitative rather than cardinal indefinite and
heads a QP. Before proceeding I would like to clarify the relationship
between DP and QP.
An advantage to using QP as the name of the projection that ±i in
Persian heads is that it allows DP to remain the domain of the definite
determiner (and possibly demonstratives) only. However, proposing that
there are two distinct projections, DP and QP, does not entail that the two
can cooccur. In English, for example, it is impossible for noun phrases to
contain both the and any/some/no. There is unfortunately a trade off
between using labels for projections that more accurately reflect the
functions of their heads and being able to capture cooccurrence
restrictions. It is easy to explain why *the any books never occurs if the
and any both head a DP. However, if anything that is in complementary
distribution with the appears under D0, we erode this label of its associa-
tion with definiteness. As in many other `regions' of a syntactic tree (the
complementizer zone, the tense zone) we need both specialized syntactic
projections that reflect the function of the elements they contain as well as
a notion that a number of different projections may be mutually incom-
patible with each other ± forming a cluster, so to speak, from which only
one can be chosen. I will use D/QP as a makeshift label for that zone of the
noun phrase where non-cooccuring determiners and quantifiers occur.
Given the necessity of keeping numerals distinct from number (singular
vs. plural marking), at least for Persian, I will treat them as heading a
Cardinality Phrase (CardP). The findings in this paper so far for Persian
can now be schematized as follows:
18
I thank an anonymous reviewer for providing this example.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 67

(56) a. *[npN-pl] b. *[cardp [npN-pl ] ]

c. [dp [npN-pl]édef] d. [qp [npN-pl]-i]
(57) Constraint on Plural Marking in Persian
Plural marking on nouns in Persian is licensed only if those nouns
are contained within D/QPs.
Turning now to English, there have been many proposals that the
indefinite article is not a determiner (D) but a marker of agreement or
cardinality, despite the fact that it cannot cooccur with the definite
determiner (cf. Valois 1991, Stroik 1994, Muromatsu 1995, R. Campbell
1996, Lyons 1999, and Vangsnes 2001). In section 2.2 I adopted the view
that plural marking, the indefinite article a, and the mass interpretation
for bare nouns are all found within a NumP projection. Again, keeping
numerals distinct from number (singular vs. plural) marking, I propose
that a noun phrase like the three books has the following structure:19
(58) [dpthe [cardpthree [nump [npbook]s] ] ]
If we now compare English and Persian a generalization emerges. In
English the fact that predicate nominals must be bare plurals or indefinite
singulars suggests that predicates must be NumPs. Moreover, the fact that
bare singular nouns receive a mass interpretation in argument positions
suggests that they too are NumPs. In other words, English requires noun
phrases in argument or predicate position to minimally be NumPs.20 In
Persian, on the other hand, the absence of a NumP projection means that
bare singular nouns (NPs) can be used as predicates and may appear in
argument positions without a mass interpretation.
In the next section I turn to a different use of the plural marker which is
ultimately compatible with the analysis I have outlined so far.

6. The colloquial definiteness marker

We have seen in this paper that there is no definite determiner in
formal Persian. In colloquial speech, however, there is a stressed suffix
19
Again this kind of articulated structure creates a problem for capturing cooccurence
restrictions. For example, the and a cannot cooccur in English but the and one can (e.g. the
one car). If this is due to the fact that one is actually in CardP, then why do one and a not
cooccur? One possible answer is that a is a phonologically weak form that must appear at the
left edge of a noun phrase (Lyons 1999, who cites Perlmutter 1970 as inspiration). It is also
possible that some items are syncretic and instantiate more than one syntactic projection.
The English indefinite article may therefore head a Card/NumP. Again, I leave the details
aside, my main point being that English a belongs in the Card/Num zone while its Persian
counterpart belongs in the D/Q zone.
20
The idea that a syntactic position may host only a particular kind of constituent is not
surprising. That there may be language-particular requirements is perhaps slightly more so,
though evidence for this can be found. For instance, Davies & Dubinsky (2001) propose that
in English all subjects must be DPs, thus CP, PP, and AP constituents must all be contained
within a DP-shell when they appear as subjects. Davies & Dubinsky not only show how this
claim is supported in English but show also that it does not hold in all languages.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

68 Jila Ghomeshi

±e (±ñ non-word-finally) that marks definiteness. This suffix appears on

nouns in any syntactic position:
(59) a. doxtñr-e amñd.
girl-def come.past.3sg
`The girl came.'
b. ketab-o be doxtñr-e dad-ñm.
book-om to girl-def give.past-1sg
`I gave the book to the girl.'
c. doxtñr-ñ-ro did-ñm.
girl-def-om see.past-1sg
`I saw the girl.'
This marker has a number of distinctive properties, as discussed by
Samiian (1983:99±101), on whose work my discussion here is based.
First, the definiteness marker cannot attach to anything already of
category D. This includes proper names, pronouns, and noun phrases
containing possessors:
(60) a. *hñsñn-ñ-ro did-ñm.
Hasan-def-om see.past-1sg
*`I saw the Hasan.'
b. *un-ñ-ro xñrid-ñm.
that-def-om buy.past-1sg
*`I bought the that.'
c. *[dp ketab-e zÏian]-ñ-ro xñrid-ñm.
book-ez Jian-def-om buy.past-1sg
*`I bought the Jian's book.'
The definiteness marker cannot cooccur with the indefinite enclitic ±i,
even in its function as a marker of nouns modified by restrictive relative
clauses:
(61) a. *ketab-ñ-i xñrid-ñm.
book-def-ind buy.past-1sg
*`I bought the a book.'
b. ketab(*-ñ)-i ke xunde bud-ñm-o xñrid-ñm.
book-def-ind that read.pastpart be.past-1sg-om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the book that I had read.'
Most of the facts presented so far hold also of the definite determiner in
English. However, the major difference between the two is that the
Persian definiteness marker can only attach to unmodified common
nouns. For instance, in the following example the direct object ketab
`book' is modified by an adjective to which it is linked by the Ezafe vowel.
This vowel, which by unfortunate coincidence also happens to be ±e, links
nouns with their modifiers (Ghomeshi 1997a). The definiteness marker
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 69

can appear neither on the head noun nor at the end of the noun phrase
that contains modifiers:
(62) a. ketab-e bozorg-o xñrid-ñm.
book-ez big-om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the big book.'
b. *ketab-ñ-ye bozorg-o xñrid-ñm.
book-def-ez big-om buy.past-1sg
c. *ketab-e bozorg-ñ-ro xñrid-ñm.
book-ez big-def-om buy.past-1sg
One exception to the generalization that only unmodified nouns partici-
pate in this construction is if the noun and following adjective form a
compound. That is, (62c) above is possible if no Ezafe vowel intervenes
and the main stress on the [N Adj] sequence falls on the suffix, as shown
in (63a).21 (Stress is indicated in capitals) (62a) is repeated as (63b) to
show that in the `normal' case, stress falls on the last syllable of the
adjective:

(63) a. [ketab bozorg]-á-ro xñrid-ñm.

book big-def-om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the big book.'
b. ketab-e bozOrg-o xñrid-ñm.
book-ez big-om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the big book.'
The difference in meaning between (63a) and (63b) is discourse-related,
having to do with how well established the big book is in the context. The
construction in (63a) is anaphoric in the sense of pointing back to
something already discussed.
The possibility of dropping the Ezafe vowel and converting a [N Adj]
string into a compound does not extend beyond one modifying adjective.
That is, if there are two adjectives following the head noun it is not
possible to drop the Ezafe vowels and add the definite marker:
(64) ketab-e bozorg-e inglisi-ro xñrid-ñm.
book-ez big-ez English-om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the big English book.'
(65) *[ketab bozorg inglisi]-á-ro xñrid-ñm.
book big English-def-om buy.past-1sg
In light of the facts above, I propose that the definiteness suffix ±e in

21
Samiian (1983) proposes a restructuring rule that converts an [N AP] string into a
complex noun that appears under an N0-node. I am adopting her insight that such strings
are compounds and are generated under N0.

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

70 Jila Ghomeshi

Persian takes as its input something of category N0 and turns it into

something of category D0 ± akin to a pronoun or proper name:
(66) [N0 ‡ edef] ! D0
Let us now consider what happens with plural nouns, starting with
nouns modified by an adjective. We have seen that in this construction the
Ezafe vowel is dropped, the stress pattern changes, and a definiteness
marker appears on the adjective. The only difference between singular
and plural nouns is that with the latter the plural marker itself is used
instead of ±e:
(67) a. [ketab-a-ye bozOrg]-o xñrid-ñm.
book-pl-ez big -om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the big books.'
b. [ketab bozorg]-A-ro xñrid-ñm.
book big-pl-om buy.past-1sg
`I bought the big books.'
The difference between (67a) and (67b) can be schematized as follows,
where in (68a) the [N Adj] is the complement of an empty definite
determiner while in (68b) it is itself under D0:
(68) a. [kp [dp [np ketab-a-ye bozOrg]édef]-o ]
book-pl-ez big -om
`the big books'
b. [kp [dp [d ketab bozorg-a] ]-ro]
book big-pl -om
`the big books'
This analysis predicts that the [N Adj] string in (68a), being an NP, can
cooccur with the indefinite enclitic, while the string in (68b), being a D0, will
not. (Recall that other D-elements such as pronouns and proper names do
not cooccur with the indefinite enclitic.) This prediction is borne out:
(69) a. [ketab-ha-ye ÅÏjaleb]-i
book-pl-ez interesting-ind
`some interesting books' [Samiian 1983:99.60]
b. *[ketab ÅÏjaleb]-ha-i
book interesting-pl-ind [Samiian 1983:100.61]
One consequence of the discussion in this section is that unmodified
plural nouns are compatible with two possible structures. They may either
be the complements to an empty definite determiner or be under the
D0-node themselves:
(70) a. [kp [dp [np ketab-a]édef]-ro] b. [kp [dp [d ketab-a] ]-ro]
book-pl -om book-pl -om
`the books' `the books'
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 71

Earlier in this article I claimed that plural marking is connected to the

D/Q layer within Persian noun phrases. Data in this section supports that
view by showing a different but compatible use of the plural marker. The
plural marker must either be licensed by appearing on a noun contained
within a D/QP, or, as the plural counterpart to definiteness marker ±e,
can turn common nouns of category N0 into definite nouns of category
D0.22

7. Conclusion

In this article I have made several claims. First I have argued that Persian
differs from English in that it lacks a NumP projection:
(71)

Second, I have claimed that noun phrases in argument positions in

English must minimally be NumPs while Persian allows bare NPs in
argument positions. These two claims taken together explain why bare
singular count nouns receive a mass reading in English but not in Persian:
Persian English
(72) a. [np sñg] did-ñm. b. I saw [NumP mass dog].
dog see.past-1sg
`I saw dogs.'
Third, I have shown evidence for the idea that the English indefinite
article appears within the Card/Num zone and is thus incompatible with
number marking, while the Persian indefinite article appears within the
D/Q zone:
22
It is only the default plural marker ±ha that is used in this way to turn common nouns
into definite nouns. Irregular plurals (of which there are many) do not participate in this
construction:
a. [doxtñr-an-e xosÏgel] bazi mi-kñrd-ñn.
girl-pl-ez pretty play dur-do.past-3pl
`The pretty girls were playing.'
b. * [doxtñr xosÏgel]-an bazi mi-kñrd-ñn.
girl pretty-pl play dur-do.past-3pl
c. [doxtñr xosÏgel]-a bazi mi-kñrd-ñn.
girl pretty-pl play dur-do.past-3pl
`The pretty girls were playing.'

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.

72 Jila Ghomeshi

Persian English
(73) a. [qp [np sñg-a]-i] did-ñm. b. *I saw [NumP a dogs].
dog-pl-ind see.past-1sg
`I saw some/certain dogs.'
Finally, I have argued that plural marking in Persian is licensed only on
noun phrases contained within D/QPs. This proposal accounts for the
fact that plural nouns are construed as definite unless an overt marker of
indefiniteness appears. What unites these claims is the view that the
interpretation of noun phrases is determined by the amount of syntactic
structure that is present and that comparable morphemes across
languages may correspond to this syntactic structure in different ways.
I would like to end this article with a quote showing that the general-
ization about plural marking I have put forth is not my own and has been
around for at least two centuries:
An interesting and insightful discussion of what nowadays is called
genericity was made by the Persian Ibrahim in his manual of 1841, written
for the East India Company's students in Haileybury, England. [ . . . ] The
bulk of his grammar is contained in eight dialogues between a Persian and
an open-minded Persian-speaking Englishman in Iran. In one of the
dialogues the Englishman uses the plural in the phrase: /vaxti ke asb-ha
amade and, soma ma-ra xabar konid/ ``When the horses are ready give me
notice.'' Politely, the Persian explains at length that a /lafz-e mofrad/ a single
word [i.e. the singular ± JG] does not always denote a unit. ``But don't we
need two horses?'' ``Yes,'' replied the Persian, now returning to English for
a lengthy discussion: ``But we didn't talk about specific horses, nor had we
talked earlier about certain horses to which that expression could have
referred; we just wanted to ride out on a horse''. [Windfuhr 1994:11]

References
Abney, S. P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD
dissertation, MIT.
Browne, W. 1970. More on definiteness markers: Interrogatives in Persian.
Lingustic Inquiry 1, 359±363.
Bunt, C. H. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretical semantics. Cambridge Studies
in Linguistics 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, R. 1996. One(s): The lonely number. Proceedings of NELS 26, ed.
K. Kusumoto, 43±55. University of Massachusetts: GLSA.
Campbell, J. 1998. The power of myth. Translated into Persian by Abbas
Mokhber. Tehran: NñsÏre mñrkñz.
Cheng, L. L. & Sybesma, R. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure
of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 509±542.
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language
Semantics 6, 339±405.
Cresti, D. 1995. Indefinite topics. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 1992. On the (in)dependence of syntax and pragmatics:
Evidence from the post-position ±raÅ in Persian. Cooperating with written texts,
ed. D. Stein, 549±573. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
 Plural marking, indefiniteness and the NP 73

Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. 2001. Functional architecture and the distribution

of subject properties. Objects and other subjects, eds. W. D. Davies &
S. Dubinksy, 247±279. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
DeÂchaine, R.-M. & Wiltschko, M. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic
Inquiry 33, 409±442.
Dik, S. 1980. Studies in functional grammar. London: Academic Press.
Fodor, J. A. & Sag, I. A. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites.
Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355±398.
Ghomeshi, J. 1996. Projection and inflection: A study of Persian phrase structure.
PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
Ghomeshi, J. 1997a. Non-projecting nouns and the Ezafe construction in Persian.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 729±788.
Ghomeshi, J. 1997b. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua 102, 133±167.
Gillon, B. 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass
nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 597±639.
GivoÂn, T. 1981. Logic vs. pragmatics, with natural language as the referee.
Journal of Pragmatics 6, 81±133.
GivoÂn, T. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories
``noun'' and ``verb''. Iconicity in Syntax, ed. John Haiman, 151±183.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2000. On the derivationality of some inflectional affixes in
Persian. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of
America, Chicago, January 8, 2000.
Karimi, S. 1990. Obliqueness, specificity and discourse functions: Ra in Persian.
Linguistic Analysis 20, 139±191.
Karimi, S. 1996. Case and specificity: Persian ra revisited. Linguistic Analysis 26,
173±194.
Karimi, S. 2001. Persian complex DPs: How mysterious are they? Canadian
Journal of Linguistics 46, 63±96.
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G., Gregory, N., ter Meulen, A.,
Chierchia, G. & Link, G. 1995. Genericity: An Introduction. The generic
book, eds. G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier, 1±124. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lazard, G. 1957. Grammaire du Persan contemporain. Paris: Klinksieck.
Lazard, G. 1992. A grammar of contemporary Persian. English translation. Costa
Meca, CA: Mazda Publishers.
Liberman, M. & Sproat, R. 1992. The stress and structure of modified noun
phrases in English. Lexical matters, eds. I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi, 131±181.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25,
609±665.
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahootian, S. 1997. Persian. New York: Routledge.
Muromatsu, K. 1995. The classifier as a primitive: Individuation, referability and
argumenthood. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 3,
144±180.
# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.
74 Jila Ghomeshi

Pelletier, F. J. 1975. Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5,

451±465.
Pelletier, F. J. 1991. Mass terms. Handbook of metaphysics and ontology, Vol. 2,
eds. H. Burkhardt & B. Smith, 495±499. Munich: Philosophia.
Phillott, D. C. 1919. Higher Persian grammar. Calcutta: Calcutta University.
Ritter, E. 1991. Two Functional Categories in Modern Hebrew Noun Phrases.
Syntax and Semantics 25, Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing,
ed. S. Rothstein, 37±60. New York: Academic Press.
Samiian, V. 1983. Structure of phrasal categories in Persian, an X-bar analysis.
PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Stowell, T. 1989. Subjects, specifiers, and X-bar theory. Alternative conceptions
of phrase structure, eds. M. R. Baltin & A. S. Kroch, 232±262. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Stroik, T. S. 1994. Saturation, predication, and the DP hypothesis. Linguistic
Analysis 24, 39±61.
Szabolcsi, A. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. Approaches to
Hungarian 2, ed. I. Kenesei, 167±190. Szeged: JATE.
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. Syntax and Semantics 27: The syntactic
structure of Hungarian, eds. F. Kiefer & K. Kiss, 179±274. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Thackston, Jr., W. J. 1983. An Introduction to Persian. Cambridge, MA:
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University.
Valois, D. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Vangsnes, é. A. 2001. On noun phrase architecture, referentiality, and article
systems. Studia Linguistica 55, 249±299.
Windfuhr, G. L. 1979. Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The
Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Windfuhr, G. L. 1994. Notes on motivations in the study of Persian.
Persian studies in North America, ed. M. Marashi, 1±16. Bethesda, Maryland:
Iranbooks.
Received September 2, 2002 Jila Ghomeshi
Accepted January 12, 2003 Linguistics Department
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3T 5V5
ghomeshi@cc.umanitoba.ca

# The Editorial Board of Studia Linguistica 2003.