On the CP Analysis of Persian Finite Control Constructions

Darzi (2008), with a critical look at Ghomeshi’s (2001) arguments for the vP analysis of Persian subject control constructions, suggests that these constructions involve an embedded CP projection headed by the complementizer ke ‘that’. This can be represented as in (1).

1. (1). [_TP subject_i [_VP control verb [_CP (ke) [_TP PRO_i [_{VPsubjunctive}. . . ]]]]]

After a short summary of Cinque’s (1999, 2004) hierarchy of adverbial specifiers and clausal functional heads, which is the diagnostic tool here, the present squib takes up the following three objectives:

• • Objective 1: To provide evidence from temporal adverbs to show that the complement to control predicates in Persian is a constituent larger than vP—namely, a TP.

• • Objective 2: To question the CP analysis of Persian control constructions on the basis of evidence from the distribution of speaker-oriented adverbs.

• • Objective 3: To show that the complement to Persian control predicates is a defective CP that lacks value(s) on mood and modal projections.

1 Control Complements in Persian: A Warm-Up

Following Wurmbrand (1998) and Landau (1999), Ghomeshi (2001) builds up some arguments to show that the embedded clause in Persian control constructions lacks CP and TP projections and that the syntactic category of the complement in these constructions is vP. This section reviews Ghomeshi’s (2001) lack-of-tense-clash argument and Darzi’s (2008) counterevidence for that.¹

Ghomeshi (2001:25–26) observes that unlike in noncontrol constructions (as in (2a)), conflicting temporal modifiers are not possible between the matrix and the embedded clause in Persian control constructions (as in (2b)). This observation leads her to conclude that control complements in Persian are untensed.²

1. (2).

   1. a.

      bizæn diruz      goft      (ke)      færdaBijan yesterday say.pst.3sg (that) tomorrowmi-r-e dur-go-3sg‘Bijan said yesterday he’d go tomorrow.’

      (Ghomeshi 2001:26, (39f))

   2. b.

      *bizæn diruz      mi-tunest      (ke) færdaBijan yesterday dur-can.pst.3sg (that) tomorrowbe-r-esbj-go-3sg‘*Bijan could yesterday go tomorrow.’

      (Ghomeshi 2001:26, (39a))

Darzi (2008:110) provides two pieces of evidence that run counter to Ghomeshi’s (2001) argument. First, he reiterates Taleghani’s (2006) counterexample to Ghomeshi’s analysis. This is shown in (3), where the control verb tæsmim gereftæn ‘to decide’ allows tense clash.

1. (3).

   sara diruz      tæsmim = gereft      (ke) færdaSara yesterday decision = take.pst.3sg (that) tomorrowbe-r-esbj-go-3sg‘Sara decided yesterday to go tomorrow.’

   (Taleghani 2006:114, (51b))

Second, Darzi (2008:110) shows that tense clash may render a complex sentence ungrammatical even in noncontrol constructions, as exemplified in (4).

1. (4).

   *?u      diruz      mane? = ∫o-d      ke mænshe/he yesterday prevention = become-pst.3sg that Ifærda      be-r-æm xunetomorrow sbj-go-1sg home‘*She/He prevented me yesterday from going home tomorrow.’

   (Darzi 2008:110, (18b))

Section 3 provides another argument to show that contrary to Ghomeshi’s (2001) claim, control complements in Persian are not untensed.

2 A Brief Summary of Cinque 1999, 2004

Contra the adjunction approach to adverbial syntax, Cinque (1999, 2004) puts forward the ‘‘location-in-specifier’’ hypothesis whereby adverb phrases (AdvPs) are the overt manifestations of the specifiers (Specs) of distinct functional projections (FPs) and not accessory appendices to the clause structure (i.e., adjuncts). His main evidence for considering AdvPs as integral parts of FPs comes from the crosslinguistic observation that there is a systematic one-to-one mapping between AdvPs and the clausal functional heads to which they are associated. Cinque (1999:106), then, proposes a rich universal hierarchy of FPs from VP up to CP. (5) presents the part of this hierarchy to be employed in this squib.

1. (5). Cinque’s hierarchy (irrelevant projections omitted) [fortunately Mood_evaluative [probably Mod(al)_epistemic [then T [always Asp

Each adverb-related FP in this hierarchy comes with two values: an ‘‘unmarked’’ (or ‘‘default’’) value and a ‘‘marked’’ one. Regarding the epistemic modal head, for instance, the commitment of the speaker to the...