Volume 15, Issue 6 (2025)
LRR 2025, 15(6): 197-239 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Veisi Hasar R, Badakhshan E, Ahmadnejad M. The Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Kurdish Imperative Paradigm. LRR 2025; 15 (6) :197-239
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-64624-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-64624-en.html
The Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Kurdish Imperative Paradigm
1- Associate professor of Linguistics, Department of English and Linguistic, Faculty of Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran , r.veisi@uok.ac.ir
2- associate professor of Linguistics, Department of English and Linguistic, Faculty of Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
3- Assistant professor of English Teaching, Department of English and Linguistic, Faculty of Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2- associate professor of Linguistics, Department of English and Linguistic, Faculty of Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
3- Assistant professor of English Teaching, Department of English and Linguistic, Faculty of Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
Abstract: (2674 Views)
This paper attempts to explain the relationship between the imperative paradigm and the system of tense, aspect, and modality in Kurdish. This study employs the theoretical framework proposed by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017). Additionally, the data were collected by interviewing Kurdish informants. The results indicate that the imperative paradigm in Kurdish is based on three imperative constructions, and four imperative strategies are also used to convey directive meanings. The results also show that the imperative constructions have different syntactic behaviors in different temporal zones of the tense system. The imperative constructions mainly combine with verbs that have a positive dynamic aspectual feature; however, these constructions transform these verbs during the process of coercion and highlight only the preparatory phases of the verbs. Consequently, these constructions combine easily with ingressive verbal operators because they represent only the preparatory phases of the actions. However, the imperative constructions do not combine with imperfective operators as they highlight the middle phases of the events. Furthermore, the imperative constructions do not host perfective aspectual operators due to semantic incongruity between them. Finally, the results show that the imperative constructions and strategies lack a rich eventual semantic layer and appear mainly as expressive speech acts.
1. Introduction
The tripartite system of tense, aspect, and mood constructs the composite eventual and modal structure of a sentence. However, this composite system manifests differently in various sentential types such as declarative, interrogative, and imperative. Although the interaction of these three subsystems has been extensively studied in declarative sentences, they have not been adequately explored in imperative constructions. Given the highly particular and idiosyncratic syntactic and semantic behavior of imperatives, it is crucial to study these subsystems and their interactions within imperative sentences. This paper aims to examine these subsystems and their interactions within the imperative paradigm, employing the theoretical framework proposed by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017). Thus, it studies tense, aspect, and modality in canonical and non-canonical imperative constructions in Kurdish.
2. Literature Review
Imperative constructions have not been extensively investigated in Iranian languages in general, and Kurdish in particular. Most traditional grammatical sources in Kurdish adopt a prescriptive approach, primarily focusing on declarative and interrogative constructions and largely ignoring imperatives (IKSA 1976, 1985; Nabaz 1976; Mahvi 2011). No research to date has investigated tense, aspect, and modality in imperative constructions. However, Veisi Hasar (2021) studied imperative constructions in Kurdish, identifying two imperative constructions and four imperative strategies. Yet, he does not explore aspect, modality, and tense within these structures.
3. Methodology
The theoretical approach used in this study is based on the work of Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017) and the typological approach of Van der Auwera et al. (2005). Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017) categorize imperative constructions into canonical and non-canonical types. The canonical construction refers to the imperative for the second person singular subject. According to them, any structure derived from and matching the canonical construction can be considered an imperative construction. However, a non-canonical imperative, whose primary function is to express a directive function but structurally differs from the canonical construction, should be in complementary distribution with the canonical ones. If a directive structure is not structurally related to the canonical construction and is not in complementary distribution with it, it is not an imperative construction but an imperative strategy. In addition, based on the typological framework presented by Van der Auwera et al. (2005), we explain the imperative paradigm in Kurdish. This model illustrates different imperative paradigms as follows:
- a. The language has a maximal system, but not a minimal one.
- b. The language has a minimal system, but not a maximal one.
- c. The language has both a maximal and a minimal system.
- d. The language has neither a maximal nor a minimal system.
4. Findings
By analyzing the data, it is revealed that the Kurdish language has three imperative constructions and four imperative strategies. The second person singular imperative is formed by a special inflectional ending, an omitted subject, and a subjunctive mood indicated by the prefix -bǝ. The second person plural imperative uses a deleted subject and the prefix -bǝ, but lacks a special verbal ending. Imperative constructions for other person-number categories (first, third, singular, and plural) use a specific imperative operator bā and the prefix -bǝ. These three constructions form the imperative paradigm in Kurdish. Additionally, four strategies are used to express commands and directive meanings, which are not syntactically imperative. These constructions are based on the verbs heŝtәn (let), řoʔin (going), and hātәn (come), each possessing distinct grammatical attributes and used in various contexts.
Regarding the interaction between imperatives and tense, imperative constructions are mainly bound to the present tense and do not appear in other tenses. Interestingly, even the imperative strategies are primarily limited to the present tense and do not convey commands in other tenses. Only the second person singular imperative can appear in the future tense, in contrast to other categories, and takes a different inflectional ending.
Imperative constructions predominantly combine verbs that have a dynamic aspectual feature. However, through coercion, they highlight only the preparatory phase of these verbs. Static verbs within this construct are marked. Dynamic verbs in an imperative structure undergo coercion, and only their preparatory phases are highlighted in the imperative construct. Regarding grammatical aspects, imperative verbs do not combine with imperfective (progressive) verbs, as they do not profile the middle phases indicated by the progressive operators. Instead, they combine with ingressive operators, as both highlight the preparatory phases of the verbs. Additionally, imperative constructions do not combine perfective verbs due to semantic incompatibility. The perfective operator refers to a bounded process, while imperative constructs do not profile the ending limitation of the verbs.
1. Introduction
The tripartite system of tense, aspect, and mood constructs the composite eventual and modal structure of a sentence. However, this composite system manifests differently in various sentential types such as declarative, interrogative, and imperative. Although the interaction of these three subsystems has been extensively studied in declarative sentences, they have not been adequately explored in imperative constructions. Given the highly particular and idiosyncratic syntactic and semantic behavior of imperatives, it is crucial to study these subsystems and their interactions within imperative sentences. This paper aims to examine these subsystems and their interactions within the imperative paradigm, employing the theoretical framework proposed by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017). Thus, it studies tense, aspect, and modality in canonical and non-canonical imperative constructions in Kurdish.
2. Literature Review
Imperative constructions have not been extensively investigated in Iranian languages in general, and Kurdish in particular. Most traditional grammatical sources in Kurdish adopt a prescriptive approach, primarily focusing on declarative and interrogative constructions and largely ignoring imperatives (IKSA 1976, 1985; Nabaz 1976; Mahvi 2011). No research to date has investigated tense, aspect, and modality in imperative constructions. However, Veisi Hasar (2021) studied imperative constructions in Kurdish, identifying two imperative constructions and four imperative strategies. Yet, he does not explore aspect, modality, and tense within these structures.
3. Methodology
The theoretical approach used in this study is based on the work of Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017) and the typological approach of Van der Auwera et al. (2005). Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017) categorize imperative constructions into canonical and non-canonical types. The canonical construction refers to the imperative for the second person singular subject. According to them, any structure derived from and matching the canonical construction can be considered an imperative construction. However, a non-canonical imperative, whose primary function is to express a directive function but structurally differs from the canonical construction, should be in complementary distribution with the canonical ones. If a directive structure is not structurally related to the canonical construction and is not in complementary distribution with it, it is not an imperative construction but an imperative strategy. In addition, based on the typological framework presented by Van der Auwera et al. (2005), we explain the imperative paradigm in Kurdish. This model illustrates different imperative paradigms as follows:
- a. The language has a maximal system, but not a minimal one.
- b. The language has a minimal system, but not a maximal one.
- c. The language has both a maximal and a minimal system.
- d. The language has neither a maximal nor a minimal system.
4. Findings
By analyzing the data, it is revealed that the Kurdish language has three imperative constructions and four imperative strategies. The second person singular imperative is formed by a special inflectional ending, an omitted subject, and a subjunctive mood indicated by the prefix -bǝ. The second person plural imperative uses a deleted subject and the prefix -bǝ, but lacks a special verbal ending. Imperative constructions for other person-number categories (first, third, singular, and plural) use a specific imperative operator bā and the prefix -bǝ. These three constructions form the imperative paradigm in Kurdish. Additionally, four strategies are used to express commands and directive meanings, which are not syntactically imperative. These constructions are based on the verbs heŝtәn (let), řoʔin (going), and hātәn (come), each possessing distinct grammatical attributes and used in various contexts.
Regarding the interaction between imperatives and tense, imperative constructions are mainly bound to the present tense and do not appear in other tenses. Interestingly, even the imperative strategies are primarily limited to the present tense and do not convey commands in other tenses. Only the second person singular imperative can appear in the future tense, in contrast to other categories, and takes a different inflectional ending.
Imperative constructions predominantly combine verbs that have a dynamic aspectual feature. However, through coercion, they highlight only the preparatory phase of these verbs. Static verbs within this construct are marked. Dynamic verbs in an imperative structure undergo coercion, and only their preparatory phases are highlighted in the imperative construct. Regarding grammatical aspects, imperative verbs do not combine with imperfective (progressive) verbs, as they do not profile the middle phases indicated by the progressive operators. Instead, they combine with ingressive operators, as both highlight the preparatory phases of the verbs. Additionally, imperative constructions do not combine perfective verbs due to semantic incompatibility. The perfective operator refers to a bounded process, while imperative constructs do not profile the ending limitation of the verbs.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |