A Symmetric Approach to Agreement in Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish) Direct Arguments

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Kurmanji uses two morphological forms of pronouns and R-expressions: direct and oblique. The direct form of first and second pronouns (local pronouns) is fully specified for person and number. In contrast, direct third-person pronouns and R-expressions are unmarked; however, these arguments still exhibit person and number agreement with verbs and number and gender agreement with Ezafe heads. There are two approaches to deal with direct unmarked arguments. In the asymmetric approach, these arguments are assumed to be fully specified for relevant φ-features, which are deleted at PF (Phonological Form) after agreement, whereas in the symmetric approach, they are merged as underspecified for relevant features and acquire their interpretation via agreement. Given the prevalence of unmarked arguments in Kurmanji, the symmetric approach is more economical and minimalistic, requiring fewer theoretical tools and computations. The present study shows that the key distinction between local pronouns and unmarked arguments lies in the specification of relevant φ-features. Direct unmarked arguments enter the derivation underspecified for these features, establishing a relation of ‘subset control’ in agreement and acquiring their interpretation by spreading features from the agreeing head at the LF (Logical Form) interface. This study also reveals that agreement in Ezafe constructions and pro-drop sentences also involve subset control and agreement is the only possible way to license φ-features, such as gender in inanimate arguments and person in R-expressions.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2019a). Default person versus default number in agreement. In L. Franco, M. M. M., & M. Reeve (Eds.), Agreement, Case and Locality in the Nominal and Verbal Domains (pp. 21-54). (Open Generative Syntax). Language Science Press.
Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2019b). Features of person: From the inventory of persons to their morphological realization. London, England: The MIT Press.
Ackema, P., et al. (2006a). Arguments and agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acquaviva, P. (2020). Gender as a property of words and as a property of structures. In Gender and Number in the Nominal Domain (Vol. 19, pp. 49-74). Catalan Journal of Linguistics.
Akkuş, F. (2020). On Iranian case and agreement. Natural Language and Linguist Theory, 38, 671-727.
Atlamaz, Ü., & Baker, M. (2016). Agreement with and past oblique subjects: New considerations from Kurmanji. In C. Kimmerly, & B. Prickett (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46 (pp. 39-49). GLSA.
Atlamaz, Ü., & Baker, M. (2018). On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax, 21(3), 195-237.
Bobaljik, J. D. (2008b). Where’s phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In D. Harbour, D. Adger & S. Bejar (Eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features Across Modules and Interfaces (pp. 295-328). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frampton, J., & S. Gutmann (2000). Agreement is feature sharing. Ms, Northeastern University
Franco, L., Manzini, R., & Savoia, L. (2014). Linkers are not ‘possession markers’ (but ‘agreements’). Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 233-251).
Franco, L., Manzini, R., & Savoia, L. (2015). Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic Review, 32 (2), 277-332.
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language (pp. 58-90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gündoğdu, S. (2017). Variation in the ergative pattern of Kurmanji. Wiener Jahrbuch Für Kürdische Studien 5, 45-62
Gündoğdu, S. (2023). Ezafe in Northern Kurdish. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 45.
Haig, G. (2011). Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle: On the Ezafe in West Iranian. Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, 96, 363-390.
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation (pp. 262-294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects
Volume 12, Issue 4
Special Issue: Linguistics of Kurdish and Related Languages, Guest editor: Erik Anonby, Professor of Linguistics and French, School of Linguistics and Language Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Email: erik.anonby@carleton.ca
December 2024
Pages 17-32

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics