---

 “Verbal versus adjectival” dichotomy of passive structures has occurred in studies based on approaches believing two generative component in the grammar, i.e. syntax and lexicon. Distributed morphology (DM) (Halle & Marantz, 1993), a non-lexicalist approach to morphology, takes the theoretical position that there is only one generative component in the Grammar, the syntax, and claims that all derivation of complex objects is syntactic. This descriptive-analytic article is aimed to study the so-called passive structures and the participles used in them, in Persian within the framework of DM, from the perspective of syntax-semantics interface, focusing on Embick (2004). The article tries to answer the following two questions:
 a. How can we, based on DM, give a unified analysis of passive     structures in Persian and so end the arguments among linguists regarding the existence of passive in Persian.
 b. What syntactic features within DM, are responsible for some Persian participles having different interpretations (eventive and resultative).
Regarding the first question, it is predicted that, since Persian verbal and adjectival passives are all complex objects, their derivations, based on the present approach occur in syntax. Regarding the second question, it is hypothesized that, since some Persian participles such as godɑxte, bæste and ɑrɑste, in “participle + ʃodæn” structures in passive structures, have different interpretations, there is another kind of participle (resultative) in Persian.
After analyzing the data, it is argued that since Persian verbal and adjectival passives are all complex objects, their derivation, based on the present approach and contrary to previous studies, occur in syntax and their distinction is attributed to the position at which aspect head is merged (above or under v). In other words in verbal (eventive) passives the aspect head is merged above “v head”, while in simple adjectival passives it is merged under “v head”.
Also based on linguistic and interpretive evidences, findings showed that some participles (godɑxte, bæste and ɑrɑste) in “participle + ʃodæn” structures are interpreted as both event and resultative. So another kind of participle (resultative), in Persian will be introduced and its unique syntactic features in DM framework will be specified. The significant syntactic difference between the eventive and resultative passives is first attributed to the feature [AG] which is present in eventive passive and missing in resultative ones, and second to the different uses of “ʃodæn” : as auxiliary in verbal passives and copula or BECOME-operator (Embick, 2004) in resultative passives.
 
Keywords: Distributed morphology; Underspecification; Lexicalist participle. 
 

---

The present investigation has been tried to study participles in the structure of the Russian sentences, the current translations and although it has been provided approaches for accurate matching this category of the grammatical area in the Persian Language.  In this study, the constructive method, analysis of examples and translations have been used. Regarding examining the hypothesis that the syntactic role of participles of the Russian language could be effective for correct interpreting of this case in the Persian language, 90 sentences including participles have randomly selected from novels interpreted from Russian into Persian. For instance; Home of the Gentry by Turgenev, War, and Peace by Leo Tolstoy and The Government Inspector by Nikolai Gogol were picked and the procedure of the translating was assessed, finally, the equivalents considered for the participles were examined. The principal hypothesis for the research is: could the participle, as a unit of translation in the Russian text, find a suitable equivalent among the linguistic units of the Persian language? Whether the provided translations reflect the exact meaning of the adjective verbs in the Russian language? What is the solution? The history of linguistic research in the field of the Russian language proves that the question of the lexical and grammatical characteristics of participles was very controversial. The existence or absence of this grammatical category in Persian also raises many questions, and a lot of research has been done in these areas. Despite the research done, there are still many problems in this area. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that for the first time it considers the Russian participle a translation unit when translated from Russian into Persian. Taking into account the basic rules include translating from Russian into Persian, further we will check the correctness of the hypothesis and proposals of our research. Some scholars believe that each of the morphological and syntactic structures used in the original language is an individual style of the author, and if we intend to make an original and correct translation, we must preserve the morphological and syntactic structure of the original text. In this study, it is assumed that the participle in Russian can be considered a unit of translation into Persian, and the translator can take into account the syntactic role of the participle in the sentence and choose a logical approach for its accurate translation. Based on the basic needs of translation, the following suggestions are provided for translating Russian language participles into Persian:

1. If we have the participial constructions in a Russian sentence, to translate it into Persian we must use an explanatory dependent sentence with the conjunction "که";
2. If a participle precedes a noun and serves a descriptive role, it must be translated using the adjective or adjectival phrases or the adjectives formed based on verbs;
3. In order to translate the substantive participles of the Russian language into Persian, we must use Persian nouns.
4. In order to translate a participle that has a propositional role, we must use a conjugated Persian verb.

Of the 90 examples reviewed, translation of 46 sentences matched the hypothesis of our study; however, in the translation of 44 cases, either the participle was not translated at all, or there was no exact equivalent for it, or words that do not exist in the original text were used to convey the meaning of the participle. Consideration of the research hypothesis showed that in the examples there are cases when their translation corresponded to the research hypothesis, and cases when the proposed rule was not used to translate them. We considered these cases and the possibility of correcting them using the hypothesis of our research. For example this Russian sentence   «Это топор, зажаренный вместо говядины» is passive, but for it translation in Persian was used active sentence »  «به¬جای گوشت گاو، تبر پخته¬اید (بازرس). Because of this, the structure and atmosphere of the Russian and Persian sentences are different. The proposed translation, corresponding to the hypothesis of our research, is as follows: «این تبری است که به­جای گوشت گاو، سرخ شده». Obviously, using these two sentences in conversational situations will have different consequences for listeners. Whereas the translation should be provoked a reaction similar to the original text. In this Russian sentence:  
«Без сомнения, проезжающий чиновник захочет, прежде всего, осмотреть подведомственные вам богоугодные заведения.» equivalent to the composition «проезжающий чиновник» was choose «مأموری که می­آید» can be replaced by a descriptive combination according to the research hypothesis «مأمور در حال عبور». We will have:
 «بدون شک، مأمور در حال عبور، قبل از هر چیز تمایل به بازدید از مؤسسات خیریۀ زیر نظر شما را خواهد داشت».
The participle was made of the verb «проезжать», and the concept of passing, which is at the root of the verb, must be reflected in the translation of the participle. An analysis of existing translations and a review of the translatability of examples in accordance with the hypothesis of our study confirms the effectiveness of this hypothesis in choosing equivalents for various types of participles in Russian. The participles of the Russian language can be considered as a unit of translation into Persian.
 By defining the syntactic role of participles and using the hypothesis presented from this study to translate different types of participles, a step can be taken to standardize the translation of participles. In addition, it is possible to use the achievements of this research in machine and electronic translation.

---

Present- and past perfect paradigms are commonly thought of as having the perfect aspect. Examining the concept of tense and aspect along with their definitions, the present study argues that what is often referred to as the perfect aspect in Persian is essentially a temporal concept. Taking into consideration the reference-, event-, and speech points, the study shows that the reference point comes necessarily after the event point in the case of the present- and the past perfect as well as their variants. In other words, this indicates the continuing relevance of a previous situation. Since this concept does not entail the completeness of the event, referring to it as “perfect” would be inaccurate. For this reason, the present study proposes the term the anterior tense as a substitute for the perfect aspect. The authors emphasize the significance of the reference situation in determination of grammatical tenses by referring to the function of temporal adverbs and participles. Participles, as independent words, are present in the structures of deverbal adjectives, perfect verbs, passive verbs, complex predicates, and attributive expressions. In all these functions, the morpheme of “-te/-de” represents the anterior tense. Reexamining the previous approaches, the present study reveals that tense, in addition to representing the reference and speech situations in the form of the trichotomy of present/past/future, represents the reference and event situations as well. In other words, tense of a verb encompasses both the trichotomy of past/present/future and the dichotomy of anterior/non-anterior.


1. Introduction
Tense is a linear notion. Anteriority, synchronicity and posteriority of the event point (E) in relation to the speech point (S) on this line create tense trichotomy (past, present, future). It is quite clear that this division does not account for the difference in many constructions; for example, the distinction between simple past and imperfective past, or the difference between imperfective past and past continuous, or the difference between simple past and quotative past (present perfect). The main question of the current article focuses on the latter distinction. Most linguists have considered the distinction in aspect, and they believe that the quotative past has a perfect aspect.
The current research claims the distinction in Persian cannot be considered an aspectual one and shows that the morphemes that are present in the perfect constructions express a kind of tense concept which we have called anterior tense. Moreover, we will try to identify the trace of these morphemes in deverbal adjectives.

2. Literature Review
It seems that the term quotative past in the meaning we presumed, was first used in Dabestɑn-e Parsi by Habib Esfahani (1906). Evidently, grammarians have studied quotative past and distant past separately and have not noticed their similarity with respect to the so-called perfect aspect. Only Lazard, who adopted a comparative approach in order to explain these constructions, considered distant past to be the past of quotative past (2010: 186). Furthermore, in case of aspect and tense, the past subjunctive is similar to quotative past and their difference is solely in terms of mood. Most grammarians have not studied the two with their relation to each other. But Lazard considered past subjunctive to be the subjunctive of quotative past (2010: 189). Sadeghi & Arzhang (1979), and following them, Haghshenas et al. (2008) have also mentioned this point. Farshidvard (2003: 405) has also pointed it out.
Concerning grammatical aspect in Persian and especially about perfect constructions, the most important studies are Darzi & Jafari (2020) and Veisi Hesar & Sharif (2019). Following Declerck (2006, 2015), Veisi Hesar & Sharif (2019) divide the time axis into two fields of past and present. The present field is itself divided into three zones. Present tense zone refers to the part of present field which corresponds to moment zero (now). Pre-present zone has begun before moment zero and continues to its vicinity. Post-present zone starts just after moment zero. The past zone is situated before the pre-present zone. Past, pre-present, present and post-present zones constitute past tense, present perfect, present, and future, respectively. This view is problematic. Firstly, delimiting the fields is totally vague; e.g. the limits of the pre-present zone are blur and it is unclear what separates it from past tense. Secondly, this analysis cannot provide a consistent analysis of the property shared by the perfect constructions. Based on this analysis, past perfect is a relative tense, while present perfect is an absolute one. Thirdly, in order to answer the question of the difference between present perfect and simple past, these scholars, following Declerck (2006) declare that present perfect is situated in the pre-present zone which is in the vicinity of and in contact with moment zero, while past tense is completely separate from moment zero and thus expresses completeness and temporal distance. Therefore, the difference between these two tenses… can be explained by their proximity or remoteness from moment zero (2019: 19). Nevertheless, In Persian, simple past has a usage which is in stark opposition to this claim. In fact, present perfect cannot be used to refer to an action that is done at the very moment of speaking and simple past is what must be used.

3. Methodology
We examined the most significant achievements in describing the perfect constructions in Persian. In Theoretical Basis, chiefly based on Comrie (1976) and its followers, we considered aspect and its types, and based on Reichenbach (1947) and Hornstein (1993), the role of R in determining tenses was recognized. Then, we studied aspect and its types in Persian and the perfect constructions, and it was shown what the morphemes representing the so-called perfect concept are and how they interact with other morphemes which express tense.

4. Results
Tense is determined based on the position of R, E, and S on timeline. First, the relation between E and R, and then the relation between R and S is determined and the result shows the relative position of these three points to each other. There are specific morphemes in Persian which encode these two relations and their aggregation determines the tense label of a construction. Absence of the past marker morpheme “-t/d” means the simultaneity of S and R (present tense), its presence means R is before S (past tense), and presence of the morpheme “xɑh” (as an auxiliary) signifies S before R (future tense).

Table 1.
 Morphemes Expressing the Relation of S and R

R___S	R & S simultaneous	S___R
+ past affix	- past affix	- past effix + xɑh
Past tense	Present tense	Future tense

In the table, some tenses traditionally labeled as “past” are here considered present. Note that the participle consists of the two morphemes of the stem and “-te/de”. The latter morpheme expresses the relation between R and E. If E is before R, it signifies the anterior tense and if these two points are simultaneous, it expresses the unmarked state for which we use the term non-anterior tense. Note that based on the relation between E and R in Persian, we come to a tense dichotomy: One in which E is before R called anterior, and the other in which E and R are simultaneous and is called non-anterior. Nevertheless, if Persian like English had a special construction for future, i.e. if R could be before E, then we would have a trichotomy: anterior, simultaneous, and posterior.

Table 2.
Morphemes Expressing the Relation between E and R

E___R	E & R simultaneous
+ te/de	- te/de
Anterior tense	Non-anterior tense

Now, we must answer the question why in perfect tense constructions, we considered the morpheme “-te/de” to express the relation between E and R. It seems that this morpheme, irrespective of whether it is used in the verb or not, signifies that E is anterior to R. In fact, adjectives such as “dɑneshɑmuxte” (graduate) signify perfectness, because in their construction, exactly like that of anterior tenses, E is before R. Note that in these adjectives, the relation between R and S, and as a result, the relation between E and S are unclear.
In general, E before R represented by the suffix “-de/te” appears in these constructions: 1. In adjectives such as “dɑneshɑmux-te”, “mor-de”, “gandi-de”, etc.; 2. In the so-called perfect constructions such as quotative past, distant past, quotative past continuous, etc. 3. In passive sentences; 4. In the so-called past participle clauses.
What we said here, clearly shows the incorrectness of claims made by scholars such as Farshidvard (2003: 380), or Hornstein (1993) who consider the auxiliary to signify perfectness. It is clear that the participle, whether used in a verb or outside it, has this meaning. The auxiliary in these constructions includes a morpheme which determines the relations between E and S.
As is shown in table 3, imperfective anterior present, continuous anterior present, and anterior present subjunctive constructions have a tense exactly the same as that of anterior present, since their difference with anterior present is in concepts unrelated to tense, i.e. aspect and mood. The difference between anterior past and anterior present is in the relation between S and R. In any case, double anterior present is slightly different. It is primarily formed as anterior past, i.e. E is located first in relation to an R in past, and then in relation to a secondary R in present. In other words, the E in this construction, in addition to being related to a posterior situation in past (R₁), is still relevant to now (R₂).

Table 3.
Representation of Anterior Tense

	Constructions with Anterior Tense	Example	S & R	E & R	Representation
1	anterior present	rafte am	present	anterior	E__S,R
2	imperfective anterior present	mirafte ast	present	anterior	E__S,R
3	anterior present continuous	dɑshte [ast] mirafte [ast]	present	anterior	E__S,R
4	anterior present subjunctive	rafte bɑshad	present	anterior	E__S,R
5	anterior past	rafte bud	past	anterior	E__R__S
6	double anterior present	rafte bude ast	present	anterior	E__R1__S,R2

5. Conclusion
By considering R next to S and E, we showed how time concepts are grammaticalized in Persian. Contrary to common approaches to tense, the trichotomy of past, present, and future is not determined by the relation between E and S. These tenses are determined by the relative anteriority or posteriority or simultaneity of S and R. Beside this trichotomy, based on the relation between R and E, tenses are divided into two groups of anterior and non-anterior. In most previous views, this notion has been considered a type of aspect and usually labeled as perfect aspect. However, as we elaborated, it cannot be an aspect, since the position of situations on the time axis has nothing to do with aspect which relates to the internal state of an event. Therefore, the common characteristic of all perfect constructions is that R is before E which is grammaticalized in the morpheme “-te/de”. This morpheme is used in participles which are used in verbs such as past perfect and present perfect (and its types), passive verbs, past participle clauses, etc. and in all cases expresses this meaning.