Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 12:3 (2022) ► pp.446–475

The change in the grammatical category of the copula in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic

ORCID logo | University of Cambridge
North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA), which is a subgroup of dialects of vernacular Neo-Aramaic, exhibits considerable internal diversity. In this paper, I describe the diversity that exists in the form of the copula in this subgroup. The paradigms of the copula in the various dialects exhibit different degrees of convergence with verbal inflection. There is an areal progression in verbalization from the western periphery to the eastern periphery. The incipient verbalization of the copula can be correlated with semantic properties of the subject and the clause that would be expected typologically to be most compatible with verbal predicates. Close correlations, however, can be identified with the distribution of pronominal and verbal inflections of copulas in the languages with which the NENA dialects have been in contact in the region. It is likely, therefore, that the realization of the internal potential verbalization of the NENA copula was induced by language contact.
Keywords: Neo-Aramaic, Semitic, Iranian, Kurdish, Gorani, copula, language contact
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminary remarks
  • 2.The copula in the NENA dialects
    • 2.1The present copula
    • 2.2Past copula
    • 2.3Negative copula
    • 2.4Further strategies of verbalization
    • 2.5Summary and analysis
  • 3.Impact of languages in contact
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.21019.kha
References (64)
References
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Typological Studies in Language 9. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Mary A. Brewer. 1980. Explanation in Morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish Preterite Forms. Lingua 521.201–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chvany, Catherine V. 1985. Backgrounded Perfective and Plot Line Imperfectives: Toward a Theory of Grounding in Text. The Scope of Slavic Aspect ed. by Michael S. Flier & Alan Timberlake, 247–273. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Chyet, Michael L. 1995. Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish: An Interdisciplinary Consideration of Their Influence on Each Other. Israel Oriental Studies 151.219–249.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2010. Ditransitive Constructions in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Telkepe. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook ed. by Andreĭ Lʹvovich Malʹchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie, 221–242. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in a Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language Studies 55:1.59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elšík, Viktor & Yaron Matras. 2006. Markedness and Language Change: The Romani Sample. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 321. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis. Speech, Place, and Action ed. by Robert J. Jarvell & Wolfgang Klein, 31–59. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1982. Why Nouns are Learned before Verbs: Linguistic Relativity versus Natural Partitioning. Language Development. Vol. 2. Language, Thought and Culture ed. by Stan Kuczaj, 301–334. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Eribaum.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 11. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1983. On Syriac Sentence Structure. Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition ed. by Michael Sokoloff, 97–140. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.Google Scholar
Häberl, Charles. 2009. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Semitica Viva 451. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The Iranian Languages of Northern Iraq. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 267–304. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Geoffrey Khan. 2018. Introduction. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 1–30. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A Usage-Based Approach. Constructions 21. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument Marking in Ditransitive Alignment Types. Linguistic Discovery 3:1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2004. The Pragmatics of Polarity. The Handbook of Pragmatics ed. by Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward, 701–723. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2009. Watkins’ Law and the Development of Agglutinative Inflections in Asia Minor Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 91.93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qəltu-Dialekte. Vol. 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1985. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭūr ʻAbdīn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1988. Der neuaramäische dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Semitica Viva 3. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1990. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von ʿAqra und Arbīl. Semitica Viva 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1994. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô. Semitica Viva 14. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2015. Language Contact as Reflected in the Consonant System of Ṭuroyo. Semitic Languages in Contact ed. by Aaron M. Butts. Leiden-Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Boston, MA: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Quelques aspects de l’expression d’“être” en Néo-Araméen. Langues de diaspora. Langues en contact ed. by Anaïd Donabédian, 139–148. Faits de langues revue de linguistique 18. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 36. Boston, MA: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The North Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies 521.1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies. Piscataway: Gorgias. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. 31 vols. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook ed. by Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck & Janet Watson, 708–24. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Remarks on the Historical Development of the Copula in Neo-Aramaic. Dialectology of The Semitic Languages Proceedings of the IV Meeting on Comparative Semitics Zaragoza 11/6–9/2010 ed. by Federico Corriente, Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Ángeles Vicente & Juan-Pablo Vita, 25–31. Sabadell: AUSA.Google Scholar
. 2018. Remarks on the Syntax and Historical Development of the Copula in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Aramaic Studies 161.234–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Contact and Change in Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Historical Linguistics 2017 ed. by Bridget Drinka, 391–411. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey & Masoud Mohammadiran. Forthcoming. Language Contact in Sanandaj.
Koch, Harold. 1995. The Creation of Morphological Zeroes. Yearbook of Morphology 1994 ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 31–71. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korn, Agnes. 2011. Pronouns as Verbs, Verbs as Pronouns: Demonstratives and the Copula in Iranian. Topics in Iranian Linguistics ed. by Agnes Korn, Geoffrey Haig, Simin Karimi & Pollet Samvelian, 53–70. Beiträge zur Iranistik 34. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, David N. 1956. Bāj̆alānī. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 181.418–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1961. The Origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological Society, 68–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, and Denise Bailey. 2018. Hawrāmī of Western Iran. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 533–568. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, Denise Bailey, Ludwig Paul, & Geoffrey Haig. 2012. The Gorani Language of Gawraǰū, a Village of West Iran: Texts, Grammar, and Lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron, & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31:4.829–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1987. System-Independent Morphological Naturalness. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology ed. by Wolfgang Dressler, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel, 25–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008. Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of SOAS 71:3.409–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868. Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.Google Scholar
. 1904. Compendious Syriac Grammar. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Paul, Ludwig. 1998. Zazaki: Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Procházka, Stephan. 2018a. The Arabic Dialects of Eastern Anatolia. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 159–189. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. The Arabic Dialects of Northern Iraq. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 243–266. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Helmut. 1990. Ṭūrōyō: die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʿAbdīn. C: Grammatik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Linguistic Series 22. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1989. Markedness and Linguistic Change. Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony ed. by Olga M. Tomić, 67–89. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stilo, Donald L. 2018. The Caspian Region and South Azerbaijan: Caspian and Tatic. The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective ed. by Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan, 659–824. The World of Linguistics 6. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thackston, Wheeler M. 2006a. Kurmanji Kurdish. A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings. Renas Media. [URL]
2006b. Sorani Kurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings. [URL]
Watkins, Calvert. 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. 1. The Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar