حالت نمايي در كردي سوراني (سنندجي و بانه اي )

Case-Marking in Kurdish (Sanandaji and Bane’i)

در انگاره هاي متاخر دستور زايشيدو ديدگاه عمده راجع به چگونگي نظام حالت دهي وجود دارد. ديدگاه چامسكيايي استاندارد اين است كه حالت توسط هستهدستوري به نزديكترين گروه اسمي از طريق يك مطابقه اعطامي شود(چامسكي 2000).در اين رويكرد حالت به عنوان تجويز كننده گروههاي اسمي، مقوله اي كاملاً نحوي است و ارتباط مستقيمي بين حالت ساختاري و روابط ساختاري گروههاي اسمي پذيرنده حالت وجود دارد. در ديدگاه دوم، حالت دهي توسط قواعد پيكره اي و در بخش آوايي صورت مي‌گيرد. در اين رويكرد ارتباط مستقيمي بين حالت دهي و مطابقه برقرار نيست و سلسه مراتب ساختواژي، حالت گروههاي اسمي را تعيين مي كند. در اين مقاله،با بررسي داده هايي از دو گونه زبان كردي، سنندجي و بانه اي، و مقايسهشباهت‌ها و تفاوت‌هاي اين دو گونه از گويش سوراني نشان خواهيم داد كه براي تبييننظام حالت دهي ارجاع به مفروضات نظري در هر دو رويكرد ضروري است.

1. Introduction The present article aims to study case and agreement systems in Sorani Kurdish in general and its two varieties Sanandaji and Bane’i dialects in particular. We will show the adequacy of recent generative approaches (Structural and Morphological) in explaining case marking system in Sanandaji and Bane’i Kurdish and by comparing similarities and differences of the two varieties it will ultimately be shown that both structural and morphological approaches are required in the explanation of case in Kurdish. In this article Sorani ergative constructions will be dealt with. This dialect uses reduplication of clitics to show the ergativity. Among major traits of ergative constructions in this dialect is the non-presence of case marker morphemes on subject NPs and direct and indirect objects. Moreover, case/agreement systems “nominative-accusative” and “oblique-nominative” in Bane’i Kurdish and “nominative-accusative” and oblique-oblique” in Sanandaji Kurdish will be introduced. While describing case and agreement in Sanandaji and Bane’i this article aims to show that generative approaches are not equally adequate in explaining two varieties of Sanandaji and Bane’i. Through utilizing theoretical concepts of minimalism, analyzing intransitive phrases, single object and double object transitive phrases in Sorani (Sanandaji and Bane’i), and studying the adequacy of structural and morphological approaches in the explanation of case patterns of the mentioned data in the past and present tenses. In Bane’i Kurdish morphological approach has the adequacy to explain all structures of intransitive phrases, transitive single object and double object in the past and present but in Sanandaji Kurdish structural approach has the adequacy to explain the given data. It will therefore be shown in this article that a unified approach to explain the case system in Kurdish is not adequate enough and both structural and morphological approaches are necessary to be employed. 2. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework used for the purpose of this study is minimalist program. Minimalist program tries to simplify theoretical concepts and linguistic theories and by the elimination of unnecessary syntactic mechanisms has emphasized on developing an economic criterion in the linguistic derivations and representations. In fact, the main goal of minimalist program is to utilize the minimum theoretical concepts and devices in generative grammar. In the framework of minimalist program unlike other pervious forms, only two linguistic levels are assumed and other linguistic levels presented in other versions of generative grammar have been eliminated for the purpose of minimalism and the unnecessary mechanisms have been eradicated. 3. Methodology This research is qualitative in nature and has been done through a descriptive-analytic method. The data are gathered from the native speakers of the cities of Sanandaj and Bane and it should be noted that the linguistic intuition of the writers who are natives of these cities has been also taken into consideration. In order to analyze the data, theoretical concepts of minimalist program have been employed. 4. Results and Discussion With regard to the comparison and analysis of Sanandaji and Bane’i data within the framework of generative approaches (structural and morphological), it can be concluded that case marking in different languages and even in varieties of the same language, follows different patterns. For example, in Bane’i all intransitive structures, mono-transitive and double transitive in past and present tenses are explicable based on morphological approach, while in Sanandaji all intransitive structures, mono-transitive and double transitive in past and present are explicable based on structural approach. Therefore these two varieties of Kurdish derived from Sorani dialect follow two different morphological and structural (syntactic) patterns. We can thus say that case marking system in some languages is sensitive to syntactic/structural position of NPs like Sanandaji Kurdish, and in others like Bane’i Kurdish to disjunctive morphological rules. 5. Conclusions and Suggestions In this article we tried to study and analyze case-agreement systems in Sorani Kurdish and compare the adequacy of the recent approaches like generative grammar (structural and morphological) in the explanation of case marking in Sanandaji and Bane’i Kurdish and finally propose a suitable approach with greater adequacy in the explanation of case marking in the above mentioned varieties of Kurdish. Sorani Kurdish, like some other Kurdish dialects, enjoys split ergative system which has a simple ergative pattern in the past tense. Sorani dialect in the process of transition from a synthetic to an analytic language has lost its case marking morphemes. Thus the ergative case pattern in this dialect is observable at the level of cross-reference. The present article employing concepts of minimalist program presented a formal explanation of the derivational process of non-ergative syntactic structures in Sorani dialect. Although Sanandaji and Bane’i are varieties of the same dialect (Sorani), different approaches are at work in the explanation of their data. Thus it can be said that the explanation of the data of a particular language is not limited to a specific approach and sometimes it is necessary to utilize both approaches (structural and morphological). At the end, further research is required to study the adequacy of generative grammar approaches in the explanation of case marking in both other Kurdish and Iranian language varieties. In addition, a theoretical research on mixed structural and morphological approach in the explanation of case patterns in human languages could be of high value. Key Words: Case assignment, Configurational rules, Kurdish, Morphological, Structural. References (in Persian) Daneshpajoh,F. (2006). Ergative in Kurdish (Sorani, Kurmanji, Hawrami). (UnpublishedMaster’sThesis).Payam-Noor University, Tehran. Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (2004). Theoretical linguistics(emergence and development of generative grammar)(2nd ed.),Tehran: Samt Publications. _______. (2013).Typology of Iranian languages(Vol. 2).Tehran: Samt Publications. Karimi,Y.(2009).Ergative constructions, its origin and nature (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran. _______. (2013). Structural and configurational approaches to case marking. Proceedings ofSecond National Conference on Syntax and Typology (pp. 155-177). Linguistics Society of Iran. References (English) Adger, D. (2003).Core Syntax, a minimalist Approach .Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation, University of Chicago Press. _______. (2008). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge University Press. _______. (2013). On agreement and its relationship to case: Some generative ideas and results.Lingua, 130:14-32. _______.(2014). On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry, 45:341-379. _______. (2015). Case: Its Principles and Its parameters, Cambridge University Press. Baker, M.,&Vinokurova, N. (2010).Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,28, 593-64. Bobaljik, J.,&Wurmbrand, S. (2008).Case in GB/Minimalism.In A.Malchukov,&A.Spencer(Eds.),Handbook of case (pp. 44-58). Oxford: Oxford University Press Bobaljik, J. (2008). Whereʹs Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. InPhi theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, eds. David Adger, Daniel Harbour and Susanna Bejar, 295-328. Oxford: Oxford University Press Bowers, J. (2001). Prediction. In M. Baltin and C. Collins (ed.), The handbook of Contemporary Syntax Theory, 299-333, Blackwell Publishers. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structure, The Hague: Mouton _______. (1981). Lectures on government and binding theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications. _______. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin,D. Michaels, &Uriagereka. _______. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, & K. Hale (Eds.),A life in language(pp. 1-54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. _______. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin,C. Otero,& M-L. Zubizarreta(Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theoryCambridge:MA: MIT Press. Dabir-Moghaddm, M. (2012). Linguistic typology: An Iranian perspective. Journal of Universal Language, 13, 31-70. Holmberg, A.&Odden, D. (2004). Ergativity and role-marking in Hawrami. Paper presented at Syntax of the world’s languages (SWL 1), Leipzig, Germany. Johns, A. (1992). Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry,23,57–88. Karimi, Y. (2010). Unaccusative transitives and the person-case constraint effects in Kurdish. Lingua,120, 693-716. _______. (2013). Extending defective intervention effects. The Linguistic Review,30(1), 51-75. _______. (2012).The evolution of ergativity in Iranian languages. ActaLinguistica Asiatica, 2(1), 23-44. Legate, J. (2008).Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry,39, 55-101. Mahajan, A. (1994). The ergativity parameter: have-be alternation. In Proceedings of NELS 24, (ed.) Gonzàlez, M, 317–331.GLSA, University of Massachussetts, Amherst. Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. CambridgeMA: MIT Press. _______. (1991). Case and Licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin. Ao, & Hee-Rahk Chae. (Ed.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp.234-253. Marantz, A. (2000). Case and licensing. In E. Reuland(Ed.),Arguments and case(pp. 11-30), Amsterdam: John Benjamins McFadden, T. (2004).The position of morphological case in the derivation(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).University of Pennsylvania, USA. Radford, A. (2009). Analyzing English sentences, a minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical c, inherent case, and argument structure.LinguisticInquiry,37, 111–130.