Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries: In honour of Aslı Göksel
Edited by Aslı Gürer, Dilek Uygun-Gökmen and Balkız Öztürk
[Studies in Language Companion Series 215] 2020
► pp. 93–120

Person indexing in Sauzini

Subject vs. non-subject markers

| Boğaziçi University
An inquiry into the person indexing system of Sauzini, a West-Iranian language spoken in certain villages in the western Black Sea region of Turkey, reveals two different paradigms of bound person marking in the language. One is subject agreement markers on predicates and the other non-subject bound pronominals, namely clitics. The latter group which surfaces in different syntactic environments alternates with free pronouns. The distribution of pronominal clitics in Sauzini displays the different types of syntactic structures they take part in and reveals that the host they select is instrumental in formally differentiating between different argument types as well as semantic roles. Thus, an account of clitic behavior constitutes an instance of morphology-syntax and semantics interface in this language.
Keywords: clitics, agreement suffixes, distribution of personal pronouns, argument structure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sauzini and person indexing
  • 3.Differences between subject agreement and pronominal clitics
  • 4.The behavior of pronominal clitics
  • 5.Implications of pronominal clitic distribution and some conclusions drawn
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.04tay
References (26)
References
Anderson, Stephen. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atlamaz, Ümit. 2012. Ergative as Accusative Case: Evidence from Adıyaman Kurmanji. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University.
Baker, Mark & Atlamaz, Ümit. 2013. On the relationship of case to agreement in split ergative Kurmanji. Ms, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bonami, Oliver & Samvelian, Polett. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.
Bulut, Meral. 2019. A Preliminary Classification of Sauzini. MA thesis, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University.
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gündoğdu, Songül. 2018. Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Kurmanji Kurdish. PhD dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jügel, Thomas. 2009. Ergative remnants in Sorani Kurdish? Orientalia Suecana LVIII: 142–158.Google Scholar
Karimi, Yadgar. 2010. Unaccusative transitives and person-case constraint effect in Kurdish. Lingua 117: 693–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korn, Agnes. 2009. Western Iranian pronominal clitics. Orientalia Suecana LVII: 159–171.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2011. Verb sensitivity and argument realization in three- participant constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective (Conference handout). Conference on Referential Hierarchies in Three- participant Constructions, Lancaster University.
. 1999. Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 35, Vol. 1, Sabrina Billings, John Boyle & Aaron Griffith (eds), 223–247. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav Rappaport, Malka. 2007. The crosslinguistic study of Dative alternations: A verb sensitive perspective (Conference handout). Conference on Ditransitive Constructions, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.
MacKenzie, D. Neil 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies I [London Oriental Series 9]. London: OUP.Google Scholar
Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz & Moradkhani, Simin. 2010. Personal pronouns in the Kakavandi Laki dialect of Harsin (Kermanshah, Iran). Iranian Studies 43(4): 513–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Öpengin, Ergin. 2013. Clitic-affix Interactions: A Corpus-based Study of Person Marking in the Mukri Variety of Central Kurdish. PhD dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle and Universität Bamberg.
. 2012. Adpositions and argument indexing in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Focus on ditransitive constructions. Orientalia Suecana LXI: 187–199.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Polett. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In Texas Linguistic Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Understudied Languages, Frederick Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Alexandra Teodorescu & Jessica White (eds), 265–285. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter W. 2013. The (relatively) simple working of complex clitic systems. Amsterdam: PhonoLAM, Meertens Institute.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gemot & Perry, John R. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In The Iranian Languages, Gemot Windfuhr (ed.), 416–545. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yahir, Rebwar Shafil. 2018. The Structure of the DP in Central Kurdish. PhD dissertation, New Castle University.
Thackston, Wheeler M. 2006. Sorani Kurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings. <[URL]> (19 December 2019)
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English N’T. Language 59(3): 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar