Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 275–300

Chapter 13
Oblique marking and adpositional constructions in Tat

A mosaic of dialectal convergence and divergence

Tat, an Iranian language spoken in the Caucasus, has been exposed to heavy contact with neighbouring genetically unrelated languages, resulting in widespread bilingualism and causing contact-induced innovations. At the same time, a long period of low contact among the dialects of Tat has contributed to them displaying an abundance of phonological, lexical, morphological, and syntactic differences, as well as preserving otherwise extinct lexical elements and grammatical constructions. This article explores the various functions (inherited and introduced later on) of the Tat oblique clitic, with a focus on its role in forming new types of adpositional constructions.

Keywords: prepositions, postpositions, oblique marking, differential object marking, experiencer constructions, language contact, Azerbaijan, Tat, Juhuri, Azeri, Iranian, Armenian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Oblique marking in Tat
    • 2.1Differential object marking
      • 2.1.1Direct object marking
      • 2.1.2Indirect object marking
      • 2.2Experiencer function
    • 2.3Possessive constructions
    • 2.4Possessive predication
  • 3.Adpositional constructions in Tat
    • 3.1Simple adpositions
    • 3.2Compound adpositions
      • 3.2.1Ezafe compound prepositional constructions
      • 3.2.2Oblique-marked compound postpositional constructions
    • 3.3Placeholder construction
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Tat corpus bibliography
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.13sul
References
Authier, Gilles
2012 Grammaire juhuri, ou judéo-tat, langue iranienne des Juifs du Caucase de l’est [A grammar of Juhuri or Judeo-Tat, the Iranian language of the Jews of the East Caucasus]. Beiträge zur Iranistik 36 [Bibliothèque iranienne 76]. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen [Empirical Universals Research: Differential Object Marking in New Iranian Languages]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine
2009 Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian (London Oriental and African Language Library 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Tim
2003 Linguistic influences on the Balochi spoken in Karachi. In Carina Jahani & Agnes Korn (eds.), The Baloch and their neighbours. Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times, 169–210. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Grjunberg, Aleksandr
1963 Jazyk severoazerbajdžanskix tatov [The language of the Tats of Northern Azerbaijan]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Ġalt‘axč‘yan, Sergey
1957 Hamaṙotaki Madrasayi hay-t‘at‘ereni masin [Briefly on Armeno-Tat of Mədrəsə]. Hayastan SSR Gitut‘yunneri akademiayi teġekargir – Hasarakakan gitut‘yunner 4. 85–96.Google Scholar
1970 Madrasac‘inneri t‘at‘eren lezun [The Tat language of the residents of Mədrəsə]. Yerevan: Unpublished Candidate of Sciences thesis defended at the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR Sector of Oriental Studies.Google Scholar
Ivanov, Vladimir & Lejli Dodyxudoeva
2017 Sintaksičeskie otnošenija imen v severo-zapadnyx iranskix jazykax (na mazanderanskom i gilanskom materiale) [Syntactic relations of nouns in Northwestern Iranian language (based on a corpus from Mazandarani and Gilaki)]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2. 77–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jügel, Thomas
2016 Enclitic pronouns in Middle Persian and the placeholder construction. Quarterly Journal of Language and Inscription 1(1). 41–63.Google Scholar
2019 The development of the object marker in Middle Persian. In Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference of Iranian Studies, 203–219. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishers.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin
1990 Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse functions. Linguistic Analysis 20. 139–191.Google Scholar
1996 Case and specificity: Persian râ revisited. Linguistic Analysis 3(4). 173–194.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1970 Étude quantitative de l’évolution d’un morphème: la postposition râ en persan [Quantitative study of the evolution of a morpheme: the postposition râ in Persian]. In David Cohen (ed.), Mélanges Marcel, 381–388. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1982 Le morphème râ en persan et les relations actancielles [The morpheme râ in Persian and grammatical relations]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 77(1). 177–207.Google Scholar
1994 Le râ persan et le ba chinois [The Persian râ and the Chinese ba ]. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale 23(1). 169–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lopatinskij, Lev
(ed.) 1894 Armjano-tatskie teksty [Armeno-Tat texts]. In Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija mestnostej i plemen Kavkaza 20, Section 2, 25–32.Google Scholar
Mammadova, Nayiba
2018 Eléments de description et documentation du tat de l’Apshéron, langue iranienne d’Azerbaïdjan. Paris: Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales dissertation. [URL]
Miller, Boris
1929 Taty, ix rasselenie i govory (materialy i voprosy) [Tats, their distribution and dialects (corpora and issues)]. Azərbajcanь өqrənən Cəmijjətin Xəbərləri 8(7). 3–33.Google Scholar
1945 Tatskie teksty: Materialy po govoram tatov Sovetskogo Azerbajdžana [Tat Texts: Materials on the Dialects of the Tats of Soviet Azerbaijan]. In Vasilij Abaev & Ivan Meščaninov (eds.), Iranskie jazyki 1 [Iranian Languages 1] (Iranica 3), 107–126. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Paul, Ludwig
2008 Some remarks on Persian suffix -râ as a general and historical issue. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Donald Stilo (eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 329–337. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2017 The case system of Modern West Iranian languages in typological and historical perspective (with special reference to *rādī). Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Iranian Linguistics . Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University.
Poplack, Shana & Stephen Levey
2010 Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation 1, 391–419. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rastorgueva, Vera & Džoj Ėdel’man
1982 Giljanskij, mazanderanskij (s dialektami šamerzadi i velatru) [Gilaki, Mazandarani (including the Shamerzādi and Velātru dialects)]. In Vasilij Abaev, Mixail Bogoljubov & Vera Rastorgueva (eds.), Novoiranskie jazyki: zapadnaja gruppa, prikaspijskie jazyki (Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija 3), 447–554. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Shokri, Guiti
2018 Ditransitivity constructions in three Caspian dialects. In Agnes Korn & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective, 135–145. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Soltanov, Ağacamal & Məmmədxan Soltanov
2013 Tati-türki, türki-tati lüğət – Tatca-azərbaycanca, azərbaycanca-tatca lüğət [Tat–Azeri, Azeri–Tat Dictionary]. Baku: Qanun.Google Scholar
Stilo, Donald
2004 Coordination in three Western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Persian and Gilaki. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 269–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Iranian as buffer zone between the universal typologies of Turkic and Semitic. In Éva Á Csató, Bo Isaksson & Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, 35–63. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Šokri, Giti
1995 [1374] Guyeš-e Sāri [The dialect of Sāri]. Tehran: Pažuhešgāh-e ’olum-e ensāni va motāle’āt-e farhangi.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot
1979 Persian grammar: History and state of its study (Trends in Linguistics 12). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot & John Perry
2009 Persian and Tajik. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 416–544. London: Routledge.Google Scholar