Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-gmt7q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-19T08:20:27.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Linguistic Survey of Khorasan: Implications for Language Isolation, Language Change, and Contact Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mohammad Dabir-Moghaddam
Mohammad Dabir-Moghaddam*
Affiliation:
Allameh Tabataba’i University (Tehran)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes and analyzes data from a number of Modern Iranian dialects spoken in Khorasan in the east of Iran which are unusual among the other Western Iranian languages in that they have grammaticalized a split tense-sensitive alignment in indexation, compared to other Iranian languages whose indexation splitness is sensitive to both tense and transitivity. These dialects are the former dialect of Birjand in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the present-day dialect of Ferdows, Khanik, and Se-Ghal’e. The findings are put in the context of the available data from the Classical Persian texts to show that the tense-sensitive splitness mentioned above is traceable in those texts. A number of external factors are discussed which seem to have been influential in the restructuring of the split-alignment of the former dialect of Birjand into a uniformly nominative-accusative alignment in terms of indexation as observed in the present-day dialect of Birjand. It is proposed that this restructuring is an instance of simplification. The three other dialects cited above are endangered in the sense that they can undergo the same kind of restructuring as happened to the dialect of Birjand.

Keywords

Iranian LanguagesKhorasan DialectsTense-sensitive Split SystemsIndexation by Pronominal CliticsRestructuringExternal Forces
Type
Language contact in Iranian Languages
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 3-4: Commemorating Ehsan Yarshater Endangered Iranian Languages: Language Contact and Language Islands in Iran , August 2020 , pp. 353 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The symbols S, A, and P (also called O) stand for the subject of the intransitive verbs, the subject/agent of the transitive verbs, and the patient/object, respectively. Other abbreviations used in this paper are:

1: first personDIR: directIO: indirect objectPRS: present
2: second personDO: direct objectIRR: irrealisPST: past
3: third personEZ: ezafe (head-marking linker)N: neuterPTCP: participle
ABS: absoluteF: feminineNOM: nominativeSBJV: subjunctive
ACC: accusativeGEN: genitiveOBL: obliqueSG: singular
AN: animateINAN: inanimatePERF: perfect
COMPL: completeINCOMPL: incompletePL: plural
DEF: definiteINDF: indefinitePREV: pre-verb

The first version of this paper was presented as “Peculiar Alignments in Modern Iranian Languages” at the seventh International Conference on Iranian Linguistics held at Institute of Asian and African Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 28—30 August 2017. The present completed and extended paper was presented at the International Symposium on Endangered Iranian Languages, 19-20 October 2018, Leibniz-zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.

The journal’s reviewer provided extremely helpful and detailed comments on the manuscript and the paper has been modified according to those comments. Any remaining inaccuracies are the author’s responsibility.

References

Anderson, S. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bashir, E. “Wakhi,” In The Iranian Languages, 825-862. London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. “Evidential, raised Possessor, and the Historical Source of the Ergative Construction in Indo-Iranian,” Transactions of the Philological Society, 103, no. 1 (2005): 1–72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2004.00144.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. “Ergativity” In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, 329-394. Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. “Ergativity in Iranian Languages: A Typological Perspective,” In Further Topics in Iranian Linguistics: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics, held in Bamberg on 24-26 August 2013. Cahier de Studia Iranica 58 (2015): 37-53.Google Scholar
Croft, W. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. “On agent clitics in Balochi in comparison with other Iranian languages”. In The Baloch and Others, 83-100. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. “Linguistic Typology: An Iranian Perspective,” Journal of Universal Language, 13, no. 1 (2012): 31-70. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22425/jul.2012.13.1.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. Radešenāsī-y-e zabān-hā-y-e īrānī, Tehran: Samt Publishing Organization, 2013.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. “Non-Canonical Subject Construction in Endangered Iranian Languages: Further Investigation into the Debates on the Genesis of Ergativity,” In Endangered Iranian Languages, 9-40. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2018.Google Scholar
Edelman, D. and Dodykhudoeva, L. “The Pamir Languages,” In The Iranian Languages, 773-786. London: Routledge, 2009.Google Scholar
Ekhtiyari, Z. “Tovsīf-e masdar-e /ah/ dar gūyeš-e Ḫānīk va moqāyese bā čand gūyeš-e dīgar,” Maǧalle-y-e zabānšenāsī va gūyešhā-y-e Ḫorāsān, 2012 (1391 h.š.), 6: 29-50.Google Scholar
Ekhtiyari, Z. “Baʽīde āyandegī va čand zamān-e nāder dar gūyeš-e Ḫānīkī,” Maǧalle-y-e zabānšenāsī va gūyešha-y-e Ḫorāsān, 2015 (1394 h.š.) no. 7.1, 29-47.Google Scholar
Farahvashi, B. Farhang-e zabān-e pahlavī. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 2002 (1381 h.š).Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. “Diachrony, synchrony and language universals,” In Universals of Human Language, Volume I: Method and Theory, 61-91. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Habibi, Abdul Hai (ed.). Ṭabaqāt-uṣ-Ṣufīyah, dictated by Šayḫ-ul-Islām Ḫwaǧah ʽAbdullah 'Anṣārī Heravī Kabul: Historical Society of Afghanistan Press, 1962 (1341 h.š.).Google Scholar
Harris, C. Alice. “On the Explanation of Typologically Unusual Structures,” In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 54-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jügel, Thomas. “On the Origin of the Ergative Construction in Iranian: Evidence from Avestan”. In Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies, 99-114. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010.Google Scholar
Jügel, Thomas. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion in Alt-und Mittel-Iranischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Ronald. Old Persian. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1953.Google Scholar
Labbaf-Khaniki, M. “Sāḫtemān-e fe’l dar gūyeš-e rūstā-y-e Ḫānīk,” In Proceedings of the First Seminar of Iranian Dialectology, Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and Literature Press; 29 April – 1 May 2002 (1381 h.š.): 499-515.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. Neil. A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Noda, Keigo. “From Ergative to Accusative: A Case for Reanalysis in Middle Persian,” Orient XXXIV, 49-60 (1999). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5356/orient1960.34.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R. “The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages,” Lingua 51 (1980): 147-186. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90005-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R. “Transitivity and Intransitivity in the Iranian Languages of the U.S.S.R,” 15th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Papers from the Conference on Non-Slavic Languages of the U.S.S.R., 436-447. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1979.Google Scholar
Ravaghi, Ali. “Sāḫtemān-i 'æz fe’l-e māż,”, Maǧalle-y-e Dāneškade-y-e 'Adabiyāt va ʽOlūm-e 'Ensānī,. University of Tehran, no. 16.4, 381-393 (1969 (1348 h.š.)).Google Scholar
Rezaee, Jamal. “Sāḫtemān va ṣarf-e fe’l-e māżī dar gūyeš-e kohan-e Harāt va moqāyese-y-e 'ān bā ṣarf-e fe’l-e māżī dar gūyeš-e konūnī-y-e Bīrǧand,” Maǧalle-y-e Dāneškade-y-e 'Adabiyāt va ʽOlūm-e 'Ensānī-y-e Dānešgāh-e Tehran, University of Tehran, 4: 100-110 (1976 (1355 h.š.)).Google Scholar
Rezaee, Jamal. Barresī-y-e gūyeš-e Bīrǧand Tehran: Hirmand Press, 1998 (1377 h.š.).Google Scholar
Rezaee, Jamal. Bīrǧand-Nāmeh, Tehran: Hirmand Press, 2002 (1381 h.š.).Google Scholar
Riyahi, Abbas. Verb in the Dialect of Se-Ghal’e, M.A. Thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, 2018.Google Scholar
Riyahi, Abbas. “Barresī-y-e sāḫt-e fe’l-e māżī dar gūyeš-e se-qalʽe va moqāyese-y-e 'ān bā Fārsī-y-e miyāne,” Maǧalle-y-e zabānhā va gūyešhā-y-e Īrānī, Academy of Persian Language and Literature, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Yahaghi, Mohammad-Jafar. “Barḫī 'az ǧanbe-hā-y-e zabānī va farhangī-y-e gūyeš-e Ferdows,” In Proceedings of the First Seminar of Iranian Dialectology, 29. Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and Literature Press, April- 1 May 2002 (1381 h.š): 613-635.Google Scholar