مطابقه و حالت‌نمایی در زبان لکی کوهدشتی: مطالعه، تطبیقی ساختار نحوی با زبان‌های همجوار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی همگانی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران

2 استاد زبان شناسی همگانی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران

چکیده

مطابقه، حالت‌نمایی و ترتیب واژه از اصلی‌ترین سازوکارهای بازنمایی روابط نحوی در زبان‌ها هستند که هر زبان بسته به ساختار رده‌شناختی خود، ترکیبی ویژه از آن‌ها را به‌کار می‌گیرد. این پژوهش با هدف توصیف و تحلیل نظام‌های مطابقه و حالت‌نمایی در زبان لکی کوهدشتی و مقایسۀ تطبیقی آن با لری خرم‌آبادی و کردی کلهری در چارچوب آراء هیگ (2008) انجام شده‌است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در لکی، این نظام‌ها ساختاری دوگانه و وابسته به زمان دستوری و گذرایی فعل دارند: در زمان غیرگذشته، مطابقه و حالت‌نمایی از نوع فاعلی- مفعولی است؛ به‌گونه‌ای که فاعل به‌صورت مستقیم و بدون نشانة حالت‌نما ظاهر می‌شود و مفعول اغلب با نشانة حالت‌نمای مفعولی بازنمایی می‌شود. در مقابل، در گذشته، الگوی مطابقه کناییِ گسسته است و فاعلِ فعل گذرا با واژه‌بست ضمیری بر مفعول نمایان می‌شود و فعل بدون نشانه‌گذاری شخص و شمار، به‌صورت سوم‌شخص مفرد به‌کار می‌رود. این ساختار، لکی را از کردی کلهری و لری که نظام مطابقه و حالت‌نمایی یکنواخت و مستقل از زمان یا گذرایی فعل دارند، متمایز می‌سازد. بنابراین، با وجود شباهت‌های سطحی، زبان لکی کوهدشتی ساختاری مستقل و منسجم دارد و نمی‌توان آن را گویشی وابسته یا ترکیبی از کردی و لری دانست.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Agreement and Case-Marking in Kuhdashti Laki: A Comparative Syntactic Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somayeh Hanan 1
  • Mehrdad Naghzguy-Kohan 2
1 Ph.D. student in general linguistics, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
2 professor in general linguistics, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Agreement, case marking, and word order are key mechanisms for encoding syntactic relations, each language employing them according to its typological structure. This study aims to describe and analyze the agreement and case-marking systems of Kuhdashti Laki and compare them with Khorramabadi Luri and Kalhori Kurdish within Haig’s (2008) framework. The findings show that in Laki, these systems are dual and dependent on tense and verb transitivity: in the non-past, the pattern is nominative-accusative, with the subject appearing directly without a case marker and the object typically marked by an accusative marker. In contrast, in the past tense, agreement shifts to a split ergative pattern where the transitive subject is marked via a pronominal clitic attached to the object, and the verb remains in the default third-person singular form without overt agreement. This structure distinguishes Laki from Kalhori Kurdish and Khorramabadi Luri, which maintain a consistent nominative-accusative system regardless of tense or transitivity. Despite surface similarities, the evidence shows that Kuhdashti Laki has an independent and coherent syntactic structure and should not be regarded as merely a dependent or mixed variety between Kurdish and Luri.
 
Extended Abstract
1.Introduction
Languages encode the syntactic relations between the verb and its core arguments - namely the subject and the object - through three principal mechanisms: word order, case marking on noun phrases, and agreement patterns that are triggered by the interaction between the verb and its arguments and morphologically surface on the verb. While agreement and case marking have been the focus of extensive typological and descriptive research in Iranian linguistics, studies devoted specifically to Laki remain strikingly limited. This paucity of research has left the precise genealogical and typological status of Laki within the Iranian language family unresolved and a matter of scholarly contention.
Kuhdasht, where this variety of Laki is spoken, offers a particularly salient site for investigation due to its geographical location and longstanding, intensive contact with neighboring speech communities, most notably Khorramabadi Luri and Kalhuri Kurdish. Against this background, the present study investigates the agreement and case-marking systems of Kuhdashti Laki and undertakes a comparative analysis with those of Khorramabadi Luri and Kalhuri Kurdish. The inquiry is guided by two central research questions: 1- What typological properties characterize the morphosyntactic systems of agreement and case marking in Laki? and 2- What is the overarching alignment pattern observable at the morphosyntactic level in Laki? By addressing these questions, the study seeks to clarify the typological profile of Kuhdashti Laki, to contribute to the broader understanding of alignment phenomena in Iranian languages, and to shed light on the dynamics of morphosyntactic variation in a region shaped by sustained patterns of language contact.

2.Theoretical Framework
The present study adopts the theoretical framework proposed by Haig (2008). Haig demonstrates that cross-linguistic variation in the way verbs agree with clausal constituents gives rise to distinct agreement patterns, which are closely tied to alignment type. According to his framework, the differences in verb agreement with arguments result in two major alignment configurations that are directly conditioned by morphosyntactic alignment, whether nominative–accusative or ergative-absolutive. Haig argues that in Iranian languages, agreement is typically organized around two principal systems: (1) nominative-accusative alignment, in which verbal agreement targets the subject, aligning the verb with the features of the nominative argument; and (2) ergative-absolutive alignment, in which verbal agreement instead targets the absolutive argument, i.e., the object.
Crucially, Haig (2008) posits that most Iranian languages exhibit a split-ergative alignment system, in which the distribution of nominative-accusative vs. ergative-absolutive agreement is conditioned by tense-aspect categories. In other words, ergative alignment in Iranian languages is not uniform but follows a tense-based split: clauses whose predicates are derived from present stems generally display nominative-accusative alignment, whereas clauses whose predicates are derived from past stems exhibit ergative alignment. This split, realized primarily in the verbal morphology, underlies the structural variation in agreement patterns across Iranian languages.
3.Methodology
The data for this study were collected through fieldwork, primarily via interviews with Laki speakers in Kouhdasht. Topics included daily events, personal memories, and social interactions, designed to elicit a wide range of morphological and syntactic structures. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, phonetically annotated, and analyzed morphosyntactically. For comparative purposes, data on Kalhuri Kurdish were collected from five speakers in similar sociolinguistic conditions, and Khorramabadi Luri data were gathered based on the researcher’s intuition and verified with native speakers. The data were analyzed in detail to identify agreement systems and case-marking patterns, and the findings were then examined comparatively to highlight typological similarities and differences among the three languages.
4.Results & discussion
Based on the analyzed data in this study, the Kouhdashti variety of Laki exhibits a nominative–accusative case marking system in the present tense, where only transitive objects are overtly marked with the case suffix “-a / -i”. In contrast, past constructions, particularly with transitive verbs, show a split-ergative pattern, in which the subject lacks an independent marker and is realized in the oblique case, linked to the object through a clitic pronoun. Subject agreement in intransitive verbs is fully realized in both present and past tenses. However, in past transitive verbs, subject agreement is omitted, and the subject is transferred to the object as a clitic pronoun, resulting in a split agreement that is sensitive to the verb’s tense.
     Comparative analysis with Khorramabadi Luri and Kalhuri Kurdish reveals that Kalhuri Kurdish has a stable, tense-independent agreement system, without ergative constructions. Its case marking likewise follows a nominative-accusative pattern, in which the subject appears unmarked, and the object receives a direct or indirect case suffix, “-ɑgɑ”. Similarly, in Khorramabadi Luri, both agreement and case marking operate independently of tense, consistently exhibiting a nominative-accusative alignment.
5.Conclusions & Suggestion
Based on the linguistic evidence presented in this study, it can be concluded that the Kouhdashti variety of Laki, despite sharing some superficial features with Kalhuri Kurdish and Khorramabadi Luri, exhibits a distinct and independent system in terms of case marking and agreement. By employing dual syntactic patterns, specific agreement mechanisms, and the use of pronominal clitics, this variety demonstrates a unique internal cohesion that sets it apart from neighboring languages. Therefore, Laki should not be regarded merely as an intermediate or hybrid dialect between Luri and Kurdish, but rather as an autonomous linguistic system with its own distinctive grammatical features.
Select Bibliography
Blake, B. J. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
Bickel, B., & Nichols, J. Inflectional morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol., pp. 169–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Croft, W. Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
Haig, G. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2008.
Payne, T. E. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
Paul, L. “The position of Zazaki among West Iranian languages”. In N. Sims-Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies, Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian studies. Wiesbaden: Reichert; 1988, 163-177.
Stilo, D. Vafsi. In M. Dahl & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Laki
  • agreement
  • case marking
  • split ergativity
  • pronominal clitics
آخوندی فاطمه. انطباق صرفی در زبان لری خرم‌آبادی. علم زبان، 1402؛ 10(17): 187-214DOI: https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2023.67625.1544  
تفکری رضائی شجاع و امیدی عباس. پسوندهای فعلی در گویش لکی: ساخت ارگتیو، مطابقة فاعلی یا ضمیر پیوسته؟، پژوهش‌های ایرانشناسی. 1393؛ 4(1): 37-55 doi:10.22059/jis.2014.52667
دبیرمقدم محمد. رده‌شناسی زبان‌های ایرانی. تهران: سمت.1392.
رضایی باغ‌بیدی حسن. تاریخ زبان‌های ایرانی. تهران: دایره‌المعارف بزرگ اسلامی. 1388.
کریمی یادگار. مطابقه در نظام کُنایی (ارگتیو) زبان‌های ایرانی: رقابت واژه‌بست و وند الف. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 1391؛ 4(7): 1-18.
لطفی یاسر، کریمی دوستان غلام‌حسین و گوهری حبیب. نمود واژگانی در گویش لکی. جستارهای زبانی، 1400؛ 12(4): 305-344 doi:10.29252/LRR.12.4.10
مهدی‌زاده مهدی، گوهری حبیب، کریمی‌دوستان غلامحسین، و خوشبخت طیبه. نظام مطابقه در کلهری و مقایسۀ آن با لکی، سورانی و کرمانجی. مطالعات زبان‌ها و گویش‌های غرب ایران، 1395؛ 3(15): 91-110.https://doi.org/10.22126/jlw.2017.1196   
محمدابراهیمی جهرمی زینب و مرادخانی سیمین. پسوندهای فعلی گویش لکی هرسینی. نقد زبان و ادبیات خارجی (پژوهشنامه علوم انسانی)، 1387؛ 1(1): 91-113https://sid.ir/paper/471197/fa.
نغزگوی‌کهن مهرداد. نقش پس‌اضافه‌ها در اعطای حالت؛ مطالعة موردی در گویش تالشی. زبان‌ فارسی و گویش‌های ایرانی. 1392الف؛ 3: 111-132.
نغزگوی‌کهن مهرداد. عوامل مؤثر در تعیین صورت نشانة مطابقة فعلی در فارسی نو. مجموعه‌مقالات نخستین هم‌اندیشی زبان‌های ایرانی. به کوشش مهرداد نغزگوی کهن. انجمن زبانشناسی ایران. تهران: نویسة پارسی: 173-192.
Anderson, S. R. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Baker, M. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Bickel, B., & Nichols, J. Case marking and alignment. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008, 304-321.
Blake, B. J. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004.
Bickel, B., & Nichols, J. Inflectional morphology. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007, 169-240.
Comrie, B. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1981.
Comrie, B. The world's major languages. London: Routledge. 1987.
Corbet, G. Agreement. Cambrige: Cambrige Univercity Press. 2006.
Croft, W. Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003.
Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.
Dorleijn, M. (n.d.). The decay of ergativity in Kurdish: h. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. 1966.
Givón, T. Syntax: An introduction (Vols. 1 & 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2001.
Haig, G. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2008.
Haig, G., & Öpengin, E. Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish Studies, 2014, 2(2): 99–122. https://doi.org/10.33182/ks.v2i2.387 (Journal)
Hengeveld, K. A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In K. Hengeveld, H. Narrog, & H. Olbertz (Eds.), The grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality: A functional perspective. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 2017.
Keenan, L., & Comrie, B. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 1977;  8: 63–99. (Journal)
Mackenzie, D. N. Kurdish dialect studies. London: Oxford University Press. 1961.
Payne, T. E. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.
Paul, L. The position of Zazaki among West Iranian languages. In N. Sims-Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies, Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian studies. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 1988, 163-177.
Steele S. Word order variation: a typological survey. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of  human language, Vol. 4. Stanford: Stanford Univercity Press. 1978, 585-623.
Stilo, D. Vafsi. In M. Dahl & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004.
Spencer, A., & Luís, A. R. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2012.
Song, J. J. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. London: Routledge. 2001.
Tallerman, M. Understanding syntax. London: Arnold. 2003.
Tallerman, M. Understanding syntax. London: Hodder Education. 2011.
Tallerman, M. Understanding syntax. Hodder Arnold. 2011.
Windfuhr, G. L. (Ed.). The Iranian languages. London: Routledge. 1987.