روابط نحوی و نحوۀ باز‌نمایی آن در زبان لری، گونۀ استان کهگیلویه و بویراحمد

The relationship between verb and its arguments is one of the fundamental relations in human languages. This relationship is formed in different ways across languages, resulting in various grammatical roles. The purpose of this article is to determine the syntactic relationships and case-marking system of the Lori language in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province. The study follows a descriptive-analytical approach. The data was obtained through the creation of an audio corpus. To achieve this, conversations between speakers were recorded multiple times using a mobile phone, and an audio corpus was compiled. The relevant information was then extracted from the recordings. The results of the study suggest that the syntactic and semantic relations of this type include nominative, accusative, genitive, vocative, various types of prepositional complements, and the locative case. From a syntactic perspective, the case system -whether the arguments are lexical or pronominal and whether the verb tense and aspect are past and perfect or non-past and imperfect - falls into the nominative-accusative or complete-accusative systems. However, in terms of semantic and derivational morphology, the language exhibits a trace of an ergative-absolutive system.
 
Extended Abstract
1.Introduction
The representation of syntactic relations has long been a key concern for language researchers. For some scholars, mechanisms such as case-marking, agreement, lexical sequencing, the use of prepositions, and suprasegmental features are central to expressing the relationships between the head and its dependents. The present study addresses the relationship between noun phrase and verbs in a Lori variety of South-Western Iranian languages, which is common in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province. The article is about recognizing grammatical relations and their representation, the case-marking method, determining the type of case and finding answers to the following questions:

What are the syntactic relationships in Lori spoken in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad?
What method or methods does this variety use to display syntactic relationships between sentence elements?
From a typological perspective, which linguistic type does this variety belong to?

2.Theoretical Framework
Blake (2004: 2) divides case into two types: syntactic and semantic. He introduces case-marking and the use of prepositions to express the relationship between noun phrase and verbs (2004: 1-10). Stilo (2005: 52) also refers to lexical sequencing and the use of suprasegmental features, in addition to case-marking and the use of prepositions.
Comrie (1978) describes three basic arguments (P/A/S) and, based on the method of case-coding for these three arguments, presents five possible case systems. He argues that one of these, although not found in any language, could logically exist.  DabirMoghadam (2012: 67-68) provides an example of Comrie's target system in some Iranian languages and refers to it as a split system.  According to Comrie (1978) and Palmer (1994), each language, in addition to the dominant pattern, likely employs alternative alignment in certain grammatical contexts.
Zwart & Lindenbergh (2021) presented the "completeness alignment" theory, according to which the five systems proposed by Comrie, methods of complete case-marking, and the twelve alternative patterns are considered methods of incomplete case-marking. RasakhMahand (2005), referring to the semantic features outlined by Keenan (1984), shows that the features between (S) and (P) in Persian have many similarities, in terms of meaning, with ergative-absolutive languages.
 3.Research Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical and corpus-based. The audio data is provided by recording conversations between people using a mobile phone, along with six videos totaling four hundred and seventeen minutes. The participants knew that their voices were being recorded and had no objections. The conversations were conducted in the manner of typical meetings between people, in a completely natural setting. The author, who is a native speaker, created the corpus after the formation of these gatherings, extracted the necessary information from it, and for ease of reading, first transcribed the data phonetically and then analyzed it, writing the Persian equivalent of each sentence alongside.
4.Results & Discussion
In the studied variety, noun phrase and pronouns participate in grammatical relationships. The pronoun system holds particular importance in case-marking due to its thematic role. This system consists of two categories: free and dependent pronouns, with two number options and three person options, forming six morphological constructions. Each category has a distinct morphosyntactic distribution. Free pronouns always replace the (P/A/S) arguments, while dependent pronouns, in the form of clitics, are used both to express the case of an omitted object with host-selection of the main part of the verb, and as nominative agreement with the host-selection of the nominal part of clitic verbs.
The grammatical relations of this type include nominative, accusative, oblique, genitive, and vocative relations.
The nominative relationship of transitive and intransitive verbs, whether lexical or pronominal, is represented through agreement and as an agreement suffix on the verb (Examples 1 and 2). The accusative relationship, whether lexical or pronominal, is marked with the inflectional case marker |-a| (Examples 3 and 4). The genitive relationship is represented using |=e|, which is added to the final consonant of the noun head (Example 5).
The accusative relationship, which includes the ablative, dative, and instrumental objects, is represented by the use of prepositions together with noun phrase (Examples 9 to 12). The vocative relationship also appears as a noun phrase outside the main clause in the sentence. This relationship is represented in two ways: by using prepositional markers of the vocative and by utilizing the suprasegmental feature of 'rising intonation' (Example 13).
 5.Conclusion
According to the analysis of the data, this language variety has lost the distinctions of morphological case-marking and only uses it for the (P) argument and the genitive case. However, through the strategy of adding an ending to a verb, it employs agreement. Person and number always correspond to lexical and pronominal arguments. It uses prepositional markers to express the syntactic relations of dative and vocative and falls under the category of prepositional and analytical languages. To express the vocative relationship, it utilizes both prepositions and suprasegmental features. Since it has both a case-marking and agreement system, the arrangement of constituents is free.
The case system is constructionally nominative-accusative and belongs to the type of fully accusative languages. Semantically, it falls under the alternating semantic or dynamic type, and in derivational morphology, it shows a trace of the ergative-absolutive system.
Select Bibliography
Blake. BJ. Case. 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Comrie. B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Haig. G. “Alignment”. In The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. Ed. Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2010; Pp 250-268.
Hamidishirvan, Z. Sharifi, Sh. & Eliasi, M . “An Analysis anddDescription of Case Marking in Four Persian Dialects of Khuzestan”. Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 2014; 8: 1-23.   https://jlw.razi.ac.ir/article_592.html?lang=en [in Persian]
DebirMoghaddam, M. Typology of Iranian languages, Tehran: Samt, 2012. [in Persian]
RasakhMohanand, M. “The Way to Show Subject and Object in Persian”, Journal of Linguistics, 2006; 41 & 42: 85-96. [in Persian] https://B2n.ir/t73750
Sedighinejad, S. Ahangar, A.A. Delfroz,  B. & Sharifi  Sh. “Typology of Case-Marking and Agreement Systems in Bashāgardi”. Language Seience, 2021; 8. 247-280.
http://doi: org/10.22054/ls.2021.51393.1321.
Stilo. DL. Iranian as Buffer Zone Between the Universal Typologies of Turkic and Semitic. E. A. Csató. B. Isaksson. & C. Jahani (eds.). in Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, London, UK: Routledge Courzon, 2005; Pp. 35-63.
Zwart. JW. & Lindenbergh, C. Rethinking Alignment Typology. In A. Bárány, T. Biberauer, J. Douglas, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Syntactic Architecture and its Consequences: Inside Syntax, Language Science Press, 2021; Pp. 23-50. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4680298