|
چکیده
|
Clitics at the syntax-pragmatics interface:
The case of Delvari pronominal enclitics
Delvari is an endangered West Iranian language spoken in Delvar and some neighboring
villages near Bu?ehr on the Persian Gulf in Iran. Like the majority of West Iranian languages,
Delvari makes extensive use of bound pronominal clitics expressing core arguments. The
paradigm of transitive subject clitics (=AC) and object clitics (=PC) is given in Table 1 (the
same clitics occur in other syntactic functions, which we ignore in this paper):
SINGULAR PLURAL
1st =om =omu
2nd =et =etu
3rd =e? =e?u
The basic architecture of Delvari clitic syntax reflects the “tense-sensitivity” (Haig 2008)
typical of West Iranian, where the functions of clitics are dependent on the tense of the verb.
For example, transitive verbs in past tenses obligatorily index the A-argument via a clitic
pronoun, while in the present tense, an A-argument is never indexed in this manner. This kind
of system is richly attested in Middle Iranian (Middle Persian and Parthian, cf. Korn 2009) and
although it has since disappeared in modern Persian, it is still preserved in most of West
Iranian e.g. Central and Southern Kurdish (Fattah 2000, McKenzie 1961/1962, Samvelian
2006, 2007, Opengin (in prep.), several varieties of Balochi (Dabir-Moghaddam 2008), Gorani
(Mahmoudveysi et al 2012) or Talyshi (Stilo 2008). In Delvari, however, the system differs
from the better-known examples in that first, the AC may, subject to pragmatic conditions to be
outlined in the paper, still be realized in the Wackernagel-position, as shown in (1a-b). Note
that unlike e.g. Central Kurdish, in Delvari the A-NP itself is a possible host for the clitic, as in
(1b):
(1) a. dig=e? xune xeri
yesterday=3.SG.AC house buy.PST
‘S/He bought a house yesterday.’
b. eli=? mo ne-di, oma mo=m eli di
Ali=3SG.AC me NEG-see.PST, but I=1SG.AC Ali see.PST
‘Ali didn’t see me, but I saw Ali.’
Second, Delvari has developed an innovation in the hosting of object clitic
|