Linguistics
Elaheh Fathian; Mehrdad Naghzguy Kohan
Abstract
All societies use kinship terms to address and refer to one’s kin. Most studies dealing with kin terms have been done based on consanguineal and affinal kin criteria. In some societies, kin relations are established by other criteria. Therefore, cultural differences must be taken into account but ...
Read More
All societies use kinship terms to address and refer to one’s kin. Most studies dealing with kin terms have been done based on consanguineal and affinal kin criteria. In some societies, kin relations are established by other criteria. Therefore, cultural differences must be taken into account but genealogical paths cannot represent this cultural knowledge. In this research, kin terms were considered as cultural elements. Using kin term maps, it is possible to formally represent how kin relations are calculated without reference to genealogical relations and to recognize primary kin terms. So, cultural differences can be represented as well. The framework used in this research provides a comprehensive basis for comparative studies of kin terms. This study diachronically explored kin term maps of Old Persian, Middle Persian and New Persian. The starting point was “self” in the maps, located in the center. Primary kin terms were identified according to their position relative to the “self”. A comparison of the maps showed that in Middle Persian grammatical gender has disappeared, but biological gender was still important in this period. Some kin terms were added and some were dropped in this period. The results showed that in New Persian the number of kin terms has increased. In the New Persian, there are now some loan kin terms, two-syllable kin terms are more frequently used, and biological gender has lost its importance in expressing kinship relations
Iran Abdi; Mehrdad Naghzguy Kohan
Abstract
Extended Abstract Introduction Agreement is one of the most important morpho-syntactic categories in linguistics. It commonly refers to systematic covariance between the semantic and formal property of one element and the formal property of another element. Agreement system of any languages contains ...
Read More
Extended Abstract Introduction Agreement is one of the most important morpho-syntactic categories in linguistics. It commonly refers to systematic covariance between the semantic and formal property of one element and the formal property of another element. Agreement system of any languages contains six important elements: 1) controller, 2) target, 3) domain, 4) feature, 4) value, and 6) condition. The agreement system is distinct in different languages, and the extent to which agreement is used differs from one language to another language. It depends on language-specific factors in which contexts agreement is obligatory, optional, or even excluded. Due tohe importance of identifying these factors, in this corpus-based study, we tried to investigate the verbal agreement system in "Zein-Abadi" dialect. "Zein-Abadi" dialect is spoken by the Behdinan “the people of the Good Religion,” in other words, Zoroastrianism, who live in, Zein- Abad. Zein Abad is a village that is located in Yazd province. Theoretical Framework Corbett (2001) discussed six elements that are important in the canonical agreement. The element which determines the agreement is the controller. The element whose form is determined by agreement is the target. The domain of agreement is the syntactic environment in which agreement occurs (the clause for instance). Features are agreement categories such as number, person, and gender. Value is the classification of feature. For example, numbers in Persian have the values of singular and plural, but Arabic has singular, dual, and plural value. Conditions are the external factor which affect the domain of agreement. Agreement based on the grammatical number can occur between the verb and the subject. In a simple example like "she runs", the form "runs" is singular, agreeing in number with "she". This is information about the number of runners (just one), and it matches that expressed in its source "she". Patterns of agreement vary dramatically cross-linguistically, with great diversity in expression and types of variation found. Agreement is influenced by the conflicting effects of sentence structure and meaning and also metalinguistic (e.g., syntactic, semantic, and social) factors. Methodology In this corpus-based study, we tried to investigate the agreement system in "Zein-Abadi" dialect. Therefore, we gathered a written corpus consisting of "9881" verbal clauses and analyzed our research data according to canonical agreement theory of Corbett (2001). Within his criteria, we consider our database on three criteria which involve: The presence or absence of a controller: Several criteria are related to the controller. An important one is that canonical controller is present. Compare these two examples: a) xišân va mardom-e vey xâmuš namânand (Beyhaghi, 1345, 147). SBJ.3nd Pl V. PRS.3rd Pl 'His relatives and his people will not be silent' b) Ø open the window Ø V. PRS.2nd Obj In the first example (from Persian), the controller is present, while in the second one (from English), it is absent, so we see canonical type (a). The match between the controller and the target characteristic: Based on these criteria, in canonical agreement, the values of controller and target match together. To clarify, we have to address examples like this one: c) The committee have decided d) The committee has decided We cannot simply say that committee in example (c) is plural since we do not know these committees. From the feature value point of view, we can say that example (c) is less canonical than example (d). The condition or absence of a condition in the match: The construction which has a condition is less canonical than the construction with no condition. In Persian, if the subject consists of inanimate singulars, the verb will be singular. e) yek setare dar âsemân mideraxšad star. SBJ.3nd Sg in sky shine. V. PRS.3rd Sg 'One star shines in the sky' However, if the subject consists of inanimate plurals, the verb will be singular or plural. f) setaregan dar âsemân mideraxšand/ mideraxšad Stars.SBJ.3nd Pl in sky shine. V. PRS.3rd Pl/ PRS.3rd Sg 'The stars shine in the sky' Conclusion The three syntactic, semantic, and socio-linguistic factors (politeness) are among the most influential factors in Zein -Abadi dialect. Analysis of the investigation presents, in 3364 verbal clauses form 9881 verbal clauses equaling "34/05" percent of the corpus, there are also syntactic and semantic agreement between controllers and targets, and in 6517 verbal clauses, equaling 65/95 percent of the corpus, there are no syntactical and semantic agreement between controllers and targets. In non-canonical cases, Pro-drop clauses with 95/35 percent are most effective, then comes the animacy with 3/71 percent, and social politeness with 0/94 percent makes structures with non-canonical forms of verbal agreement.
