An Investigation of Ergative Construction in Targhy Accent of Rajy Dialect from Distributed Morphology Viewpoint

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Linguistics Department, University of Tehran. Iran, Tehran

2 Ph.D. in Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University. Iran, Tehran

Abstract

Ergative construction (EC) as a subtle characteristic of Iranian languages and dialects has massively fostered a large body of research in the literature over previous decades. In this regard, the current study focuses on the morphotactics of the verb construction and the manner through which ergative alignment is formed in Targhy accent of Rajy dialect of which description and explanation of language behavior in the area in question have been entirely overlooked from distributed morphology (DM) viewpoint. Generally speaking, EC, according to Karimi’s (2012a) generalization, in all Iranian and dialects can be classified into two categories. In the first group including North Kurdish and Baluchi, there is an agreement relation between the direct object and the T head represented by a verbal agreement (VA) at the end of the verb. In his proposal, in the EC of the second class including Central Kurdish and Larestani, which based on the current article, Traghy is of their pattern as well, however, there is no agreement in that oblique pronominal clitics (PCLs), which enter as a big DP form in the syntactic derivation, function as interveners, blocking any conceivable agreement between T head and a direct object altogether. Plus, there exists a complementary distribution between Vas and oblique PCLs, Karimi (ibid) says. He asserts, without any agreement relation with T, oblique PCLs just double φ-features of the subject, and the PCLs function as a repair strategy in response to the loss of oblique (here ERG) case marker, whereas EC still exists dynamically. Nonetheless, this article, based on both empirical and theoretical evidence, argues that contra to Karimi’s (2012a) generalization it seems fair to suggest at least in EC of Targhy, which in turn bears the pattern of the second category, there is a genuinely fullfledged agreement in place, while agreement exponents, be it VAs or agreement clitics (ACLs) have no complementary distribution with their oblique PCL counterparts whatsoever.

Keywords

References

  1. Akkuş, F. (2019). On Iranian Case and Agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (NLLT). 1-57.
  2. Anushe, M. (2018). Serial Verb Construction in Persian: a Minimalist Approach. Researches in Linguistics. 11(1), 33-48 [In Persian].
  3. Anushe, M. (2019). A Revision of Persian Past Tense Inflection: A Distributed ‎Morphology Approach. Language Related Research, 9(1), 57-80. [In Persian].
  4. Anushe, M., and Sharifi, G. (2019). Split little vP in Persian. Studies of Language and the Dialects of the Western Iran. 7(24), 33-48 [In Persian].
  5. Arregi, K., and Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. New York/ London: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg.
  6. Asghary Targhy, M. (2019). Verb Inflection System in Targhy Accent of Rajy Dialect. Journal of Iranian Regional Language and Literature. 1, 1-28 [In Persian].
  7. Atlamaz, Ü. and Baker, M. (2018). On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case. Syntax. 21, 195–237. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12155.
  8. Baker, M.  (2015). Case, It’s Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Baker, M. and Stewart, O. T. (2001). A Serial Verb Construction Withoutconstructions. Unpublished Manuscripts. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.
  11. Bobaljik, J. D. (1993). On Ergativity and Ergative Unergatives. In C. Philips (ed.), Papers on Case and Agreement II. [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19] (pp. 45-88). Cambridge: MITWPI, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
  12. Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In K. Hale and S. Jay Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp.1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  13. Chomsky, N. (1995). Categories and Transformations. In N. Chomsky (ed.), The Minimalist Program. vol 4: 219-394. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.
  14. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In M. Roger, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007.
  15. Creissels, D. (2001). A typology of subject marker and object marker in African languages. Paper presented at International Symposium: Typology of African Languages, May 21-24. Köln, Universität zu Köln.
  16. Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2013). Typology of Iranian Languages. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
  17. Darzi, A. (1996). Word Order, NP Movement and Opacity Condition in Persian. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Illinois, urbana, USA.
  18. Darzi, A. and M. Anushe (2010). The Main Verb Movement in Persian: A Minimalist Approach. Journal of Language Research. 2 (3), 21-55 [In Persian].
  19. Darzi, A. and S. Kwak (2015). Syntax and Semantics of Subjunctive Clauses in Persian. Lingua 153 (1), 1-13.
  20. Esma’ili, M. (2011). Treasure of Iranian Dialects (Esfahan Province): Dialects: Tarqi, Tari, Keshei, Tamei, Natanzi, Tekkiyei. Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and Literature [In Persian].
  21. Fernández-Salgueiro, G. (2008). The Case-F Valuation Parameter in Romance. In Th. Biberauer (Ed.). The Limits of Syntactic Variation (Linguistics Today 132). (pp. 295-310). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  22. Fernández-Salgueiro, G. (2011). Against “Pure” EPP Checking: Evidence from Further-Raising. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 9. 1, 123-131.
  23. Haig, G. (2002). Noun-Plus-Verb Complex Predicates in Kurmanji Kurdish: Argumentsharing, Argument Incorporation, or what?. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF). 55 (1), 15-48.
  24. Haig, G. (2008). Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton.
  25. Haig, G. (2017). The Locus of Ergative Case. In: The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. J. Coon, D. Massam and L. deMena Travis (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Hiraiwa, K. (2001). Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. MIT Working in Linguistics. 40, 67-80.
  27. Hopper, P., and Traugott, E. (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Hosseyni-ye Malayeri, E. (2012). The Explanation of Phonological System of Targhy .In Dehgi (Ed.), The First International Conference of Iranian Languages and Dialects: Past and Present (pp. 194-215). Tehran: The Center for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia (Center for Iranian and Islamic Studies). [In Persian].
  29. Jelinek, E. (1993). Ergative Splits and Argument Type. In J. D. Bobaljik and C. Phillips (Eds.). Papers on Case and Agreement I: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18 (pp. 15-42). Cambridge: MITWPL (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics).
  30. Kalbasi, I. (1988). Ergativity in Iranian Languages and Dialects. Linguistics. 2, 70-87 [In Persian].
  31. Kalin, L. and ‪Ü. Atlamaz (2018). Reanalyzing Indo-Iranian Stems: A Case Study of Adyaman Kurmanji. In F. Akkuş, ˙I. Kerem Bayırlı and D. Özyıldız (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the Languages of Turkey (Tu+1) (pp. 85-99).  USA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.
  32. Karimi, Y. (2004). Ergativity: It's Origin and Nature. Ph.D Dissertation. Allameh Tabataba'i University. Tehran. Iran [In Persian].
  33. Karimi, Y. (2012a). Agreement in Iranian Ergative Languages: The Competition of Affixes and Clitics. Researches in Linguistics. 4 (7), 1-18 [In Persian].
  34. Karimi, Y. (2012b). The Evolution of Ergativity in Iranian Languages. Acta Linguistica Asiatica. 2 (1), 23-44.
  35. Karimi, Y. (2014). On the Syntax of Ergativity in Kurdish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 50(3), 231-271.
  36. Karimi, Y. and M. Hashemi (2012). Ergativity in Dashti. Iranian Journal of Comparative Linguistic Research. 4, 13-36 [In Persian].
  37. Karimi-ye Dustan, Gh. and Z. Naghshbandi (2011). Ergative Constructions in Hawrami. Language Related Research. 6, 73-100 [In Persian].
  38. Kramer, R. (2014). Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(2):593–634.
  39. Legate, J. A.  (2017). The Locus of Ergative Case. In J. Coon, D. Massam and L. deMena Travis (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 138-158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  40. Legate, J. A. (2008). Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry. 39, 55-101.
  41. Legate, J. A. (2014). Split Ergativity Based on Nominal Type. Lingua. 148, 183-212.
  42. Levin, J., and Massam D. (1985). Surface Ergativity: Case/ Theta Relations Re-examined. In S. Berman (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 15 (pp. 286–301). GLSA: University of Massachusetts.
  43. Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  44. Marantz, A. (1991). Case and Licensing. In G. Westphal, B. Ao, and H.-R. Chae (Eds.), ESCOL 91: Proceeding of the Eight Eastern State Conference on Linguistics (pp. 234-253). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications
  45. Moghadam, S. (2016). Split Ergativity in Davani. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  46. Motavalliyan, R. (2017). Further-Raising in Persian. Researches in Linguistics. 2, 1-20 [In Persian].
  47. Muller, J. (1994). Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian (Sm'algyâ̱x). Berkeley: University of California Press.
  48. Nash, L. (2017). The Structural Source of Split Ergativity and Ergative Case in Georgian. In J. Coon, D. Massam and L. deMena Travis (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity (pp. 175-204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 939–971. doi:10.1007/s11049-011-9150-4
  50. Noyer, R. (1988). Impoverishment Theory and Morphosyntactic Markedness. In: S. Lapointe, D. Brentari and P. Farell (Eds.). Morphology and Its Relation to Syntax and Phonology, CSLI (pp. 264-285). California: Stanford Pubications.
  51. Oku, S. (1998). A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective. Storrs. University of Connecticut Doctoral Dissertation.
  52. Polinsky, M. (2016). Deconstructing Ergativity: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features. Oxford: Oxford Publication.
  53. Ra’ispur, R. (2011). The Examination of Derivation and Inflection in Hanjan Accent of Hanjan Raji. M.A Project in Linguistics.  Faculty of Literature and Human Science. Alzahra University. Tehran. Iran [In Persian].
  54. Rasekhmahand, M. (2010). Persian Clitics beside Verbs. Researches in Linguistics, 2 (3), 75-85 [In Persian].
  55. Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and Head Movement Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  56. Safari, H. (1994). Dictionary of Rajy: The Dialect of Delijan. With Preface and Assistance of Fereydun-e Joneydi. Vol 1. [np]: [np]. [In Persian].
  57. Saito, M. (2007). Notes on East-Asian Argument Ellipsis. Language Research. 43, 203-227.
  58. Sato, Y. and S. Karimi (2016). Subject-Object Asymmetries in Persian Argument Ellipsis and the Anti-Agreement Theory. Glossa. 8, 1-31.
  59. Shafai, I. and M. Dabirmoghaddam (2019). A Syntactic Analysis of Ergative Case Marking in Some Iranian Languages: A Minimalist View. Journal of Language Research,31, 77-106 [In Persian].
  60. Sharifi, Sh. and N. Saburi (2018). The Study of Clitic Pronouns in Some Persian Dialects of Razavi and Southern Khorasan. Researches in Linguistics. 2, 1-14 [In Persian].
  61. Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the Word. John Benjamin Publishing Company
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 14, Issue 45
January 2023
Pages 63-97

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics