Word order variation in Kurmanji ditransitive constructions
-
Milad Shariatmadari
,
Pegah Faghiri
and
Pollet Samvelian
Abstract
The placement and realization of direct and indirect objects (henceforth DO and IO) in Kurmanji is subject to variation; e.g., DO and IO can be placed before or after one another in the preverbal domain; IO can be placed before the verb as an adpositional phrase, or, if recipient, it can be realized as a noun phrase (NP) after the verb. Although the postverbal variant has been the subject of a number of studies, the relative order between DO and IO in the preverbal domain has almost gone unnoticed. Taking a quantitative approach, in this study, first, we conducted a corpus study to observe the frequency of occurrences of IO in relation to the direct object and the verb, and to identify the potential factors that are involved in determining the choice of word order. Results indicated a clear preference for the DO-IO-V order. Definiteness of the DO, animacy of the IO, and the relative length between DO and IO are among the factors showing a meaningful effect. We next conducted a sentence production experiment to evaluate the effect of definiteness and animacy in a controlled manner. The results of our experimental study confirmed the effect of definiteness and animacy found in our corpus study. We further discuss the efficiency of each word order option in light of efficiency principles proposed by usage-based accounts of word order preferences.
References
Akin, Salih & Myriam Bouveret. 2021. Grammar in usage and grammaticalization of dan ‘give’ constructions in Kurmanji Kurdish. In Myriam Bouveret (ed.), Give constructions across languages, 223–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.29.09akiSearch in Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco & Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1). 28–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/417392.Search in Google Scholar
Bader, Markus & Jana Häussler. 2010. Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120(3). 717–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.007.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2014. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Search in Google Scholar
Bedir Khan, Emir D. & Roger Lescot. 1970. Grammaire Kurde (Dialecte Kurmandji). Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.Search in Google Scholar
Blau, J. & V. Barak. 1999. Manuel de kurde: kurmanji. Paris: L’Harmattan.Search in Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Towards a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89(1). 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.89.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare & Christopher D. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), LFG 01 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 1979. The ergative construction in Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42(2). 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x0014577x.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin. 2009. Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61(3). 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.006.Search in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar part 1: The structure of the clause, 2nd, revised edition. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex. 2013. Ibex farm (free hosting for Internet-based experiments). Version 0.3.Search in Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Orin D. Gensler. 2013. Order of object, oblique, and verb. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/84 (accessed 10 January 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Esmaili, Kyumar S., Donya Eliassi, Shahin Salavati, Purya Aliabadi, Asrin Mohammadi, Somayeh Yosefi & Shownem Hakimi. 2013. Building a test collection for sorani Kurdish. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACS international conference on computer systems and applications (AICCSA), 1–7. Ifrane, Morocco: IEEE.10.1109/AICCSA.2013.6616470Search in Google Scholar
Esmaili, Kyumars S. & Shahin Salavati. 2013. Sorani Kurdish versus Kurmanji Kurdish: An empirical comparison. Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 2: Short papers), 300–305. Sofia, Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Faghiri, Pegah. 2016. La variation de l’ordre des constituants dans le domaine préverbal en persan : approche empirique. Linguistique. Université Sorbonne Paris Cité; Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3.Search in Google Scholar
Faghiri, Pegah & Pollet Samvelian. 2014. Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor. In Christopher Pinon (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10 (EISS 10), 215–232. Paris: CNRS.Search in Google Scholar
Faghiri, Pegah & Pollet Samvelian. 2020. Word order preferences and the effect of phrasal length in SOV languages: Evidence from sentence production in Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1078.Search in Google Scholar
Faghiri, Pegah, Pollet Samvelian & Barbara Hemforth. 2018. Is there a canonical order in Persian ditransitive constructions? Corpus based and experimental studies. In Agnes Korn & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective, 165–185. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Frommer, P. Robert. 1981. Post-verbal phenomena in colloquial Persian syntax. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Dissertation. http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll36/id/206554 (accessed 10 January 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Roger P. Levy & Edward Gibson. 2020. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96(2). 371–412. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0024.Search in Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Kyle Mahowald & Edward Gibson. 2015. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33). 10336–10341. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112.Search in Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1.Search in Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Alec Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita & Wayne O’Niel (eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium, 94–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3654.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Gildea, Daniel & David Temperley. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science 34(2). 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x.Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/416535.Search in Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2015. Verb-goal (VG) word order in Kurdish and neo-Aramaic: Typological and areal considerations. In Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-aramaic and its linguistic context, 407–425. New York: Gorgias Press.10.31826/9781463236489-025Search in Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2019. Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji). In Geoffrey Haig & Geoffrey Khan (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Western Asia: An areal perspective, 106–158. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110421682-004Search in Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2022. Post-predicate constituents in Kurdish. In Yaron Matras, Ergin Öpengin & Geoffrey Haig (eds.), Structural and typological variation in the dialects of Kurdish, 335–378. London: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_8Search in Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, varieties and status. In Christiane Bulut & Otto Harrassowitz (eds.), Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic-speaking minorities of the periphery, 157–299. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.10.2307/j.ctvckq4v1.12Search in Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Hanna Thiele. 2014. Post-predicate goals in northern Kurdish and neighboring languages: A pilot study in quantitative areal linguistics. In Paper presented at the second international conference on variation and change in Kurdish. Turkey: Mardin Artuklu University.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency, vol. 73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2008. An asymmetry between VO and OV languages: The ordering of obliques. In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations: Essays in honour of Bernard Comrie, 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.81.08anaSearch in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Herkenrath, Annette. 2018. Constructing ditransitivity in literary Kurmanji: Some fuzzy issues. In Agnes Korn & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective, 95–118. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Hörberg, Thomas & T. Florian Jaeger. 2021. A rational model of incremental argument interpretation: The comprehension of Swedish transitive clauses. Frontiers in Psychology 12. 674202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.674202.Search in Google Scholar
Jing, Yingqi, Widmer Paul & Balthasar Bickel. 2021. Word order variation is partially constrained by syntactic complexity. Cognitive Science 45(11). e13056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13056. (accessed 10 January 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177973 (accessed 10 January 2024).Search in Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2006 [1957]. Grammaire du persan contemporain. (Nouvelle édition, avec la collaboration de Yann Richard, Rokhsareh Hechmati et Pollet Samvelian). Tehran: Institut Français de recherche en Iran.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 31(2). 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.31.2.12lev.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2011. Verb sensitivity and argument realization in three-participant constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective. Paper presented at the conference on referential hierarchies in three-participant constructions. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2019. Token-based typology and word order entropy: A study based on Universal dependencies. Linguistic Typology 23(3). 533–572. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0025.Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Neal J. Pearlmutter & Mark S. Seidenber. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101(4). 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676.Search in Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions. A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220377.1Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.1). Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org.Search in Google Scholar
Ros, Idoia, Mikel Santesteban, Kumiko Fukumura & Itziar Laka. 2015. Aiming at shorter dependencies: The role of agreement morphology. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(9). 1156–1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.994009.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Joachim Jacob, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 826–846. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110095869.1.13.826Search in Google Scholar
Soane, Ely B. 1913. Grammar of the Kurmanji or Kurdish language, vol. 6. London: Luzac & Company.Search in Google Scholar
Stallings, Lynne M. & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2011. It’s not just the “heavy NP”: Relative phrase length modulates the production of heavy-NP shift. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40(3). 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9163-x.Search in Google Scholar
Stallings, Lynne M., Maryellen C. MacDonald & Padraig G. O’Seaghdha. 1998. Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language 39(3). 392–417. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2586.Search in Google Scholar
Temperley, David & Daniel Gildea. 2018. Minimizing syntactic dependency lengths: Typological/cognitive universal? Annual Review of Linguistics 4. 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617.Search in Google Scholar
Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105(2). 300–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011.Search in Google Scholar
Thackston, W. M. 2006. Sorani Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected readings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Published online.Search in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9(1). 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500001800.Search in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko & Franklin Chang. 2001. Long before short preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81(2). B45–B55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00121-4.Search in Google Scholar
© 2026 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
