Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in honor of Henning Andersen
Edited by Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Lene Schøsler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 345] 2019
► pp. 193–204

Grammaticalization and degrammati(calizati)on in the development of the Iranian verb system

The present article contributes to the current theoretical discussions regarding the issues of grammaticalization, degrammati(calizati)on and reanalysis as practiced by scholars working predominantly in West European, Greek and Slavic languages. It brings into discussion relatively under-represented data from the West Iranian languages by surveying fundamental morphological and syntactic changes observable in the development of the verb systems of Persian, Tajik, Kurdish and Balochi: (i) the realignment of the Old Persian possessive construction as the finite verb form in Middle Persian, (ii) the establishment of the analytic Perfect in Early New Persian, (iii) degrammati(calizati)on of the copula in the Perfect aspect in Kurdish and Balochi, (iv) grammaticalization of the adverb hamēw ‘always’ as the Imperfect marker in Early New Persian, (v) the formation of the modal future tense in New Persian, and (vi) the role of grammaticalization and degrammati(calizati)on in the renewal of the passive diathesis in Early New Persian.

Keywords: grammaticalization, degrammati(calizati)on, tense/aspect system, perfect, evidential, conjectural, passive diathesis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The realignment of the erstwhile possessive construction as the finite verb form
  • 3.The establishment of the analytic perfect in early new Persian
  • 4.Degrammati(calizati)on of the copula in retrospective (perfect) aspect
  • 5.Grammaticalization in New Persian of the adverb hamēw ‘always’
  • 6.Future tense
  • 7.Passive diathesis
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Text (Middle Persian)
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.345.08bub
References

Text (Middle Persian)

Bahrām, Kārnāme Farvahši
1378 Kārnāme Ardašīr Bābagān. Tehran: Entešārāt-e dānešgāh-e.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
2006 Grammation, regrammation and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica 23. 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 On the origin of the Slavic aspects. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.). Grammatical change in in Indo-European languages 123–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 From Morphologization to Demorphologization. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.). The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, 117–146. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bănescu, Nicolae
1915 Die Entwicklung des griechischen Futurums von der frühbyzantinischen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart. Bucharest: F. Göbl Söhne.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit
1994 On Wackernagel’s Law in the History of Persian. Indogermanische Forschungen 99. 105–122.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit & Leila Ziamajidi
2017 The rise of the analytic perfect aspect in West Iranian languages. Paper presented at ICHL23, San Antonio, 2017).Google Scholar
Cantarino, Vicente
1974 Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Estaji Azam & Vit Bubenik
2007 The Development of the Tense/Aspect System in Early and New Persian. Diachronica 24. 31–55.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2003 Grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jahani, Carina & Agnes Korn
2009 Balochi. In G. L. Windfuhr (ed.). The Iranian Languages, 634–692. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2003 Morphologization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. 472–492. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joshida, Yutaka
2009 Sogdian. In: G. L. Windfuhr (ed.) The Iranian Languages. 279–335. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1965 The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses Linguistiques II, 38–54. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Paul, Ludwig
2013 A Grammar of Early Judaeo-Persian. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Šebková, Hana & Edita Žlnayová
2001 Romaňi čhib. Učebnice slovenské romštiny. Praha: Fortuna.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot L.
(ed.) 2009 The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot L. & Perry, John R
2009 Persian and Tajik. In G. L. Windfuhr (ed.). The Iranian Languages, 416–544. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Mofidi, Roohollah & Peter Petré
2022. Aspectual marking from a typologically uncommon origin: a quantitative account of the development ofhamē(w)in Middle Persian. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Mofidi, Roohollah & Peter Petré
2022. Aspectual marking from a typologically uncommon origin: a quantitative account of the development of hamē(w) in Middle Persian. Folia Linguistica 56:s43-s1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.