No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The history of the K-suffix -ū in Shirazi
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 December 2022
Abstract
This article investigates the use and frequency of what I refer to as the K-suffixes -ō/-ū/-o in the Shirazi dialects, namely, Old and Modern Shirazi. It shows that the use of K-suffixes as definiteness markers is more highly developed in Modern Shirazi than in Old Shirazi. In Old Shirazi, the K-suffix, with its original evaluative meaning, demonstrated some degree of multi-functionality. This has mostly been lost in Modern Shirazi, and the suffix is now used to express definiteness. The high frequency of use of the K-suffix appears to be independent of genre, speaker, and speech setting. Data from a corpus of written texts in Old Shirazi, mainly comprised of poems, are quantitatively analysed, along with data from a corpus of spoken Shirazi narratives and data from a questionnaire answered by ten speakers. The results show that an evaluative suffix can develop into a definiteness marker by passing through a stage of combination with deictic markers, which paves the way for extending the use of the K-suffix to include non-deictic anaphoric tracking. This article concludes that the development of definiteness marking can proceed down a pathway that is distinct from the one normally assumed for demonstrative-based definiteness marking, even if the endpoint may be similar. The detailed documentation of this process presented here is a further contribution to Iranian studies, and augments the small group of well-documented cases of a non-demonstrative origin of definiteness marking cross-linguistically.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society
References
1 See W. Dressler and B. Lavinia, Morphopragmatics Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages (Berlin, 1994); Jurafsky, D., ‘Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive’, Language 72.3 (1996), pp. 533–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steriopolo, O., ‘Form and function of expressive morphology: a case study of Russian’, Russian Language Journal 59 (2009), pp. 149–194Google Scholar; B. Pakendorf and L. V. Krivoshapkina, ‘Even nominal evaluatives and the marking of definiteness’, Linguistic Typology 18.2 (2014), pp. 289–331; Ponsonnet, M., ‘A preliminary typology of emotional connotations in morphological diminutives and augmentatives’, Studies in Language 42.1 (2018), pp. 17–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Special issue: ‘Morphology and emotions across languages’, (eds) M. Ponsonnet and M. Vuillermet; M. Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking from evaluative morphology in Balochi: internal variation and diachronic pathway’, Iranian Studies 54.5–6 (2021), pp. 699–735 (available online at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00210862.2020.1813555 (accessed 13 October 2022)); Nourzaei, M., ‘Diachronic development of the K-suffixes: evidence from classical new Persian, contemporary written Persian and contemporary spoken Persian’, Iranian Studies (2022), pp. 1–46, doi: 10.1017/irn.2021.27Google Scholar.
2 Cf. C. Lyons, Definiteness (Cambridge, 1999); N. Himmelmann, ‘Articles’, in Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, (eds) M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible, Vol. 1 (Berlin, 2001), pp. 831–841; and Himmelmann, N., ‘Regularity in irregularity: article use in adpositional phrases’, Linguistic Typology 2 (1998), pp. 315–353Google Scholar, among others.
3 See M. Nourzaei, ‘A new grammaticalization path of definiteness in Balochi language’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), University of Tallinn, Estonia, 29 August–1 September 2018; M. Nourzaei, ‘The emergence of definiteness in New Western Iranian languages: extending the typology of definiteness’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Leipzig University, Germany, 21–24 August 2019; M. Nourzaei, ‘The emergence of definiteness from diminutives in Shirazi: tracing a new grammaticalization pathway’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), the SLE 2020 Platform, 26 August–1 September 2020; M. Nourzaei, ‘The emergence of definiteness marking from evaluative morphology in Persian: internal variation and diachronic pathway’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Athens University, Zográfos, Greece, 30 August–3 September 2021; M. Nourzaei, ‘The emergence of definiteness in Koroshi’, in Festschrift Dedicated to Prof. Adriano V. Rossi for his 70th Birthday, (eds) S. Badalkhan, M. De Chiara and G. Pietro Basello (Naples, 2019); Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking in Balochi’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development in Persian’; M. Nourzaei and G. Haig, Emerging of Definiteness Markers in New Western Iranian Languages (in preparation); M. Nourzaei and G. Haig, ‘An overview of definiteness marking in new Western Iranian languages’ (in preparation); M. Nourzaei and T. Jügel, ‘On the function of -ag suffix in MP: evaluative or derivational’ (accepted in Studia Iranica); G. Haig, M. Nourzaei and M. Rad, ‘Definiteness markings in Kurdish’ (in preparation); F. Modarresi and M. Krifka, ‘Anaphoric potential of bare nouns as weak definites in Persian’, paper presented at the Second North American Conference in Iranian Linguistics NACIL 2, Tucson, University of Arizona, 19–21 April 2019; on Persian, C. Jahani, ‘On the definite marker in modern spoken Persian’, paper presented at Sixth International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL 6), Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia, 23–26 June 2015; G. Haig, ‘Optional definiteness in Central Kurdish and Balochi: conceptual and empirical issues’, invited talk at the third workshop on Information Structure in Spoken Language Corpora (ISSlaC3), University of Münster, 7–8 December 2018; and on Central Kurdish, G. Haig and M. Mohammadirad, ‘Definiteness in Central Kurdish: sources and outcomes’, paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Kurdish Linguistics (ICKL–4), University of Rouen Normandie, France, 2–3 September 2019.
4 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
5 Haig, ‘Optional definiteness in Central Kurdish and Balochi’.
6 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
7 For example, J. Hawkins, Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars (Oxford, 2004), pp. 84–86; B. Heine, ‘On polysemy copying and grammaticalization in language contact’, in Dynamics of Contact-induced Language Change, (eds) Claudine Chamoreau and Isabelle Léglise (Berlin, 2012), pp. 129–130.
8 L. Becker, ‘Articles in the World's Languages’, (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig, 2018); Nourzaei ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
9 See Lyons, Definiteness, pp. 63–88.
10 For more recent overviews, cf. B. Abbott, ‘Definiteness and indefiniteness’, in Handbook of Pragmatics, (eds) Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (Oxford, 2004), pp. 122–149, and Becker, Articles in the World's Languages.
11 Lyons, Definiteness, p. 272.
12 P. Firoozanbakhsh, AšꜤār-e Shīrāzī Do Ketāb-e NasīmalrabīīꜤ va Tārīkhī-e Vassāf (Shomār-y 2, 1392/2013); A. Sadeghi, Bayt-e Shirazi-e SaꜤdi dar Golestān (Tehran, 1390/2011); A. Sadeghi, Ġhazali az Ghotboladin-e Shirāzi be Gūyesh-e Ghadīm-e Shirāzī (Shomār-y 3, 1389/ 2010), among others.
13 For a grammatical description of Old Shirazi, see P. Firoozanbakhsh, ‘Old Shirazi Dialect’, (unpublished PhD dissertation, Hamburg University, 2020).
14 Nourzaei, unpublished texts, recorded between 2018–2020.
15 Information on the number of inhabitants comes from Iranian census statistics in 2018.
16 M. Navvabi, ‘Do Ġhazal az Shams-e Pos-e Nāser’ (Pezhūhesh Nāme-y MoꜤasese-y Āsīyāi, Shomār-y 1, Sāle-4, 1357/1978).
17 M. Mahmoodi, Abyāte Shirazi Divan Shah Dāi (in preparation).
18 Firoozanbakhsh, ‘Old Shirazi Dialect’, p. 45.
19 The oldest speaker among the interviewees very clearly pronounced it as -ūk instead of -ū during the recording of questionnaire data, as in the following examples: čerāqhāye māšīn-ūk xarābe ‘the lights of the car are broken’. As is evident from the multifunctionality of the K-suffix in other languages in my survey (Persian and Balochi), our Shirazi case is different due to the lack of material on its earlier stages. However, the same K-suffix -ū is attested in Lāri language, which shows that multifunctional uses of the diminutive suffix (pejorative, endearment, smallness, proximity, and mutuality, as well as in indefinite contexts and without any restrictions) are employed more in emotional and intimate settings; see A. Khonji, Gūyesh-e Lārestāni (Shiraz, 1394/2015), p. 869. However, the K-suffix in some tales functions as a definiteness marker: ibid., p. 892 and M. Vosughi, Lār Shahri be Rang-e Khāk (Tehran, 1369/1990), p. 90. The study of the K-suffix in Lāri is outside the scope of this article. However, it would be interesting to see to what extent this suffix has developed towards definiteness. Note that the same K-suffix -ū has been attested in Kermani, Bami, and Bafgh-yazd, which shows multifunctional uses of the diminutive suffix. N. Sabaqiyan, Barasiye Zabān-e Sangsari (Shabak, 1350/1971), pp. 133 and 145, also reports the K-suffix -ū for the Sangsari dialect.
20 Haig, ‘Optional definiteness in Central Kurdish and Balochi’.
21 Navvabi, ‘Do Ġhazal’, p. 7.
22 Firoozanbakhsh, ‘Old Shirazi Dialect’, p. 45.
23 G. Windfuhr, ‘Fars viii’, Dialects, Encyclopaedia Iranica 9, Fasc. 4. (1999) pp. 362–373.
24 I. Kalbāsi, Towsife Gunehāye Zabānī-ye Irān (Tehran, 1388/2009), pp. 536–538.
25 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
26 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
27 See Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’ on the K-suffix in Persian.
28 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
29 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
30 I am grateful to Ludwig Paul for bringing Old Shirazi to my attention. I would like to thank Mohammad Bagher Vosughi for providing a copy of 40 verses of Sham, the son of Nāser, as an appendix in P. Firoozbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser (unpublished dissertation, Tehran University, 1388/2009), and a pdf of the KM manuscript. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mohammad Mahmoodi for helping me with the translation of poems in Persian in KM and ŠN.
31 M. Navvabi, ‘The dialect of Shiraz until the 9th century H’ (Pezhuhesh Nāme-y MoꜤasese-y Āsīyāi, Shomāre-y 3, Sāle-4, 1354/1975), p. 24; R. Baghbidi, ‘Shirāzi-e Bāstān’ (Farhangestān-e Zabān va Adabiyāt Fārsi, Guyesh Shenāsi-y 1, 1382/2003), p. 35.
32 Despite much searching, I could not access the original version of Divan-e ŠN; I therefore had to rely on the published versions of this manuscript.
33 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser; Navvabi, M., ‘Shams-e Pos-e Nāser’ (Majale-y Bokhārā, Shomāre-y 12, 1379/2000), pp. 328–30Google Scholar; M. Navvabi, ‘yek Beyte Shirazi’ (Majale-y Āyandeh, 1360/1981); Navvabi, ‘Do Ghazal az Shams-e Pos-e Nāser’; M. Navvabi, ‘Do Ghazal-e Digar az Pos-e Nāser’ (Pezhuheshgāh-e Bakhsh-e Zabān Shenāsi-y MoꜤasese-y Āsīyāi, Shomāre-y 2, Sāle-4, 1357/1978); M. Navvabi, ‘Qasīdehī va Ghazalī az Shams-e Pos-e Nāser be Guyesh-e Kohan-e Shirāz’ (Nāmeh Farhangestān, Shomāre 5, Tehran, 1357/1978), pp. 37–52; M. Navvabi, ‘Se Ghazal az Shams-e Pos-e Nāser’ (Pezhuhesh Nāme-y MoꜤasese-y Ā sīyāi, Shomāre -y 2, Sāle-4, 1356/1977).
34 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
35 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser, p. 60, ghazal 17.
36 Navvabi, ‘Šams’, p. 329, ghazal 8.
37 Ibid., p. 48.
38 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser, p. 68.
39 Navvabi, ‘Ghasīde’, p. 48.
40 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser, p. 47, ghazal 14.
41 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’, pp. 709–711; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
42 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser, p. 55, ghazal 16.
43 Navvabi, ‘Do Ġhazal’, p. 6.
44 Firoozanbakhsh, ‘Old Shirazi Dialect’, p. 45. The original transcription is slightly modified.
45 A typical feature of Iranian ghazal is that each beyt is independent of the others and refers to a different story.
46 Navvabi , ‘Šams’, p. 329, ghazal 8.
47 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser, p. 9, ghazal 4.
48 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
49 Navvabi, ‘Do Ġhazal’ p. 5.
50 Firoozanbakhsh, Barasiye Guyesh-e Ghadim-e Shirāzi bar Asas-e Chehel Ghazal az AshꜤar-e Shames Pos-e Nāser, p. 20, verse, 6.
51 N. Dāi, Molaghab be (Aldāi, Elallāh Shāh dāi), motaxales be dāi, Shirāzi, Kān-e Melāhat (Ketāb khāne-y Markazi, Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān, MS. 2518).
52 KM 2518, فی الترکیب .
53 KM 2518, انه مدح صلاح و تقوی
54 KM 2518, حرف الفاء
55 KM2518, حرف الذال .
56 KM 2518, انه مدح صلاح و تقوی
57 KM 2518, حرف السّین
58 KM 2518, مرتبه زهد
59 KM 2518, ایضاً
60 KM 2518, حرف السّین
61 KM 2518, مر 
زهد
62 KM 2518, حرف القاف
63 KM 2518, حرف الیاء
64 KM 2518, تعداد نفس
65 Ponsonnet, ‘A preliminary typology’.
66 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
67 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
68 S. A. M. Rafīi (ed.), Divān-e Khāj-e Shamsodin, Mohammad-e Hāfez-e Shirazi (Tashīhe, Enteshārāt-e Ghadyānī, Chāp-e haftom, 1388/2009).
69 A. Sadeghi, ‘Abyāte Shirāzī SaꜤdi Dar Mosalasāt’ (Namey-e Farhangestān, Shomār-y 4, Sāle -12, 1391/2012).
70 Navvabi, ‘The dialect of Shiraz until the 9th century H’.
71 Ibid., pp. 23–24.
72 B. Samandar, SheꜤr-e Shirāz (Ketāb Forushi-y MaꜤreft-e Shirāz, Chāp- e dovom, 1362/1983).
73 Ibid., p. 66.
74 Ibid., p. 50.
75 Ibid., p. 22.
76 B. Samandar, Shiraz az Gol Behtaru (Shiraz, 1388/2009).
77 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
78 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
79 My personal observation with my Lāri speakers, in 2021.
80 Becker, Articles in the World's Languages, pp. 86–87.
81 Ibid., pp. 36–44.
82 Nourzaei, unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
83 Ibid.
84 So far in our survey, the Kurdish language is the only exception to this generalisation among the New Western Iranian languages under investigation. In Kurdish, indefinite nouns are marked with the suffix -ēk / -yak in the singular and -ān in the plural, for example, pyāw-ēk ‘a man’ versus pyāw-ān ‘men’. See D. Mackenzie, Kurdish Dialect Studies, Vols I and II (London and Oxford, 1961/1962), pp. 52–55, 176–177.
85 Nourzaei, unpublished questionnaire data, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
86 In Old Shirazi, the most common strategy for the first mention of an item is to mark it either with an enclitic particle=ē or the numeral ī ‘one or a combination of both ī together with particle =ē. For example, sarv=ē va golestān ġa orūten na ajab bōt’ ‘it may not be surprising if a cypress tree is growing in the garden’, Navvabi, ‘Do Ġhazal’, p. 3. See also Firoozanbakhsh, ‘Old Shirazi Dialect’, pp. 43–44. Due to the poetic form of the available old Shirazi texts, it is rather difficult to see how a well-established item is referred back to in the discourse, as one can do in a free speech text. I found some instances with a bare noun as the second mention.
87 Nourzaei and Jügel, ‘On the function of -ag suffix in MP’.
88 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
89 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
90 Haig, ‘Optional definiteness in Central Kurdish and Balochi’; Haig et al., ‘Definiteness markings in Kurdish’; Nourzaei and Haig, Emerging of Definiteness Markers.
91 Nourzaei, unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid. Unpublished questionnaire data, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid. Unpublished questionnaire data, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
107 Ibid., unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
108 A similar systematic structural constraint was reported for Koroshi Balochi, which is spoken in the same region, by Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
109 The plural marker ‘āt’ ǰawāherāt pieces of jewellery’ is attested once in the present data. Firoozanbakhsh, ‘Old Shirazi Dialect’, p. 42, states the existence of the PL forms, -ān/-on, in Old Shirazi. This reveals that these PL forms have been lost in the Modern Shirazi dialect.
110 Nourzaei, unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
111 Ibid.
112 For similar findings in Western Iranian languages, see G. Haig, Alignment Change in Iranian Languages—A Construction Grammar Approach (Berlin, 2008); Jügel, T. and Samvelian, P., ‘Les pronoms enclitiques dans les langues ouest-iraniennes—Fonctions et distribution géographique’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 111.1 (2016), pp. 391–432Google Scholar; and in Balochi, see M. Nourzaei, Participant Reference in Three Balochi Dialects Male and Female Narrations of Folktales and Biographical Tales, Appendix B–D (Uppsala, 2017), and Nourzaei, M. and Jügel, T., ‘The distribution and function of person-marking clitics in Balochi dialects from an areal perspective’, Studia Iranica 50 (2021), pp. 113–145Google Scholar.
113 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
114 Ibid. Unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
115 Ibid.
116 Ibid.
117 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’, pp. 718–719.
118 Ibid.
119 Ibid.
120 Ibid.
121 Ibid.
122 For Colloquial Tehrani Persian, see Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’; for Koroshi, see Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’; and for Kurdish, see Haig et al., ‘Definiteness markings in Kurdish’, and Nourzaei and Haig, Emerging of Definiteness Markers.
123 Nourzaei, unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid. Unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
127 Ibid.
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
130 Ibid. Unpublished questionnaire data, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
131 Ibid. Unpublished texts, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
132 For example, Kurdish cf. E. Öpengin, The Mukri Variety of Central Kurdish. Grammar, Texts and Lexicon (Wiesbaden, 2016), and Mackenzie, Kurdish Dialect Studies; Koroshi, see Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’, and Persian, see Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
133 Ibid. Unpublished data, recorded between 2018 and 2020.
134 Ibid.
135 Ibid.
136 Ibid.
137 Ibid.
138 Ibid.
139 Ibid.
140 Nourzaei., ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
141 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’, pp. 725–726.
142 M. S. Dryer, ‘Definite articles’, in The World Atlas of Language Structures, (eds) M. S. Dryer and M. Haspelmath (Leipzig, 2013).
143 Cf. Lyons, Definiteness.
144 Nourzaei, ‘The emergence of definiteness from diminutives in Shirazi’.
145 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
146 I would like to thank my respected friend, Layla Karimi, for assisting me with the recording of the questionnaires. I also wish to thank my Shirazi-speaking informants Siyamak Sahebi and Maryam Ghanbarpourfard for sharing tales with me, and all the anonymous speakers for completing the questionnaires and recording their stories.
147 Ö. Dahl, Grammaticalization in the North: Noun Phrase Morphosyntax, in Scandinavian Vernaculars (Berlin, 2015), p. 32.
148 I calculated the total number of words by counting the number of words per 40 pages of each manuscript/book separately, then dividing this number by 40 to calculate the average number of words per page, and then multiplying the result by the total number of pages of the book or manuscript.
149 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
150 Ibid.; Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
151 See Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’, pp. 713–715.
152 Haig, ‘Optional definiteness in Central Kurdish and Balochi’.
153 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’. A similar observation can be found regarding development of the K-suffix in New Persian, see Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
154 Nourzaei, ‘An overview of definiteness marking in New Western Iranian Languages’.
155 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’, pp. 729–730.
156 This is in contrast to my findings in Koroshi, where the K-suffix with a demonstrative is still used in anaphoric contexts. See ibid., pp. 714–715.
157 Hawkins, Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars, p. 86.
158 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
159 Ibid.
160 Nourzaei, ‘An overview of definiteness marking in New Western Iranian Languages’.
161 Ibid.
162 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’.
163 Nourzaei, ‘Diachronic development’.
164 Ibid.
165 Haig, ‘Optional definiteness in Central Kurdish and Balochi’; Haig and Mohammadirad, ‘Definiteness in Central Kurdish; Haig et al., ‘Definiteness markings in Kurdish’; Nourzaei and Haig, Emerging of Definiteness Markers; Nourzaei, ‘An overview of definiteness marking in New Western Iranian Languages’.
166 M. Haspelmath, ‘Explaining article–possessor complementarity: economic motivation in noun phrase syntax’, Language 75 (1999), pp. 227–243.
167 Becker, Articles in the World's Languages, p. 217.
168 Nourzaei, Participant Reference in Three Balochi Dialects, Appendix B.
169 W. Breu, ‘Der indefinite Artikel in slavischen Mikrosprachen: Grammatikalisierung im totalen Sprachkontakt’, in Slavistische Linguistik 2001, (ed.) H. Kuße (Munich 2003), pp. 27–68.
170 Sommer, F., ‘The historical morphology of definiteness in Baltic’, Indo-European Linguistics 6.1 (2018), pp. 152–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Lyons, Definiteness, p. 49.
171 G. Haig and G. Khan, ‘Introduction’, in The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, (eds) G. Haig and G. Khan (Berlin, 2018), pp. 1–29.
172 G. Khan, The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj (Piscataway, NJ, 2009), pp. 234ff; G. Khan, The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 44 (Leiden, 2004), pp. 233ff.
173 C. Bulut, ‘The Turkic varieties of Iran’, in The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia, (eds) Haig and Khan, p. 426.
174 S. Dolatkhah, E. Csató and B. Karakoç, ‘On the marker -(y)akï in Kashkay’, in Turks and Iranians: Interactions in Language and History, (eds) Éva Á. Csató, Lars Johanson, András Róna-Tas and Bo Utas (Wiesbaden, 2016), pp. 283–295.
175 Ibid., p. 285.
176 Nourzaei, ‘Definiteness marking’; Nourzaei, ‘The emergence of definiteness in Koroshi’.