Linguistic Typology: An Iranian Perspective

Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad

doi:10.22425/jul.2012.13.1.31

J. Univers. Lang. 2012; 13(1):31-70

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2012.13.1.31

Article

Linguistic Typology: An Iranian Perspective

Mohammad Dabir-Moghaddam ¹ ^, ^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Allameh Tabataba’i University

^†Corresponding Author : Mohammad Dabir-Moghaddam, Department of Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Chamran Highway, Pol-e Modiriyat, Allameh Tabataba’i Str., Tehran, IRAN Phone: 982188038013; Email: dabirmoghaddam@yahoo.com

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 18, 2011; Revised: Nov 23, 2011; Accepted: Dec 12, 2011

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

The Iranian languages spoken in Iran reveal a very intriguing typological peculiarity. They all strongly benefit from agreement as a typological parameter. In this paper, I will begin with Comrie (1978) in which he has proposed the five possible language types based on case-marking and verb-agreement and will address the status of several varieties of Kurdish, as well as a dialect of Talyshi and Davani with respect to agreement. I will show that type (d), i.e., the Tripartite system in Comrie’s terminology where S, A, and P each has a distinct marking, and type (e), for which he has not proposed any name but is a type in which A and P are identically marked, are highly productive and stable systems in the mentioned Iranian languages. The observations reported have implications for the notion of type, language change, and linguistic variation.

Keywords: agreement system; Kurdish; Talyshi; Davani; clitic

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Capell, A. 1969. A Survey of New Guinea Languages. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.

Comrie, B. 1978. Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology. Sussex: The Harvester Press.

Corbett, G. 2003. Agreement: The Range of the Phenomenon and the Principles of the Surrey Database of Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101, 155-202.

Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croft, W. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fattah, M. 1997. A Generative Grammar of Kurdish. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Amsterdam.

10.

Greenberg, J. 1974. Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview. The Hague: Mouton.

11.

Haig, G. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

12.

MacKenzie, D. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies I. London: Oxford University Press.

13.

McCarus, E. 1958. A Kurdish Grammar: Descriptive Analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.

14.

McCarus, E. 2009. Kurdish. In G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages 587-633. London & New York: Routledge.

15.

Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Payne, J. 1980. The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 51, 147-186.

17.

Yar-Shater, E. 1969. A Grammar of Southern Tati Dialects. The Hague: Mouton.