The Evolution of Ergativity in Iranian Languages

Abstract

This paper presents an attempt to investigate the origins of ergativity in Iranian languages, drawing upon diachronic and synchronic analyses. In so doing, I will trace the development of the ergative structure back to Old and Middle Persian where, it is argued, the roots of ergativity lie. I will specifically show that the ergative pattern as currently obtained in the grammatical structure of some Iranian languages has evolved from a periphrastic past participle construction, the analogue of which is attested in Old Persian. It will further be argued that the predecessor past participle construction imparted a resultative construal in Old Persian and, subsequently, in the transition to Middle Persian, has assumed a simple past reading. The bottom-line of the analysis will be represented as a proposal regarding the nature of the ergative verb, to the effect that an ergative verb, as opposed to a regular (non-ergative) transitive verb, is semantically transitive, but syntactically intransitive.Keywords ergative structure; resultatives; past participle; Old Persian; Iranian languages IzvlečekČlanek poskuša z diahrono in sinhrono analizo prikazati izvor ergativnosti v iranskih jezikih. Avtor sledi razvoju ergativne strukture vse od stare in srednje perzijščine, kamor naj bi segale korenine ergativnosti, in pokaže, da se je ergativni vzorec, ki je prisoten v slovničnih strukturah nekaterih iranskih jezikov, razvil iz perifrastičnega preteklega deležnika, katerega vzporednice so najdene v stari perzijščini. Avtor trdi, da je predhodni pretekli deležnik vodil do nastanka rezultativov v stari perzijščini in je posledično ob prehodu v srednjo perzijščino privedel do enostavnega preteklika. V zadnjem delu analize avtor predstavi naravo ergativnih glagolov in predlaga, da so ergativni glagoli, v nasprotju z običajnimi (ne-ergativnimi) prehodnimi glagoli, semantično prehodni, a skladenjsko neprehodni.Ključne besede ergativna struktura; rezultativnost; pretekli deležnik; Stara perzijščina; Iranski jeziki * I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer of ALA for insightful comments and helpful suggestions.Thanks are also due to Mojtaba Monshizadeh of Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, for sharing with me his ideas and insights concerning some of the issues raised in an earlier draft of the paper.24 Yadgar KARIMI

Remarks on Ergativity and Phase Theory

“…Capitalizing on the participle‐like behavior of the past transitive verb as the most salient peculiarity of the argument structure of such constructions, it is plausible to conclude that what makes a present transitive vP different from its past counterpart has to do with the (in)completeness of φ‐bundle on the head v°. A present transitive (non‐ergative) v° is associated with a full complement of φ‐features as it is derived historically from a fully‐fledged transitive verbal root in the earlier stages of the language (Bynon , , Karimi ). In contrast, a past transitive v° is φ‐defective, owing to its retention of categorial properties associated with its participle predecessor (for a historical survey see Haig ()).…”

“…Either taking the copy of the external argument at [spec,vP] as a defective intervener, or taking the 11 This line of reasoning finds further empirical support from the diachronic development of past transitive verb stems in Kurdish. Karimi (2012) provides ample evidence that the past transitive verb stem in Kurdish has been historically derived from a participle form in the earlier stages of the language. Being adjectival, a participial fails to assign structural case to its complement.…”

“…Being adjectival, a participial fails to assign structural case to its complement. To maintain the continuity of its development, along with Karimi (2012), I assume, the transitive v°in the past transitive construction in Kurdish still retains remnant formal categorial features associated mainly with its predecessor, i.e., the participial. 12 As noted in footnote (3), the oblique case marker -i seems to be gradually assuming a widespread function of marking all non-subject cases (i.e., accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental and locative), in Kurdish.…”

“…Being adjectival, a participial fails to assign structural case to its complement. To maintain the continuity of its development, along with Karimi (), I assume, the transitive v° in the past transitive construction in Kurdish still retains remnant formal categorial features associated mainly with its predecessor, i.e., the participial.…”

A comparative study of possessive construction in Kurdish and Hungarian from a cognitive perspective

“…The last important point that is going to be addressed pertains to the complicated relationship between predicative possession and the ergative alignment in Kurdish. In fact, the topic-possessive construction in Kurdish (( 41)-( 45)) (as for X, Y exists) has a very intricate relationship with a contentious construction described variously as ergative or non-accusative 11 by different scholars (Haig 2008;Karimi 2010Karimi , 2012Karimi , 2014Dabirmoghaddam 2013). Kurdish exhibits a stem-based split alignment system: 12 transitive constructions whose main verbs are derived from the present-tense stem show accusative alignment, yet in those transitive constructions in which the main verbs are derived from the past-tense stem, the so-called ergative alignment is attested.…”