The aim of this paper is to look at some of the problems with the traditional subdivisions of Iranian and at possible new approaches. It builds on an argument made in Korn (2016a), adding discussion and further illustrating problems in the data and methods involved in the traditional model of relations among the Iranian languages. It specifically points out that the traditional family tree is based on a set of isoglosses that is an artefact of the data that happened to be available at the time. In addition, the question arises whether the wave model or the concept of linguistic areas would be more adequate to account for the data. The discovery of a corpus of Bactrian manuscripts encourages a new approach. I argue that a sub-branch including Bactrian, Parthian and some other languages is a hypothesis that deserves to be tested; at the same time, the comparison with other Iranian languages as well as typological considerations permit to assess the role of language contact.
Archives
Circumpositions as an areal response
This paper proposes that the potential conflict arising from the areal distribution of a right-branching (VO) pattern encountering the area of a left-branching (OV) pattern is often resolved by the creation of an intersection zone which accommodates to both patterns by a simultaneous fluctuation between, or a merger of, the two patterns. The discussion is restricted here both in domain (adpositions) and area (the Middle East). Languages of this area group into three adpositional zones: postpositional, prepositional, and an intersection zone of mixed typology. The latter exhibits A) a split pattern, with both prepositions and postpositions; B) a merger of the two types into one hybridized pattern framing the head (circumpositions); or C) an assortment of patterns (prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and doublets or alternating forms). I also demonstrate that in the areas sandwiched between, and partially overlapping with, the postpositional zone (Turkic, Armenian, Caucasian, Indic) and the prepositional zone (Semitic), we find Iranian languages that are postpositional in the north, prepositional in the south, and of mixed adpositional typology in the central areas. In the east, we also find mixed typology in Nuristani languages.
Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar approach
The Iranian languages, due to their exceptional time-depth of attestation, constitute one of the very few instances where a shift from accusative alignment to split-ergativity is actually documented. Yet remarkably, within historical syntax, the Iranian case has received only very superficial coverage. This book provides the first in-depth treatment of alignment change in Iranian, from Old Persian (5 C. BC) to the present. The first part of the book examines the claim that ergativity in Middle Iranian emerged from an Old Iranian agented passive construction. This view is rejected in favour of a theory which links the emergence of ergativity to External Possession. Thus the primary mechanisms involved is not reanalysis, but the extension of a pre-existing construction. The notion of Non-Canonical Subjecthood plays a pivotal role, which in the present account is linked to the semantics of what is termed Indirect Participation. In the second part of the book, a comparative look at contemporary West Iranian is undertaken. It can be shown that throughout the subsequent developments in the morphosyntax, distinct components such as agreement, nominal case marking, or the grammar of cliticisation, in fact developed remarkably independently of one another. It was this de-coupling of sub-systems of the morphosyntax that led to the notorious multiplicity of alignment types in Iranian, a fact that also characterises past-tense alignments in the sister branch of Indo-European, Indo-Aryan. Along with data from more than 20 Iranian languages, presented in a manner that renders them accessible to the non-specialist, there is extensive discussion of more general topics such as the adequacy of functional accounts of changes in case systems, discourse pressure and the role of animacy, the notion of drift, and the question of alignment in early Indo-European.
Case in Iranian
Lakī and Kurdish
This paper aims at verifying the traditional set of phonetic changes, defined by D. N. Mackenzie as the main distinctive feature of the Kurdish dialects, with regard to Lakī having yet no clear affiliation in the Iranian dialectology. It is usually considered to be a dialect of Kurdish, sometimes a transitional dialect between Kurdish and Luri, and even a separate idiom.
WOWA — Word Order in Western Asia
The focus on Western Asia is motivated by an overarching research interest in the areal diffusion of word order regularities; specifically, we investigate the respective impact of inheritance (the genetic affiliation of the languages concerned, e.g. Turkic, Semitic, etc.) and the impact of neighbouring languages, related or not, in shaping word order in usage. In addition, we address the issue of which aspects of word order are stable within a particular doculect, and which display corpus-internal variability.
More generally, this is connected to the issue of integrating variation into typology. Finally, WOWA is the only cross-linguistic data-base of its type that includes exclusively spoken language, and thus provides an important corrective to much ongoing work in corpus-based typology, which is still largely based on written language.