Geoffrey Haig

Alignment change in Iranian languages : a construction grammar approach

This book presents an account of alignment shifts in Iranian languages and covers a time-span of some two and half millennia. It blends data from more than 20 Iranian languages, past and present, with theoretical discussion of alignment (ergativity, accusativity), subjecthood, diachronic syntax and morphology. No specialist knowledge of the Iranian languages is presupposed. The most detailed analyses of single languages are from Kurdish, based on extensive original field-work. Ergativity in Iranian is shown to be most prominently linked to the notion of Non-Canonical Subject. The results have repercussions for theories of alignment and grammatical relations, morphosyntactic change, and for comparative syntax of Indo-European.

On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity: Lessons from Kurdish☆

It is well known that languages are not necessarily consistent in their alignment, i.e. whether they are ergative or accusative. For example, the morphology may be ergative while the syntax is accusative. Mismatches of this kind led Anderson (1976, 1977) to the conclusion that ergativity is a superficial phenomenon, largely confined to the morphology, with no further consequences for the syntax. His standpoint was sharply criticized by other scholars who insisted that the presence of ergativity was a significant indicator of a languages typological profile. But in more recent work, e.g. Dixon (1994), it is also claimed that the presence of ergativity in some domain of the grammar need not have any further consequences for the grammar as a whole, hence to a certain extent reaffirming Andersons standpoint and furthermore casting doubt on the validity of alignment as a typological parameter. In this study I present a detailed analysis of ergativity in Kurdish and demonstrate that in Kurdish, ergativity is indeed a relatively superficial phenomenon without further consequences for other levels of grammatical organization. Hence the usefulness of alignment as a typological parameter is questionable. Kurdish data is presented on morphological alignment, several syntactic processes, and voice phenomena. Finally, evidence from the loss of ergativity in Kurdish (Dorleijn, 1996) is discussed which is seen to provide further support for my claims.

Documenting endangered languages : achievements and perspectives

Documenting endangered languages has become a major goal in the linguistic sciences. This volume showcases recent developments in methodology, technology and analysis, drawing on experience gained in a global range of documentation projects. It illustrates the significance of documentary linguistics not only as a set of documentary practices, but as a scientific discipline in its own right.

Noun-plus-verb complex predicates in Kurmanjî Kurdish: Argument sharing, argument incorporation, or what?

Complex predicates (CPs) consisting of a noun (N) and a verb (V) are an ubiquitous feature of Kurdish, and of Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages generally. M O H A N A N (1997) has proposed an argument-sharing analysis for this type of CP in Hindi, according to which both the noun and the verb contribute to the argument structure of the CP In this paper the argument-sharing approach is assessed against the Kurdish data, but it transpires that it only accounts for a subset of N-FV CPs. Furthermore, for one specific type of CR an analysis in terms of syntactic incorporation is simpler and empirically more adequate. I conclude that no single model accounts for the totality of CP-formation in Kurdish and related languages. Finally, I address the question of why N+V CPs should have emerged in the eastern members of Indo-European, yet are almost completely lacking in the Indo-European languages of Europe.

The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state

Abstract While the grammaticalization of person agreement is a widely-cited and apparently uncontroversial topos of grammaticalization theory, the striking differences in the outcome of subject pronoun, and object pronoun grammaticalization, remain unexplained, and the relevant literature continues to assume a unified grammaticalization pathway. This paper argues that the grammaticalization of object pronouns is fundamentally different to that of subject pronouns. More specifically, although object pronouns may be rapid early grammaticalizers, often losing prosodic independence and cliticizing to a verbal head, they do not advance further to reach the stage of obligatory agreement markers typical of subject agreement. Typically, object markers remain at the stage of Differential Object Indexing, where their realization is conditioned by a bundle of semantic and pragmatic factors exhibiting close parallels to those operative in Differential Object Marking. Evidence from language typology, and from the diachrony of person markers across two millennia of Iranian languages, is adduced to back up these claims. Thus the widely-assumed grammaticalization cline for the grammaticalization of agreement needs to be reconsidered; for object agreement, there is evidently an attractor state, that of Differential Object Indexing, beyond which object agreement seldom proceeds. Finally, explanations grounded in discourse data are proposed, which also account for why obligatory object agreement in the category of person is so rare, while gender and number agreement for objects is far less constrained.

Agreement in grammar and discourse: A research overview

Abstract Agreement is among the most widely-researched issues in theoretical linguistics. In this introduction, we critically review some of the key issues, focussing on typological approaches to agreement, the role of agreement in establishing and maintaining reference, and the emergence of agreement diachronically. We point to the interplay of semantic, pragmatic and syntactic factors in shaping the way agreement systems function, and emphasize the need for more usage-based research in understanding the impact of extra-syntactic factors. We also argue for greater attention to lesser-researched languages, particularly those where features other than person are central in agreement relations. Finally, we offer a short synopsis of the contributions to this issue.

Same home, different languages. Intergenerational language shift: tendencies, limitations, opportunities. The case of Diyarbakır

as a process in the making, a range of flexible alternatives rather than a set of proven rules. He repeatedly warns us to avoid simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions and disparages the ‘useless either-or way of thinking’ (145). He cautions us that ‘if something is not working always or fully, that does not mean that it does not work ever or at all’ (159) and that ‘what works in one situation does not necessarily work in another situation’ (189). And, rather than despairing when empirical evidence is equivocal or contradictory, Verkuyten reminds us that the lack of certainty probably means ‘that there are important intervening factors and conditions’ (142). Throughout all of this, he carefully constructs his argument, moving the reader through the relevant aspects to culminate in his concluding chapter on ‘the way forward’. Are there elements missing in the analysis that Verkuyten presents? Undoubtedly so, given the scope of the issues and a relatively slim 280-page treatment. The author himself, with a bow to Gordon Allport, stresses the value that other disciplines can bring to the debate on multiculturalism. Readers of this journal may miss any significant treatment of language, whether as an important element of ethnic identity (which Verkuyten did discuss in his earlier book), as a basis of impressions formed by one group of another, or as an element of public policy. Without a doubt, however, the social psychological analysis presented here can offer important grounding and direction for these other arenas of investigation. Importantly, Verkuyten recognises that the contributions of social psychological theory and research (or any other scholarly product) cannot in themselves fully resolve the multicultural debate. Prevailing norms and values will influence whatever choices are made in any given society. But for Verkuyten, and for many who share his perspective, rational analysis and informed choices are the recommended course. As suggested in the quoted sentence that opened this review, making diversity work is not easy – but the author has shown himself willing to spend the time, show the patience, and put in the hard labour to make the challenge just a bit easier for those who want to engage in strengthening the global communities of the future.

A note on Gilbert Lazard's review of Geoffrey Haig, Alignment change in Iranian languages (2008)

Linguistic Typology 13 (2009), 195 1430–0532/2009/013-0195 DOI 10.1515/LITY.2009.011 ©Walter de Gruyter In his review (Linguistic Typology 12(3), 467–473) of my book Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar approach (2008), Gilbert Lazard writes (p. 470): “My first general point is that Haig freely uses such terms as ergative, accusative, transitive, subject, object, passive and the like, implying that their meaning is well known, and he does not define them. I think that such notions are not clear and need to be critically analyzed.” This statement creates the impression that in the book, crucial terminology such as “ergative”, “subject”, etc. are not defined, and their intended sense is simply taken for granted. Such an impression is unfortunate, because a central aim of the book was precisely to clarify the usage of these notoriously controversial terms within the context of Iranian studies. Consequently, quite extensive sections of the book are devoted to them; the following are representative: most of the concepts mentioned in the above quote are provided with operational definitions on pp. 6–12, though the definitions are geared towards the specific properties of Iranian languages. Transitivity is taken up again in connection with “Lingering Intransitivity” in Section 3.7.1, and at numerous points elsewhere. On “passive”, see Section 3.1 (“What is a passive?”) and Section 2.4.4 (“The semantics and pragmatics of passives”). As for “subject”, it is initially discussed in connection with non-canonical subjecthood on pp. 19–20, while pp. 32–34 take up the concept again in connection with the Keenan’esque subject properties, and again on pp. 75–76. Further references to all the terms mentioned are provided in the book’s Subject Index, so the point need not be laboured here. Of course a reviewer is welcome to disagree with my definitions of certain concepts, and there is undoubtedly ample scope for differences in opinion. But to imply that theoretical concepts are neither defined nor critically analyzed, misrepresents a core feature of the book under review. I am therefore grateful to the Editorial Board of LT for affording me this opportunity to put the record straight.