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 (21)
Text (Middle Persian)
Bahrām, Kārnāme Farvahši. 1378 Kārnāme Ardašīr Bābagān. Tehran: Entešārāt-e dānešgāh-e.Google Scholar
References
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 (2)

Cited by two 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.