Tripartite-Like Alignment, DSM, and DOM in Tati, Taleshi, and Kurmanji Kurdish: A Typological & Functional Perspective

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

Tripartite alignment, where intransitive subjects (S), transitive agents (A), and objects (O) receive distinct case-marking, is rare. Tati, Taleshi, and Kurmanji Kurdish, though not fully tripartite, exhibit tripartite-like effects in specific contexts, especially in past-tense clauses. These languages also display Differential Subject Marking (DSM) and Differential Object Marking (DOM), resulting in complex case-marking asymmetries. This study examines their alignment systems within a typological and functional framework, highlighting the influence of discourse features like animacy, definiteness, and topicality. Findings show that alignment is dynamic rather than fixed, shaped by both internal pressures and external influence from Persian, Azerbaijani, and Turkish. Through comparison with related Indo-Iranian languages, this research clarifies how morphosyntactic and discourse-pragmatic constraints interact in shaping alignment.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Tripartite-Like Alignment, DSM, and DOM in Tati, Taleshi, and Kurmanji Kurdish: A Typological & Functional Perspective

نویسنده [English]

  • Mahinnaz Mirdehghan Farashah
Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Tripartite alignment, a system where intransitive subjects (S), transitive agents (A), and transitive objects (O) each receive distinct case marking, is rare across the world's languages. While Tati, Taleshi, and Kurmanji Kurdish do not exhibit full tripartite alignment, they display tripartite-like effects under specific syntactic, semantic, and discourse conditions. Additionally, these languages feature Differential Subject Marking (DSM) and Differential Object Marking (DOM), creating complex case-marking asymmetries. This study provides a typological and functional analysis of these patterns, exploring their structural classification, discourse functions, and contact-induced change. By comparative analysis, we examine how these Northwestern Iranian languages fit into broader alignment typologies, the grammatical and semantic factors influencing case-marking, and the role of functional pressures such as animacy, definiteness, and topicality. Findings reveal that alignment in these languages is flexible rather than fixed, challenging traditional linguistic classifications. Case-marking changes reflect both discourse needs and external influences, as Persian, Azerbaijani, and Turkish reshape these systems. This research contributes to our understanding of case-marking asymmetries in Iranian languages, emphasizing the role of discourse factors and language contact in shaping alignment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tripartite-like alignment
  • Differential Subject Marking (DSM)
  • Differential Object Marking (DOM)
  • Case-Marking Variation
  • Alignment Shift
  • Language Contact
  • Northwestern Iranian Languages

مراجع

Aissen, Judith. 2003. “Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (3): 435–483.
Aldai, Gontzal. 2009. “Is Basque an Ergative Language? Alignment Properties of Basque Syntax.” Studies in Language 33 (4): 783–831.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. “Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond.” In Studies in Typology and Diachrony, edited by Winfred Abraham and Josef Bayer, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. “Ergativity.” In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, edited by Winfred P. Lehmann, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
———. 2013. “Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Topics in the Nez Perce Verb. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, Talmy, ed. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haig, Geoffrey L. J. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hale, Kenneth. 1983. “Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-Configurational Languages.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1 (1): 5–47.
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korn, Agnes. 2009. “The Ergative System in Indo-European.” In Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages, edited by Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose, 85–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. “The Structure of Inflection: A Case Study in Basque.” In Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics, edited by José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 21–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. “Autour de la Notion d’Actance: Le Problème de l’Accusatif Dit ‘Partitif’ en Persan.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 87 (1): 263–288.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. “Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44: 1–47.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Matras, Yaron, and Peter Bakker. 2003. The Mixed Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mirdehghan Farashah, Mahinnaz. 2013. “Ergative Case & Agreement Marking: Similarities and Variations in Hindi/Urdu, Pashto and Balochi Languages.” Dialectologia: Revista Electrònica 11: 59–86.
Mirdehghan Farashah, Mahinnaz, and Shirin Mehmanchian. 2012. “The Word Order in Saravi Dialect and Spoken Persian Language: A Typological Comparative Study.” Iranian Studies 45 (3): 371–394.
Mirdehghan Farashah, Mahinnaz, Hadi Barzegar, and Shushan Azatyan. Forthcoming 2025. “Differential Object Marking in Persian: Triggering Differences with Armenian.” In Handbook of Teaching and Learning Persian as a Second Language, edited by Hamid Saeli. Singapore: Springer.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity.” In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, edited by R. M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Stilo, Donald. 2004. “Case in Iranian: From Reduction and Loss to Innovation and Renewal.” In Morphology and Typology: Case and Causative Constructions in Language Change, edited by Frans Plank, 157–192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
———. 2015. “Iranian as a Linguistic Area.” In Iranian Languages: An Overview, edited by C. G. Daneshgar and P. Sakhan, 23–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
نقد زبان و ادبیات خارجی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 03 خرداد 1404

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار