Indefinite Pronouns in Different Varieties of Gilaki Language

Indefinite pronouns such as the Persian kasi (“someone”), are referential expressions that do not have a specific referent and play diverse functions across languages. The present study explores the use of indefinite pronouns in different varieties of Gilaki which is a Northwestern Iranian language spoken along the Iranian part of Caspian Sea coast. The study aims to compare and identify both similarities and regional distinctions in the use of these pronouns between the Western and Eastern Gilaki. To do so, it adopts Haspelmath’s (1997) semantic map model, a crosslinguistic framework that enables typological and intra-language comparison. The research data were elicited from everyday speech across six regions in Gilan Province and the analysis resulted in semantic maps for each of the varieties that capture the functional distribution of indefinite pronouns. Findings indicate that although minor differences exist, the overall usage of indefinite pronouns is consistent in Western and Eastern Gilaki. The application of semantic map model proves effective for typological and dialectological studies, offering insights into the syntactic and semantic structures of Gilaki and other languages.
 
Extended abstract

1.Introduction

Indefinite pronoun such as the Persian kasi (“someone”), čizi (“something”) perform different functions across languages. They are referential expressions that in terms of identifiability refer to the type of referent rather than a specific token. These categories in terms of referent status do not have a real-world referent (Croft 2022). Investigating such grammatical categories in different languages is crucial because it helps us identify linguistic universals and recognize similarities and differences among languages (Croft 2003).
    The present research studies indefinite pronouns in the Gilaki language. Gilaki is a Northwestern Iranian language spoken in Gilan mostly province. This language, which is a subgroup of the Caspian languages, has two primary dialects: Eastern and Western. These dialects exhibit variation in phonology, vocabulary and grammar (Stilo, 2001).
The most well-known study carried out in this field is the typological study of Haspelmath (1997), which examined indefinite pronouns across forty languages and presented the semantic map of each. Also, previous work by Rasekh-Mahand (2015) explored indefinite pronouns in several modern Iranian languages and presented their semantic map, yet no comparable study has been conducted for Gilaki. The absence of research specific to Gilaki within semantic map model leaves an evident gap. Therefore, this article addresses the gap by applying Haspelmath’s (1997) semantic map model to Gilaki, comparing the use of indefinite pronouns in eastern and western regions of Gilan.
2.Theoretical Framework
This study explores indefinite pronouns in different varieties of the Gilaki language within Hapelmath’s (1997) semantic map model. Semantic maps provide universals derived from cross-linguistics comparison, which is crucial for choosing and arranging the relevant functions of a multifunctional gram on the semantic map (Haspelmath 2003:216). These different functions are contiguous, or as Croft (2003:134) emphasizes, according to the semantic map connectivity hypothesis, there should be no gap between them and they are connected to one another.
3.Methodology
The research follows a qualitative approach and the required data, in addition to one of the authors being a native speaker, were drawn from the everyday speech of 18 Gilaki-Farsi bilingual speakers. Using convenience sampling, participants were selected from six cites of Gilan province: Rasht, Bandar Anzali, and Some’e Sara in western Gilan, as well as Lahijan, Amlash, and Siahkal in eastern Gilan. The data were collected through oral interviews and recording of conversations. Participants were asked to translate selected sentences representing different functions of indefinite pronouns (adapted from Haspelmath 1997) into Gilaki. The resulting sentences were transcribed, analyzed and finally mapped based on the model of Haspelmath (1997) in the form of semantic maps to each variety.
4. Results & Discussion
After collecting the sentences, data relating to the different functions of indefinite pronouns in each variety of the Gilaki language were presented, and at the end of each section, the semantic map of indefinite pronouns in that variety was drawn. Analysis reveals that apart from the minor phonological and lexical differences that exist in the speech of the eastern and western Gilan regions, Eastern and Western Gilaki share broadly similar patterns in the use of indefinite pronouns, with only minor differences. According to the semantic maps drawn for each of the cities mentioned, we can see five groups of indefinite pronouns overlap in both regions. Yet, some distinctions emerge: in Western Gilaki, the morpheme yek (“one”) extends to question and conditional referent, and hič (“no”) is employed not only in direct negation but also in question and indirect negation contexts. This issue was not observed in Eastern Gilaki dialects. On the other hand, the morpheme hame (“all”) is more frequently used for indirect negation referent in Eastern Gilaki, while this usage is absent in Western varieties. These semantic maps also follow Croft’s (2003) semantic map connectivity hypothesis; that is, the functions of indefinite pronouns are interconnected and there is no gap between them, and as Haspelmath (2003) says, they are contiguous. Overall, the findings of this research and the obtained semantic maps show both the broad similarities and the subtle differences in how Gilaki varieties employ indefinite pronouns.
 5.Conclusions & Suggestions
The similar behavior of indefinite pronouns across Gilaki varieties reflects the geographical proximity of the cities of Gilan province, which strengthens their linguistic cohesion. Minimal distances between these regions reduce likelihood of major linguistic structural divergence. Nevertheless, minor distinctions can to some extent be the result of language contact. Eastern Gilaki, situated near Mazani, shows influence from that language, and Western dialects, due to adjacency with Talyshi and Standard Persian, show different patterns in some functions of indefinite pronouns. Thus, while the broad similarities between Eastern and Western Gilaki derive from geographical closeness and social cohesion, observed differences can be attributed to the type and intensity of language contact of each region with neighboring languages. Clearly, semantic maps enable systematic comparison of these dialects and recognizing their differences and similarities. The semantic map model proves to be a powerful tool for typology and dialectology studies, and it helps researchers in mapping the relations between grammatical and lexical categories, offering valuable insights into both universal and language-specific variation.
Select Bibliography
Croft, W. Typology and universals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Croft, W. Morphosyntax Construction of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022.
Haspelmath, M. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon; 1997.
Haspelmath, M. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In: Tomasello M. (ed.) The new psychology of language. Vol. 2. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum; 2003, 211-242
Stilo, D. Gīlān x. Languages. In: Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. X, Fasc. 6; 2012: 660–668.
Rasekh-Mahand, M. The different uses of indefinite pronouns in some modern Iranian languages. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Iranian Languages and Dialects (Past and Present); 2015, 203-226. [In Persian]