Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, P. O. Box 14665-889, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to study Persian effect on the relative clause construction  of Azerbaijani. The data have been collected from the different contexts of Azerbaijani speakers’ speech in Ardabil province. At first the data were classified in two groups: head final relative clauses and head initial relative clauses. Then they were analyzed according to views common in language contact phenomenon including Heine (2006). So this research is descriptive-analytic. Azerbaijani allows the nouns with different  grammatical functions (subject, direct object, indirect object, object of postposition, genitive, object of comparison) to be relativized like other languages in the world.  In addition to head final relative clauses (common in Turkish languages), most of the data have been produced according to Persian relative clause structure (head initial pattern) by borrowing Persian “Ke” morpheme. Previous Azerbaijani language researchers have considered head initial relative clause as a borrowed structure from Persian to Azerbaijani. But the findings of this research show that head initial relative clause structure is an Azerbaijani native structure used in the special context limitedly without the appearance of Persian “Ke” morpheme. Persian and Azerbaijani can be considered as model and replica languages respectively in the language contact situation. Azerbaijani speakers use a strategy such as the extending strategy to increase the frequency of head initial relative clause structure matching that of Persian by borrowing Persian “Ke” morpheme, as Heine (2006) has showed the use of this strategy in the contact situation of some languages. Azerbaijani speakers choose among two alternative structures (head final and head initial relative clause structures), the one corresponding to Persian relative clause structure. Azerbaijani speakers’ extended use of head initial relative clauses is as a result of Azerbaijani convergence with Persian that is a common phenomenon due to the language contact occurring in multilingual societies

Keywords

Main Subjects

Aghaei, B. 2006. Clausal Complementation in Modern Persian. Ph. D Dissertation University of Texas at Austin.
Bahrami, K. 2017. The analysis of noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in German and Farsi. Language related research, (3) 23-42. [In Persian].
Bazian, A., Ameri, H., & Golfam, A. 2023. The study of relative clauses in Turkish Azeri and Persian: a typological approach. Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, On line published. doi: 10.22126/jlw.2023.8591.1672. [In Persian].
Chikovani, G. 2005. Linguistic contact in central Asia. In Linguistic
 Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, E. Csato, A. Bo Isaksson and c. Jahani (eds), 127-132, London: Routledge.
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universal and typology (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, B., & Kutewa, T. 2005. Relativization strategies. In H. Martin, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie with the collaboration of H. Bibiko, H. Jung & C. Schmidt (Eds.). The world atlas of language structures (pp. 71-92). Oxford: Oxford university press.
Dabir- Moghaddam, M. 2013. Iranian language typology. Volume 1, First publication. Tehran: The organization for researching and composing university textbooks in the humanities (SAMT). [In Persian].
Erfani, P. 2012. Azeri Morphosyntax: The Influence of Persian on a Turkic Language. Master’s Thesis. Simon Fraser University.
Farzaneh, M. 1978. The base of Azarbayjanian grammar. Tehran: Farzaneh publication. [In Persian].
Gholamalizadeh, Kh. 2007. The structure of Persian language. Tehran: Ehya Ketab. [In Persian].
Greenberg, H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Grammar (2nd ed, pp. 73-113). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Haghbin, F., & Asadi, H. 2015.  A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis of Relative Clauses in Farsi. Journal of Language Research, 5 (2), 21-41. [In Persian].
Haspelmath, M. & Tadmor. U. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: a comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210-231.
Heine, B. 2006. Contact-induced Word Order Change without Word Order Change [Working Papers in Multilingualism, Series B, 76]. University of Hamburg: Sonderforschungs-bereich 538: Mehrsprachigkeit.
Keenan, E. 1985. Relative clauses. In Sh, Timothy (Ed.), language typology and syntactic description: Complex construction (Vol. 2, pp. 141-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguist Inquiry, 8 (1), 63-89.
Lee, S., N. 1996. A Grammar of Iranian Azerbaijani. Doctoral dissertation, Sussex university.
Lehman, Ch. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics, 24, 663–680.
Mowlaei Kuhbanani, H.,  Alizadeh, A., & Sharifi, SH. 2018. The Role of Typological features of Relative Structure on Determining Persian Word Order. Journal of Language Research, 10 (28), 87-114. [In Persian].
Slobin, D. I. 1986. The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and indo-European languages, in D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (ed.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (273-291). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taghvaipour, M. 2014. Resumption in Persian Relative Clauses: An HPSG Analysis. CSLI Publications.
Thomason, S. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomason, S. 2001. Language Contact. Edinburgh: EUP.
Underhill, R. 1979. Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague Mouton.