Document Type : Research Paper


Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.


The present article mainly aims to investigate the process through which relative clauses appear postverbally and distant from the noun they modify. To do so, relative clauses are first classified into two categories of Restrictive (RRC) and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses (NRRC). The article focuses only on the RRCs given the vastness of the research area. Adopting a non-movement analysis for postverbal RRCs within Minimalism, arguments coming from Quantifier Raising and Adjunct Merger are presented to support the hypothesis that RRCs are adjoined to a copy of the NP they modify after the latter adjoins to a functional projection in the left periphery to host the RRC. Furthermore, it is proposed that the head of the aforementioned fumctional projection may come from the lexicon with an optional strong D feature ([uD*]) that triggers the movement of the copy of the source NP. As such, assuming that we have verb movement in Persian and that complement clauses in this language move to their surface position within TP to check a clause type feature, the postverbal RRCs are predicted to follow complement clauses to give the right relative order of the two postverbal clauses, a prediction that is borne out. Finally, the restriction on the presence of only one RRC postverbally is scrutinized in addition to the compulsory postverbal appearance of RRCs in certain structures.


Main Subjects

Anusheh, M. 2009. A criticism on VP Shell Analysis in Persian, language and linguistics. 5 (9). [In Persian]
Baltin, M. R. 1981. Baker, CL & J. McCarthy (eds.), the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition: MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Baltin, M. 2006. Extraposition. The Blackwell companion to syntax, 237-271.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. 1999. The grammar book    (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle 8c Heinle.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology: University of Chicago Press.
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 1982. Syntax and semantics of causitive constructions in Persian. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Darzi, A. 1996. Word order, NP movements, and opacity conditions in Persian: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Darzi, A. & Anusheh, M. 2010. Main verb movemment in Persian: a minimalist approach, researches in language, 2 (3). [In Persian]
Fiengo, Robert and James Higginbotham (1980). Opacity in NP  Linguistic Analysis, 7, 395-421.
Fox, D. and Nissenbaum, J., 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on formal linguistics (Vol. 18, No. 2, 132-144).
Karimi, S. 2001. Persian complex DPs: How mysterious are they? Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 46(1-2), 63-96.
Karimi, S. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian: De Gruyter Mouton
Mahmudi, S. 2013. A syntactic investigation of relative and complement clauses in Persian. Ph.D thesis. Faculty of literature. Allameh Tabatabie University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Mahmudi, S. 2015. A syntactic investigation of  relative clauses in Persian: relative clause movement. language related research, 6 (3). [In Persian]
Overfelt, J. 2015. Extraposition of NPIs from NP. Lingua, 164, 25-44.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax (Ph. D. thesis): MIT Cambridge, MA.