Language Studies

The use of Persian noun and adjective genitive construction in the speech and language of Azerbaijani speakers

Document Type : Research original ,Regular Article

Authors

Abdolhossein Heydari 1
mohammadreza Tusinasrabadi 2

1 Assistant professor, Department of English language teaching, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran. (Corresponding author),

2 Assistant professor, Department of English language teaching, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30465/ls.2025.51933.2212
Abstract
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to study transfer of Persian genitive construction  to speech and language of Azerbaijani speakers. Data have been collected from different Azerbaijani speakers (monolinguals and bilinguals) in Ardabil and they were classified according to different kinds of Persian genitive construction. At first frequency of data was determined in speakers' speech then they were analyzed following language contact views. Findings showed some of Persian genitive constructions are abundant in all speakers' speech, meanwhile some of them appeared only in bilinguals' speech. So Persian genitive construction transfer to Azerbaijani speakers' speech can be analyzed well due to codeswitchig-borrowing continuum that is the most suitable to explain language transfer. There was not any genitive construction among data consists of Azerbaijani native constituents combined by Persian genitive marker. So this kind of language transfer is matter borrowing. Persian genitive construction has not been borrowed as the pattern to Azerbaijani.
Key words: noun genitive, adjective genitive, Persian, Azerbaijani, language transfer
Introduction
Borrowing is a well-established term in linguistic studies that refers to the transfer of elements or structures from one language to another language or languages. All linguists consider the lexical borrowing as the most common type of borrowing meanwhile they declare the structures of languages resist against borrowing. According to Thomason and Kaufman (1988), structural borrowing occurs when the contact of languages is long and intensive. Observing the more use of Persian genitive construction (PGC) such as Meydan e Janbazan, Kuy e velayat and … by Azerbaijani individuals caused us to study these linguistic transfers from the perspective of Myers-Scotton (1993-2006), Matras (2009) and Gardani (2020) which have been famous in studies related to Language contact. Kasereyeh Ezafe is the marker used to connect two words or nouns together. Persian genitive construction is divided into two kinds: noun genitive and adjective genitive.
 
Material and Methods
The data of this study have been collected from the conversations or linguistic colloquialisms of Azerbaijani speakers in Ardabil province. 45 Azerbaijani speakers, consisting of three groups of 15 people: 1- Azerbaijani monolinguals 2- Ordinary bilinguals 3- Educated bilinguals were selected for interviews. All Persian noun genitive and adjective genitive constructions in Azerbaijani speakers’ speech were classified according to Tabatabaie’s taxonomy of Persian genitive constructions. Then the frequency of data use was determined and showed in two tables. 1115 different Persian genitive constructions were collected from the speech of Azerbaijani speakers (960 noun genitive and 155 adjective genitive). The data were analyzed from different perspectives in the field of language contact, so the present study was conducted in a descriptive-analytical manner.
Data analysis
 Noun genitive construction appeared in the speech of all types of speakers (Azerbaijani monolinguals, ordinary bilinguals and educated bilinguals), meanwhile adjective genitive construction only used by Azerbaijani-Persian bilinguals. Bayani Ezafe and Eghterani Ezafe with their frequencies being 304 and 12 respectively were the most and the least used Persian noun genitive constructions. Azerbaijani monolinguals only used 4 Persian noun genitive constructions (Bayani, Takhsisi, Melki and Tazimi) with more frequency and the other different Persian noun genitive constructions were not used by them. Also, the frequency of some Persian noun genitive constructions such as Eghterani Ezafe was very limited in the speech of ordinary bilinguals. The frequency of first 4 Persian noun genitive constructions (Bayani, Takhsisi, Melki and Tazimi) was high in the speech of all speakers.
Conclusion
Myers-Scotton (1993-2006) and Matras (2009) have proposed two important criteria to distinguish the borrowed elements from code-switched ones: 1- The borrowed elements are used by all speakers but  code-switched ones are only used by bilinguals. 2- The use frequency of  borrowed elements is very high in the speech of individuals. Considering these 2 criteria, some of Persian noun genitive constructions (Bayani, Takhsisi, Melki and Tazimi) are borrowed elements, meanwhile the other Persian noun genitive constructions and the adjective genitive construction appeared only in bilinguals' speech must be classified as code-switched elements. So PGC transfer to Azerbaijani speakers' speech can be analyzed well due to codeswitchig-borrowing continuum that is the most suitable to explain language transfer. There was not any genitive construction among data consists of Azerbaijani native constituents combined by Persian genitive marker. So according to Gardani (2020) this kind of language transfer is matter borrowing. PGC has not been borrowed as the pattern to Azerbaijani. Gradual transfer of PGC to speech of Azerbaijani speakers is result of unbalanced contact occurring between Persian and Azerbaijani. This phenomenon is considered very frequent in bilingual or multilingual societies by linguists.

Keywords

noun genitive
adjective genitive
Persian
Azerbaijani
language transfer

Subjects

Ahmadi-Givi, H. (2004). Comparative grammar of Turkish and Persian. Tehran: Gatreh. [In Persian].
Aikhenvald, A.Y. (2006). Grammars in Contact: A cross-linguistic  perspective. In A.Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.). Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology: 1-66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagrıaçık, M., & Ralli, A. (2015). Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish. STUF–Language Typology and Universals, 68, 323–357.
Comrie,  B. (1989). Language  Universals  and  Linguistic  Typology. 2nd
     Ed., Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Farzaneh, M. (1978). The base of Azarbayjanian grammar. Tehran: Farzaneh publication. [In Persian].
Gardani, F. (2020). Borrowing matter and pattern in morphology. An overview. Morphology, 30, 263–282.
Gürer, A. (2010). EPP, subject positions and case checking in CNPCs in Turkish. MA thesis, Bogaziçi University.
Haddad-Adel, Gh. (2003). An introduction to people word choice. Namaeh Farhangistan, 2, 2-8. [In Persian].
Haspelmath, M., & Tadmor, U. (2009). Loanwords in the world's languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Homayounfar, M. (2021). Ezafe Morpheme - e: Head-marker in Persian Noun Phrases. Language science, 8 (14), 53-87. [In Persian].
Khayyampour, A. (2009). Persian Grammar. 14Th edition. Tehran: Setudeh publication. [In Persian].
Lee, S., N. (1996). A Grammar of  Iranian Azerbaijani. Doctoral dissertation, Sussex university.
MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 167–201.  
Mahootian, S. (1993). A null theory of codeswitching. Ph.d. dissertation, Northwestern university, illionois.
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Y., and Sakel, J. eds. (2007a). Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 
Meshkatoddini, M. (2015). Persian grammar (The lexical categories and merge), Second edition.Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
Moeen, M. (1962). Persian Grammar: Genitive. Tehran: Amir-Kabir publication. [In Persian].
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Dueling languages: grammatical structure in code-switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple Voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Naghzgouyekohan, M. (2013). A study of Arabic influence on phonological system of Persian and its varieties. Comparative Linguistic research, 3 (5), 65-94. [In Persian].
Poplack, S., and Dion, N. (2012). Myths and facts about loanword development. Language Variation and Change, 24, 279–315.  
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Samiian, V. (1983). Structure of the phrasal categories in Persian: An X-bar Analysis. PhD. Dissertation. California State University.
Seifart, F. (2017). Patterns of affix borrowing in a sample of 100 languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 7(3), 389–431.
Shafaei, A. (1984). The scientific base of Persian grammar. Tehran: Khusheh publication. [In Persian].
Shaghaghi, V. (2013). Phrasal affix. Language and linguistics, 9 (17), 1-26. [In Persian].
Tabatabaie, A. (2017). A descriptive dictionary of Persian grammar. Tehran: Farhang Moaser. [In Persian].
Thomason, S. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of  California Press.
Trips, C., & Kornfilt, J. (2015). Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German and Turkic. STUF–Language Typology and Universals, 68, 281–321.
Underhill, R. (1979). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT.
Vahidian-Kamyar, T & Emrani, Gh. (2007). Persian Grammar 1. Tehran: Samt publication. [In Persian].
Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Language Studies
Volume 16, Issue 1
March 2025
Pages 203-226

  • Receive Date 11 May 2025
  • Revise Date 03 September 2025
  • Accept Date 17 September 2025

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us