A Derivational Account for Sorani Kurdish Passives

Abstract

In this paper we propose a new analysis for Sorani Kurdish passive formation. We ar-gue that passivisation in Sorani Kurdish actually is a derivational process and propose four arguments supporting this claim. Within lexicalist approaches to morphosyntax, the question whether to treat passivisation as an inflectional or a derivational process has often been raised. The traditional treatment of passive considers it to be an inflectional process. This traditional view is followed by certain number of recent studies (Stump, 2006; Hippisley, 2007) that presuppose the existence of one single paradigm for both the active and the passive verb forms of a given lexeme. On the other hand, (Sadler and Spencer, 1998) claim a derivational analysis of passives while (Bresnan, 1982) states that passives may serve as an input for derivational processes. If one accepts that inflected forms cannot function as an input for derivational processes, (Bresnan, 1982) inevitably entails a derivational treatment of passivisation. (Blevins, 2003) proposes a treat-ment for passives as a morphological process called Passive Lexical Rule (PLR) applicable to a whole series of languages. (Sag et al., 2003) argue that the argument-structure-changing operation triggered by passivisation are evidence for a derivational analysis for passives. Others, like (Kiparsky, 2005) do not explicitly choose between the two approaches. Yet the data Kiparsky presents for Latin rather favours a derivational analysis. Usually, deriva-tion is said to operate semantic change in an unpredictable way: as opposed to inflectional processes, given one derivational process, there is not necessarily one unique predictable se-mantic change that systematically occurs. Based on data from Latin, (Kiparsky, 2005) shows that morphological passive forms may have several distinct values, not only syntactic passive value. These values are lexically specified, i.e. not directly predictable. In this paper we analyse the morphological passive of the Western Iranian language So-rani Kurdish. We use the more common name Sorani to refer to its standardised dialect, corresponding to what (Haig, 2010) refers to as Suleimani. Sorani mainly distinguishes it-self through its verbal morphology and its intricate system of "endoclitic" person markers (Samvelian, 2007). Sorani verb forms roughly consist of a set of prefixes and suffixes clus-tered around a given stem (cf. Table 2). Most traditional descriptions of Sorani morphology concur in stating the existence of two distinct verbal stems: one for the present tense forms and one for the past and non-finite forms. Clustered around these stems, prefixes mostly con-vey tense, aspect and mood (TAM) and polarity features, whereas suffixes may encode TAM and person information. Sorani also displays three sets of personal endings (Table 1): PE1 for the present verb and the perfect subjunctive , PE2 for imperfective, preterite and past perfect forms and PE3 for the remaining perfect forms. In past tenses, Sorani verbs display remnant features of split ergativity (Haig, 2010): if a verb is transitive, the normal person markers are replaced with the endoclitic person markers as subject-verb agreement markers in the past tenses. They are inserted in verb-internal second position (Samvelian, 2007). Passives are formed by inserting the sequence –rê/–râ between the stem and the other suffixes (shaded column in Table 2). Descriptive grammars implicitly present –rê/–râ as just another set of inflectional suffixes for transitive verbs (McCarus, 1958; MacKenzie, 1961; Blau, 2000; Thackston, 2006).

Full text

Page 1

A Derivational Account for Sorani Kurdish Passives
Géraldine Walther
Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle, Université Paris Diderot, 175 rue du Chevaleret, 75013 Paris, France
UMR 7528 Mondes iranien et indien, CNRS 27 rue Paul Bert, 94204 Ivry-sur-Seine, France
Tel.: +33 1 57 27 57 82E-mail: geraldine.walther@linguist.jussieu.fr
In this paper we propose a new analysis for Sorani Kurdish passive formation. We ar-
gue that passivisation in Sorani Kurdish actually is a derivational process and propose four
arguments supporting this claim.
Within lexicalist approaches to morphosyntax, the question whether to treat passivisation
as an inflectional or a derivational process has often been raised. The traditional treatment of
passive considers it to be an inflectional process. This traditional view is followed by certain
number of recent studies (Stump, 2006; Hippisley, 2007) that presuppose the existence of one
single paradigm for both the active and the passive verb forms of a given lexeme. On the other
hand, (Sadler and Spencer, 1998) claim a derivational analysis of passives while (Bresnan,
1982) states that passives may serve as an input for derivational processes. If one accepts
that inflected forms cannot function as an input for derivational processes, (Bresnan, 1982)
inevitably entails a derivational treatment of passivisation. (Blevins, 2003) proposes a treat-
ment for passives as a morphological process called Passive Lexical Rule (PLR) applicable
to a whole series of languages. (Sag et al., 2003) argue that the argument-structure-changing
operation triggered by passivisation are evidence for a derivational analysis for passives.
Others, like (Kiparsky, 2005) do not explicitly choose between the two approaches. Yet
the data Kiparsky presents for Latin rather favours a derivational analysis. Usually, deriva-
tion is said to operate semantic change in an unpredictable way: as opposed to inflectional
processes, given one derivational process, there is not necessarily one unique predictable se-
mantic change that systematically occurs. Based on data from Latin, (Kiparsky, 2005) shows
that morphological passive forms may have several distinct values, not only syntactic passive
value. These values are lexically specified, i.e. not directly predictable.
In this paper we analyse the morphological passive of the Western Iranian language So-
rani Kurdish. We use the more common name Sorani to refer to its standardised dialect,
corresponding to what (Haig, 2010) refers to as Suleimani. Sorani mainly distinguishes it-
self through its verbal morphology and its intricate system of “endoclitic” person markers
(Samvelian, 2007). Sorani verb forms roughly consist of a set of prefixes and suffixes clus-
tered around a given stem (cf. Table 2). Most traditional descriptions of Sorani morphology
concur in stating the existence of two distinct verbal stems: one for the present tense forms
and one for the past and non-finite forms. Clustered around these stems, prefixes mostly con-
vey tense, aspect and mood (TAM) and polarity features, whereas suffixes may encode TAM
and person information. Sorani also displays three sets of personal endings (Table 1): PE1 for
the present verb and the perfect subjunctive , PE2 for imperfective, preterite and past perfect
forms and PE3 for the remaining perfect forms. In past tenses, Sorani verbs display remnant
features of split ergativity (Haig, 2010): if a verb is transitive, the normal person markers are
replaced with the endoclitic person markers as subject-verb agreement markers in the past
tenses. They are inserted in verb-internal second position (Samvelian, 2007).
Passives are formed by inserting the sequence –rê/–râ between the stem and the other
suffixes (shaded column in Table 2). Descriptive grammars implicitly present –rê/–râ as just
another set of inflectional suffixes for transitive verbs (McCarus, 1958; MacKenzie, 1961;
Blau, 2000; Thackston, 2006).

Page 2

In order to get a more precise view of Sorani passive, we have developed a full Paradigm
Function Morphology (PFM, (Stump, 2001)) account for both possible analyses of Sorani
passivisation — inflection or derivation. We argue that passivisation in Sorani Kurdish
is a derivational process and propose four arguments supporting this claim. Instead of
inflectional Voice Realisation Rules, we propose a Lexical Passive Derivation Rule.
Personal Endings
PE1 Present personal endings
–m
–î(t)
–ê(t)
PE2 Past personal endings
–m
–î(t)
–ø
PE3 Enclitic endings
–m
–î(t)
–a
Endoclitic person markers
EPM Endoclitic person markers
–m
–t
–î
Table 1. Person marking
–în
–n
–n
–în
–n
–n
–în
–n
–n
–mân
–tân
–yân
-2 -1
ma da
na bi (1, 2, 3, 4) rê bû î(t) a
nâ
0 P 1
râ û im aja
23
STEM
b ê(t)
a
în
in
ø
n
Table 2. Sorani Kurdish verbal posi-
tion classes within a PFM analysis
Lexical Passive Derivation Rule (LPD): Voice Realisation Rules:



lexeme
PRES-STEM x
PAST-STEM y

−→











word
PERSON 3
NUMBER sg
TENSE past
VOICE active
FORM x










∨










word
PERSON 3
NUMBER sg
TENSE past
VOICE passive
FORM x+rê










∨...



active lexeme
PRES-STEM x
PAST STEM y

−→




passive lexeme
PRES-STEM x+rê
PAST-STEM x+râ



1. According to (McCarus, 1958) voice change does not trigger a unique semantic change
in Sorani. In (1), two semantic changes triggered by morphological passive compete with
each other: syntactic passive value and a potential meaning. In (2), the only available se-
mantic change is the potential meaning. However, this data still requires a more thorough
investigation. If the semantic irregularity triggered by morphological passive is confirmed,
the data will semantically support a derivational analysis of Sorani passives.
(1) a. aki´ ren–rê
to rubb offm-passive
“It is rubbed off.” SYNTACTIC PASSIVE
b. aki´ ren–rê
to rubb offm-passive
“It can be rubbed off.” POTENTIAL
(2) a. twani
to be able
SYNTACTIC ACTIVE
b. atwan
to be able
“It is possible.” POTENTIAL
–rê
m-passive
2. Treating voice change as a derivational operation also significantly simplifies the mor-
phology-argument-structure interface. Lexically specified voice allows for lexically spec-
ified argument structures (Sag et al., 2003). Passivisation thus appears as a derivational oper-
ation capable of changing a lexeme’s argument structure. No separate mechanism is needed
to account for the differences in the derived lexeme’s argument structure (Blevins, 2003).
3. Within Sorani verb paradigms, the passive (sub-)paradigm exactly matches the intran-
sitive paradigm using the same prefixes and suffixes, except for the presence of –rê/–râ.
Active transitives differ from them through their use of endoclitic person markers as subject-
verb agreement. The fact that the intransitive and passive endings completely match is a new
element to the understanding of Sorani passives, since, to our best knowledge, none of the ref-
erence grammars (McCarus, 1958; MacKenzie, 1961; Blau, 2000; Thackston, 2006) mention
the complete paradigm of Sorani passives: in spite of their existence, passive subjunctives
for perfect tenses seem nowhere described. This exact correspondence between passive and
intransitive paradigms argues towards the existence of a specific inflection class common

Page 3

to these two types of verbs and thus to the existence of separate passive lexemes that pos-
sess this precise inflection class. Hence, passives of transitives should be obtained through
the derivation of active transitive lexemes. Moreover, our PFM models also show that there
are no further inflectional endings sharing the position class available to –rê/–râ (Table 2).
The suffix –rê/–râ linearly directly follows the stem and hence requires adding before any
further inflection, which would also be expected from derivational affixes. Moreover, the fact
that the –rê and –râ. appear in their very own distinct position class tends to argue towards
morphological independence of passive from the inflectional system.
4. Our PFM implementations also highlight an additional, although more technical, argument
for preferring a derivational approach to Sorani passivisation: it concerns stem selection rules.
Indeed, Sorani Kurdish shows a non-predictable morphomic (Aronoff, 1994) stem alternation
for present and past tense forms. In addition to these two traditional stems, (Bonami and
Samvelian, 2008) suggest the existence of a third stem for the passive forms. The passive
stems are usually built on the present stem, yet for some verbs, the selection of the passive
stem is irregular: it may be based on the past stem or even display more unexpected changes
in form. These stem alternations have to be treated previous to the PFM rules generating the
verb paradigms, which requires specific stem selection principles for each given lexeme X.
The derivation hypothesis allows for treating the passive stem independently of the other
two stems and hence simplifies the stem selection rules. Moreover, this makes for a descrip-
tion that is closer to the traditional ones stating two stems.
Inflectional analysis
X,σ: {VOICE active, TENSE present} → PRES-STEM(X)
X,σ: {VOICE active, TENSE past} → PAST-STEM(X)
X,σ: {VOICE passive} → PASS-STEM(X)
References
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. MIT Press.
Blau, Joyce. 2000. Méthode de kurde sorani. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
Blevins, James P.. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 473–520.
Bonami, Olivier and Pollet Samvelian. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. In
13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, Austria.
J. Bresnan, Ed. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2010. Alignment change in Iranian languages: a construction grammar approach. De Gruyter.
Hippisley, Andrew. 2007. Declarative Deponency: A Network Morphology Account of Morphological Mis-
matches. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, D. Brown and A. Hippisley, Eds., Deponency and Morphological
Mismatches, volume 145, p. 145–173: The British Academy Oxford University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, p.
113–135, Dordrecht: Springer.
MacKenzie, David N.. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies. London Oriental Series. London, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
McCarus, Ernest N.. 1958. A Kurdish Grammar: descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. PhD
thesis, American Council of Learned Societies, New-York, USA.
Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spencer. 1998. Argument structure and morphology. In A. Spencer and A. Zwicky,
Eds., The Handbook of Morphology, p. 206–36. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Sag, Ivan, Thomas Wasow, and Emily Bender. 2003. Syntactic Theory: a Formal Introduction. Palo Alto,
California: CSLI.
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In F. Hoyt,
N. Seifert and A. Teodorescu, Eds., Texas Linguistics Society IX: The Morphosyntaxe of Understudied Lan-
guages, Stanford, USA: CSLI online publications.
Stump, G. T.. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Stump, Gregory T.. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language, 82, 279–322.
Thackston, W.M.. 2006. Sorani Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected readings.
Derivational analysis
X (default) → PAST-STEM(X)
X,σ: { TENSE present} → PRES-STEM(X)