Yeni Dizahlı Lezgicesinin Türkçe-Lezgice Çatı Paradigması

Öz

Bu çalışmada Azerbaycan dilindeki sözdizimini değiştiren (ya istemi değiştiren) kümenin morfolojik karşıtlıklarının, Doğu Kafkas dil ailesinin Lezgi koluna mensup Lezgicenin Guba mak-ro-lehçesinin (Mejlanova 1964: 3) Azerbaycan'ın Gebele bölgesinde konuşulan Yeni Dizahlı ağzından ödünç alındığı öne sürülmektedir. Bu dil ailesinin Lezgi kolunda Türkçe sözdizimini değiştiren biçimbilimsel yapıların varlığı belgelenmiştir (Aslanov 1989; Authier 2010), ancak, bu çalışma ilk kez karşıtlıklarının da ödünç alındığını ileri sürmektedir. İlgili sözdizimini değiştiren belirteçler, hem Gebele Lezgicesinde hem de Azerbaycan dilinde aynı bağlamlarda aynı karşıtlıklara sahip olsa da, Standart Lezgiceden elde edilen veriler, yerel Lezgice belir-teçlerin dilin edebi biçiminde her zaman karşıtlık barındıran biçimde olmadığı yönündedir. Yeni Dizahlı Lezgicesi, ödünç alınan ve yerel çatı belirteçlerinin paradigmatik karşıtlık içinde bir ara-da var olduğunu, yani bir paralel sistem ödünçleme durumu (Kossman 2010) olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• morfoloji
• dil teması
• çatı
• Lezgice
• Dağıstan dilleri

The Turko-Lezgic Voice Paradigm of Yeni Dizaxlı Lezgian

Abstract

This paper proposes that the morphological contrasts of the Azerbaijani Turkic valency-changing set have been borrowed in the Yeni Dizaxlı village variety of Lezgian—a variant of the Quba macro-dialect (Mejlanova 1964: 3)—, a Lezgic language in the East Caucasian family, spoken in the Qəbələ district of Azerbaijan. While the existence of Turkic valency-changing morphology is documented in the Lezgic branch of the family (Aslanov 1989; Authier 2010), I propose here for the first time that contrasts are also borrowed. The relevant valency-changing markers participate in the same contrasts in the same contexts in both Qəbələ Lezgian and in Azerbaijani, though evidence from Standard Lezgian suggests that the native Lezgic markers are not necessarily contrastive in the literary form of the language. Yeni Dizaxlı Lezgian demonstrates the coexistence of borrowed and native voice markers in paradigmatic contrast, i.e. a case of parallel system borrowing (Kossman 2010).

Keywords

• morphology
• contact
• voice
• Lezgian
• Daghestanian

References

1. Aronoff, Mark (1994). Morphology by Itself. Linguistics Inquiry Monograph 22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Aslanov, A. M. (1989). Азербайджанский язык в орбите языкового взаиможействия [The Azerbaijani language in the orbit of language contact]. Baku: Elm.
3. Authier, Gilles (2010). Azeri morphology in Kryz (East Caucasian). Turkic Languages 14: 1–14.
4. Authier, Gilles (2012). The ditransitive voice in Kryz. In (eds.) Gilles Authier & Katharina Haude, Ergativity, Valency and Voice, 133-164. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
5. Babaev, Vladimir A. & Zukhrekhalum Selimova (2016). Об особенностях глагола кубинского диалекта лезгинского языка [On particularities of the verb of the Quba dialect of the Lezgian language]. Филологические науки [Philological sciences], 4. 76-80.
6. Bağrıaçık, Metin; Angela Ralli and Dimitra Melissaropoulou (2015). Borrowing verbs from Oghuz Turkic: two linguistic areas. In (eds.) Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev and Nino Amiridze, Bor-rowed Morphology, 109–136. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Clifton, John M. & Calvin Tiessen (2018). Hiding your identity: The case of Talysh. In (eds.) Stephen Quackenbush & Gary Simons, Language and Identity in a Multilingual, Migrating World, 1-22. SIL International.
8. Comrie, Bernard (2008). What is a passive? In (eds.) Zarina E. Fernández, Søren Wichmann, Clau-dine Chamoreau & Albert Á. González, Studies in voice and transitivity, 1-18. München: Lincom.

9. Crisp, Simon (1985). The Formation and Development of Literary Avar. In (ed.) Isabelle T. Kreindler, Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Soviet National Languages: Their past, present, and future, 143-162. De Gruyter Mouton.
10. Əfəndiyeva, Türkan (2005). Felin keçmiş zaman formaları [Forms of the Past Tense of the Verb]. Baku: Nurlan.
11. Field, Fredric W (2002). Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Gardani, Francesco (2020). Borrowing matter and pattern in morphology. An overview. Morphology 30: 263-282.
13. Haspelmath, Martin (1993). A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
14. Hüseynzadə, Muxtar (2007). Müasir Azərbaycan Dili, Ütʃüncü Hissə: Morfologiya [Modern Azerbaijani, Part Three: Morphology]. Baku: Şərq-Qərb.
15. Johanson, Lars (2000). Turkic Indirectives. In (eds.) Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas, Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighboring Languages, 61-88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Johanson, Lars (2006). On the roles of Turkic in the Caucasus area. In (eds.) McMahon, April, Matras, Yaron & Vincent, Nigel, Linguistic areas, 160-181. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Kazenin, Konstantin (2001). Passive. In (eds.) Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehardt König, Werner Öster-reicher & Wilhelm Raible. Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, 970–978. Berlin/New York: DeGruyter.
18. Kazımov, Qəzənfər (2010). Müasir Azərbaycan Dili: Morfologiya [Modern Azerbaijani: Morphology]. Baku: Elm və Təhsil.
19. Kerimova, Z. R. (2020). Грамматический статус именной части сложного глагола в лезгинском языке [The grammatical status of nominal elements of complex verbs in the Lezgian language]. Vypusknaja kvalifikacionnaja rabota. Institut lingvistiki RGGU. Moskva.
20. Kərimova, Sədaqət (2011). КцӀар: кцӀарияр / Qusar: Qusarlılar [Qusar: Qusarites]. Baku: Ziya.
21. Kossmann, Martin (2010). Parallel system borrowing. Parallel morphological systems due to the borrowing of paradigms. Diachronica 27: 459-487.
22. Letifov, A. (1958). К истории борьбу партииной организации Дагестана за решение проблемы языка [On the history of the party organization of Daghestan’s struggle to solve the language issue]. Dagestanskii Filial AN SSSR, Institut istorii, iazyka i literatury, Uchenye Zapiski 5:80-107.
23. Matras, Yaron (2007). The borrowability of structural categories. In (eds.) Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 31–73. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
24. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel (2004). Database of Convergence and Borrowing. Manchester: Uni-versity of Manchester.
25. Matveeva, Anna (2002). The South Caucasus: Nationalism, conflict and minorities. London: Minority Rights Group International Meakins, Felicity, Xia Hua, Cassandra Algy, & Lindell Bromham (2019). Birth of a contact language did not favour simplification. Language 95(2): 294-332.
26. Mejlanova, U. A. (1964). Очерки Лезгинской Диалектологии [Studies on Lezgian Dialectology]. Москва: Наука.
27. Stolz, Thomas (2003). Not Quite the Right Mixture: Chamorro and Malti as Candidates for the Status of Mixed Language. In (eds.) Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker, The Mixed Language Debate. Theoretical and Empirical Advances, 271–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
28. Stump, Gregory. T. (2007). A non-canonical pattern of deponency and its implications. In Matthew Baerman, Greville Corbett, Dunstan Brown, & Andrew Hippisley Proceedings of the British Academy 145: Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, 127-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Suleymanov, Murad (2020). A Grammar of Şirvan Tat. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
30. Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terence Kaufman (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Lin-guistics. Berkeley: University of California Press
31. Testelets, Yakov G. (2021). Ergativity in East Caucasian. Talk given at the Online Course on East Cau-casian lan-guages, Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, HSE, December 15, 2021.
32. Whitney, William Dwight (1881). On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philosophi-cal Association 12: 1–26