Monographs by Shinji Ido
https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/titel_1137.ahtml
This book analyses ‘incomplete sentences’ in... more https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/titel_1137.ahtml
This book analyses ‘incomplete sentences’ in languages that utilise distinctively agglutinative components in their morphology. In the grammars of the languages dealt with in this book, there are certain types of sentences which are variously referred to as ‘elliptical sentences’ (Turkish eksiltili cümleler), ‘incomplete sentences’ (Uzbek to‘liqsiz gaplar), ‘cutoff sentences’ (Turkish kesik cümleler), etc., for which the grammarians provide elaborated semantic and syntactic analyses. The current work attempts to present an alternative approach for the analysis of such sentences. The distribution of morphemes in incomplete sentences is examined closely, based on which a system of analysis that can handle a variety of incomplete sentences in an integrated manner is proposed from a morphological point of view. The linguistic data are taken from Turkish, Uzbek, Japanese, and (Bukharan) Tajik.
https://lincom-shop.eu/LWM-442-Tajik
Tajik is a South-West Iranian language that is genetically ... more https://lincom-shop.eu/LWM-442-Tajik
Tajik is a South-West Iranian language that is genetically closely related to such major languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within Uzbekistan, Samarqand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. In the beginning of the twentieth century, Tajik was considered by a number of writers and researchers to be a variety of Persian. The language that this book describes is the modern Tajik language which is referred to in the Soviet linguistic literature typically as zaboni khozirai tojik. The morphological segmentability of Tajik words is markedly high compared to words in the Indo-Iranian predecessors of Tajik, which makes Tajik morphologically more agglutinative than inflectional. Outstanding features of Tajik include the modal opposition between the indicative mood and the mood of indirect evidence, i.e. the inferential mood, that pervades the verbal system, and the utilization of both post-nominal and pre-nominal relative clauses.
https://lincom-shop.eu/epages/57709feb-b889-4707-b2ce-c666fc88085d.sf/en_GB/?ObjectID=4131503
So... more https://lincom-shop.eu/epages/57709feb-b889-4707-b2ce-c666fc88085d.sf/en_GB/?ObjectID=4131503
Some Iranian languages have been in intensive contact with Turkic languages for many centuries. Tajik and Uzbek are representative of the languages that have co-existed in the Iranian-Turkic language contact in Central Asia. Uzbek is a Turkic language that has Chaghatay as its literary predecessor and is the 'state language' of the republic of Uzbekistan. Tajik, on the other hand, is a South-West Iranian language which is genetically closely related to such Iranian languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within the latter Samarkand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. The cohabitation of Tajik speakers with Uzbek speakers has made Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism the norm in much of this area. Bukhara is one of the cities where Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism is most pronounced; virtually all Tajik speakers in Bukhara are bilingual in Tajik and Uzbek.
This book contains transcriptions of recordings of the Tajik language used by Bukharans who have had no formal education in/of Tajik. A large number of linguistic features of Bukharan Tajik are considered to have emerged or have been retained under the influence of Uzbek.
Tacikistan’ın devlet dili olan Tacikçe, Farsça ve Derice gibi dillerin de mensup oldukları güney-... more Tacikistan’ın devlet dili olan Tacikçe, Farsça ve Derice gibi dillerin de mensup oldukları güney-batı İrani dillerin bir üyesidir. Tacikçe, yirminci yüzyılın başlarında bazı yazarlar ve bilginler tarafından Farsçanın Orta Asya lehçesi olarak tanımlanırdı. Tacikçenin bir Fars lehçesi olduğu yönündeki bu görüş, çağdaş Batı dilbiliminde de yaygındır. Tacikçenin kendi başına bir dil oluşturup oluşturmadığı konusundaki tartışmanın siyasi yönü vardır. Biz bu kitapta siyasi tartışmaya karışmayacağız. Elinizdeki kitapta tasvir edilen dil değişkesi, Sovyet dilbiliminde adı genellikle забони адабии ҳозираи тоҷик olarak geçen Tacik yazı dilidir. Kitabın bazı bölümlerinde, açıklamanın net olarak anlaşılmasını sağlamak üzere, yazı dilinin tasvirinin yanı sıra konuşma dilinin de tasvirine yer verilmiştir.
https://www.tups.jp/book/book.php?id=284
かつてソヴィエト連邦を構成していた中央アジアの共和国タジキスタンにおいて現在「国家語」という位置づけを与えら... more https://www.tups.jp/book/book.php?id=284
かつてソヴィエト連邦を構成していた中央アジアの共和国タジキスタンにおいて現在「国家語」という位置づけを与えられている言語がタジク語である。タジク語は、イランのペルシア語やアフガニスタンのダリー語もその成員である西南イラン語の一員である。本書はタジク語文法の要諦を言語学的に整理した参考書である。
本書では、学習書や入門書とは異なり、タジク語文法の全体像が把握できるようになっている。また、文法項目ごとの章立てや項目間の綿密な相互参照などが施され、学術的利用の便が図られている。
Editorial work by Shinji Ido
Tajik linguistics, Jan 30, 2023
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622799
It is hardly an overstatement to say that Soviet linguists... more https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622799
It is hardly an overstatement to say that Soviet linguists had a monopoly over Tajik linguistics before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when most studies on the language were accessible exclusively through Russian and Tajik. Today, however, linguists dealing with Tajik are diverse not only in terms of their location but also in terms of their disciplinary orientation within linguistics, making it difficult for the general linguist to work out the state of the art of the linguistic study of Tajik.
This volume aims to address this difficulty by collecting in a handbook format recent (post-Soviet) developments in the study of Tajik that now lie scattered in different subdisciplines of linguistics. The volume thus showcases the state of the art of post-Soviet Tajik linguistics and can be used as a guide for linguists interested in the language.
Articles by Shinji Ido
Oslo Studies in Language, Jan 3, 2009
The present study is an attempt to account for non-sentential utterance (NSU) production without ... more The present study is an attempt to account for non-sentential utterance (NSU) production without assuming the existence of a 'syntactically full sentence' for every NSU. The model for NSU production that derives from this study has the following four advantages over the popular 'constituent-omission' model: It 1) accounts for the production of NSUs that native speakers variably 'reconstruct', 2) explains why in certain contexts pro-drop cannot occur in languages that have morphologically marked subject-verb agreement 3) models the production of NSUs without devising separate production processes for 'ellipses' and 'fragments', and 4) predicts what constituents have to be present in a given NSU. It also keeps the involvement of syntax in NSU production to a minimum.
Tajik linguistics (The Companions of Iranian Languages and Linguistics [CILL], 3), 2023
https://books.google.com/books?id=m7GiEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq
The present study offers an ove... more https://books.google.com/books?id=m7GiEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq
The present study offers an overview of standard Tajik phonology, focusing mainly on its phonemes and their phonetic representations. Prosodic units and intonation are largely ignored in this article, though some analyses on interrogative intonation patterns are presented in Section 3.
This article also surveys previous studies on the phoneme inventory of standard Tajik. It aims to reconcile contradictory statements made in those studies, thereby consolidating them into a coherent description of the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It will be demonstrated that the contradiction derives, in part, from the fact that some major sound changes that have taken place in standard Tajik since its inception are not acknowledged in the Tajik linguistic literature. Accordingly, particular attention is devoted to the diachronic changes that have taken place in the standard Tajik phoneme inventory, and in the phonetic representations of some of the phonemes it comprises.
In describing the changes, this study relies not only on the existing literature in Tajik phonology, most of which was produced during the Soviet period, but also on a speech corpus of present-day standard Tajik. The speech corpus, which the present author compiled in 2012, contains recorded speech produced by newsreaders and announcers working at Dushanbe-based television and radio stations. This use of different data sources facilitates comparison between the standard Tajik in the Soviet period as it is described in the literature, and that in post-civil war Tajikistan, allowing us to identify some recent changes in standard Tajik.
This article is organized in four sections. The first section introduces the terminology adopted in this article, after which it describes the development of standard Tajik in relation to its phoneme inventory and the phonetic realization of the phonemes it contains. The section also explains the relationship between standard Tajik and the dialects that have affected it. The second section then provides an overview of the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It briefly explains the aforementioned speech corpus, after which it describes the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It reviews the phoneme inventory that has been widely circulated and routinely replicated in grammars and textbooks. This is followed by a discussion of issues, some of them contentious, related to the inventory. Section 2 also puts the prescribed realization of some Tajik phonemes in contrast with the actual realization used in standard spoken Tajik where the latter differs from the former. Seciton 3 touches upon the use of intonation in yes/no and wh- question-answer pairs identified in the aforementioned Tajik speech corpus. The study concludes with a summary of the insights gained from the overview of standard Tajik phonology.
Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 44(1), pp 87-102. , Mar 21, 2014
https://doi.org/10.1017/S002510031300011X
Standard Tajik, or Modern Literary Tajik as it was ca... more https://doi.org/10.1017/S002510031300011X
Standard Tajik, or Modern Literary Tajik as it was called during the Soviet era, was established in the nineteen twenties and thirties based largely on the dialects of the Bukhara-Samarkand area, which was at the time the undisputed cultural centre of the Tajik-speaking population. Dushanbe, the current capital of Tajikistan, was then a small village with a population of only a few hundred and had no cultural heritage comparable to that of Bukhara or Samarkand. Bukharan Tajik, whose phonology is described in this paper, is a variety of Tajik that played a particularly influential role in the phonological standardization of Tajik, which took place for the most part in 1930. For instance, the Scientific Conference of Uzbekistan Tajiks of 1930 resolved that the dialect of Bukhara must be the designated basis of the sound and orthography of literary Tajik (вaroji tajjorī вa kanfiransijaji ilmiji istalinoвod 1930: 2). In August the same year, the Linguistic Conference held in the then newly established Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic also adopted a similar resolution that establishes the ‘language of the Tajiks of Samarkand and Bukhara’ as the reference point in establishing the literary (i.e. standard) pronunciation (Halimov 1974: 126). According to Bergne (2007: 82), ‘the same Linguistic Conference of 22 August 1930 in Stalinabad decided that the phonetic base for the language had better be the dialect of Bukhara’. Thus, the Bukharan Tajik of today is the direct descendant of the variety of Tajik which served as a primary basis of standard Tajik phonological norms; and hence differs little from standard Tajik phonologically and phonetically.
Journal of Jewish Languages, 2017
https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/jjl/5/1/article-p81_4.xml
The present article describes... more https://brill.com/downloadpdf/journals/jjl/5/1/article-p81_4.xml
The present article describes the vowel chain shift that occurred in the variety of Tajik spoken by Jewish residents in Bukhara. It identifies the chain shift as constituting of an intermediate stage of the Northern Tajik chain shift and accordingly tentatively concludes that in the Northern Tajik chain shift Early New Persian ā shifted before ō did, shedding light on the process whereby the present-day Tajik vowel system was established. The article is divided into three parts. The first provides an explanation of the variety of Tajik spoken by Jewish inhabitants of Bukhara. The second section explains the relationship between this particular variety and other varieties that have been used by Jews in Central Asia. The third section deals specifically with the vowel system of the variety and the changes that it has undergone since the late 19th century.
Trends in Iranian and Persian Linguistics (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 313), 2018
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110455793-003
Huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a New Persian glossary compil... more https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110455793-003
Huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a New Persian glossary compiled in China during the Ming period (1368–1644), has been largely neglected in the linguistic study of Persian despite its obvious importance as a source of data on the historical development of New Persian. In this article, all entries in one particular manuscript of huihuiguan zazi are tabulated and supplemented with translations and transcriptions, thus rendering the linguistic information contained in the glossary easily accessible to linguists.
Turkic Languages, 2002
http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/img/?PPN=PPN666048797_0006&DMDID=DMDLOG_0022
Turkic Languages, Apr 5, 2016
This paper presents and analyses half a page of Uzbek text that appears in a Tajik-language prose... more This paper presents and analyses half a page of Uzbek text that appears in a Tajik-language prose work published at the turn of the 20th century. The Uzbek text was written by a Bukharan bilingual who had Bukharan Tajik as his native language but also possessed competence in Uzbek. The text is a rare example of an Uzbek text written in fully vocalized Hebrew script, and thus provides a rare glimpse into the Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism in the capital area of the emirate of Bukhara in the late 19th century.
De Chiara & Grassi (eds.) Iranian languages and literatures of Central Asia: from the 18th century to the present (Cahiers de Studia Iranica 57), 2015
This paper analyses New Persian words transcribed in Chinese script in huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a N... more This paper analyses New Persian words transcribed in Chinese script in huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a New Persian-Chinese glossary compiled in Ming China. The analysis reveals a correspondence between the vowel contrasts of modern Tajik and those of the variety of New Persian whose words are recorded in the glossary. This paper also identifies, based on historical records, the variety as an early fifteenth-century New Persian which had diplomatic currency in the Timurid court in Samarkand.
Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 2011
This paper analyzes a variety of languages with regard to vowel alternation patterns in their dis... more This paper analyzes a variety of languages with regard to vowel alternation patterns in their disyllabic sound symbolic reduplicatives (DSRs). The analysis reveals that (1) a number of different languages have their preferred patterns of vowel alternation for DSRs (e.g. /ɪ/-/ɒ/ in ding-dong and tick-tock in English) and (2) the relative height of each vowel against the other in a DSR is a linguistic feature that is primarily areal. The languages surveyed in this paper include Bukharan Tajik, Chinese, English, German, Kazakh, Korean, Manchu, Mongolian, Persian, Qarakhanid Turkic, Tatar, Tatar in Xinjiang, Turkish, Tuvan, Uyghur, Uzbek, and Uzbek in Xinjiang.
İlmî Araştırmalar, 2002
This paper discusses three features of the Tajik language used by young Bukharans in their twenti... more This paper discusses three features of the Tajik language used by young Bukharans in their twenties who have had no formal education in standard Tajik. The non-standard features of Bukharan Tajik discussed in this paper are the 1) prevalence of pre-nominal modifier phrases with -agi, 2) absence of the -a shudan passive construction, and 3) morphology of the continuous aspect marking. The discussion includes both synchronic and diachronic analyses of the features.
Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2008
Bu makalede üzerinde duracağımız konu iki heceli yansımalı ikilemelerde meydana gelen ünlü nöbetl... more Bu makalede üzerinde duracağımız konu iki heceli yansımalı ikilemelerde meydana gelen ünlü nöbetleşmesidir. Çağdaş Türkiye Türkçesinde çar-çur, har-hur, hart-hurt, fart-furt, zart-zurt gibi ikilemelerde bulunan ünlü nöbetleşmesinin Özbekçe ve Uygurca gibi çağdaş Orta Asya Türkî dillerinde de bulunduğu gibi, 11. asır Türkî dili olan Karahanlıcada da mevcut olduğunu Divanü Lugat-it-Türk’te kaydedilmiş yansımalı kelimelerden anlıyoruz. Bu makalede, iki heceli yansımalı ikilemelerde yer alan ünlü nöbetleşmesinde dile has kısıtlamaların mevcut olduğu iddiasında bulunarak, Karahanlıcanın, çağdaş Türkî dilin güneydoğu grubundaki diller gibi, ‘açık-kapalı ünlü nöbetleşmesi’ kısıtlamasına tabi tutulduğunu, ve Divan’daki iki heceli yansımalı ikilemelerde yer alan ünlü kombinasyonların bu nedenle fatḥa-ḍamma /{a,e}/-/{o,u,ö,ü}/, fatḥa-kasra /{a,e}/-/{é,ı,i}/, ve alif-wāw /{ā,ē}/-/{ō,ū,ȫ,ǖ}/ ile sınırlı olduğu yönündeki varsayımı öne sürüyoruz.
Many English sound symbolic reduplicatives are known to exhibit the vowel alternation patterns of /ɪ/-/æ/ and /ɪ/-/ɒ/ (e.g. in zig-zag and ding-dong) where the first vowel is higher than the second vowel. The data collected for this paper from Chinese, Korean, Manchu, Modern Uyghur, Mongolian, Persian, Tatar, Turkish, Uzbek, and Vietnamese evidence that most of these languages also have their preferred patterns of vowel alternation for sound symbolic reduplicatives. For example, Chinese and Vietnamese sound symbolic reduplicatives show a clear preference towards vowel alternations where the first vowel is higher than the second one. An analysis of sound symbolic words in Qarakhanid Turkic also reveals the prevalence of particular patterns of vowel alternation; vowel alternations in the disyllabic sound symbolic reduplicatives that appear in the Compendium of the Turkic Dialects are confined to the following patterns: fatḥa-ḍamma /{a,e}/-/{o,u,ö,ü}/, fatḥa-kasra /{a,e}/-/{é,ı,i}/, and alif-wāw /{ā,ē}/-/{ō,ū,ȫ,ǖ}/. This paper claims that sound symbolic reduplicatives in Qarakhanid Turkic (as well as those in Turkish, Uzbek, etc.) prefer the vowel alternation pattern of ‘low vowel-high vowel’ and that this preference confines the vowel alternations in such reduplicatives in Qarakhanid to those that are represented with fatḥa-ḍamma, fatḥa-kasra, and alif-wāw.
愛知県立芸術大学紀要 40号 The bulletin of the Aichi Prefectural University of Fine Arts and Music, vol. 40, Mar 31, 2011
The present note discusses the possibility of developing a model for the production of fragmentar... more The present note discusses the possibility of developing a model for the production of fragmentary utterances. It critically reviews existing analyses of fragmentary utterances, which typically identify fragments as sentences in which ellipsis occurs (or as small clauses), and points out that such identification is arbitrary. The first half of this paper addresses the problem of arbitrariness by devising and testing out an exploratory model for utterance production that places strict constraints on what forms fragmentary utterances can take. The model adopts the view that fragmentary utterances are formed bottom-up (thereby keeping the involvement of syntax in utterance production to a minimal) and posits simple principles that make certain predictions about what morphemes necessarily occur in a given (fragmentary) utterance. The latter half of this paper consists of analyses of fragmentary utterances of several different types (corrections, question-answer pairs, etc.). The analyses demonstrate that the fragmentary utterances are in exact accordance with the predictions that the model makes.
名古屋大学人文学研究論集, 2019
http://doi.org/10.18999/jouhunu.2.21 An anthology of Sino-Japanese poetry published in 2016 compr... more http://doi.org/10.18999/jouhunu.2.21 An anthology of Sino-Japanese poetry published in 2016 comprises a well-annotated collection of classical Chinese poems with translations in kundoku-style Japanese. One quatrain that appears in the anthology was penned by Ido Reizan (1859-1935), of whom the annotator writes as “a Meiji-era poet whose career is obscure”. This obscurity is somewhat surprising given that Reizan was a prolific writer who authored dozens of books and founded a magazine which enjoyed a readership of tens of thousands; he was also personally acquainted with such political heavyweights as Hara Takashi and Gotō Shinpei, as well as with a number of artists such as Nakamura Fusetsu, Komuro Suiun, and Zhang Daqian. This paper attempts to trace Reizan’s career, which spanned activism, journalism, calligraphy criticism, and classical Chinese poetry.
Translation by Shinji Ido
Шарқ хаттотлик ва миниатюра санъатидан намуналар : VII-XXI асрлар (мусанниф бисотидан), 2011
Uploads
Monographs by Shinji Ido
This book analyses ‘incomplete sentences’ in languages that utilise distinctively agglutinative components in their morphology. In the grammars of the languages dealt with in this book, there are certain types of sentences which are variously referred to as ‘elliptical sentences’ (Turkish eksiltili cümleler), ‘incomplete sentences’ (Uzbek to‘liqsiz gaplar), ‘cutoff sentences’ (Turkish kesik cümleler), etc., for which the grammarians provide elaborated semantic and syntactic analyses. The current work attempts to present an alternative approach for the analysis of such sentences. The distribution of morphemes in incomplete sentences is examined closely, based on which a system of analysis that can handle a variety of incomplete sentences in an integrated manner is proposed from a morphological point of view. The linguistic data are taken from Turkish, Uzbek, Japanese, and (Bukharan) Tajik.
Tajik is a South-West Iranian language that is genetically closely related to such major languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within Uzbekistan, Samarqand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. In the beginning of the twentieth century, Tajik was considered by a number of writers and researchers to be a variety of Persian. The language that this book describes is the modern Tajik language which is referred to in the Soviet linguistic literature typically as zaboni khozirai tojik. The morphological segmentability of Tajik words is markedly high compared to words in the Indo-Iranian predecessors of Tajik, which makes Tajik morphologically more agglutinative than inflectional. Outstanding features of Tajik include the modal opposition between the indicative mood and the mood of indirect evidence, i.e. the inferential mood, that pervades the verbal system, and the utilization of both post-nominal and pre-nominal relative clauses.
Some Iranian languages have been in intensive contact with Turkic languages for many centuries. Tajik and Uzbek are representative of the languages that have co-existed in the Iranian-Turkic language contact in Central Asia. Uzbek is a Turkic language that has Chaghatay as its literary predecessor and is the 'state language' of the republic of Uzbekistan. Tajik, on the other hand, is a South-West Iranian language which is genetically closely related to such Iranian languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within the latter Samarkand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. The cohabitation of Tajik speakers with Uzbek speakers has made Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism the norm in much of this area. Bukhara is one of the cities where Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism is most pronounced; virtually all Tajik speakers in Bukhara are bilingual in Tajik and Uzbek.
This book contains transcriptions of recordings of the Tajik language used by Bukharans who have had no formal education in/of Tajik. A large number of linguistic features of Bukharan Tajik are considered to have emerged or have been retained under the influence of Uzbek.
かつてソヴィエト連邦を構成していた中央アジアの共和国タジキスタンにおいて現在「国家語」という位置づけを与えられている言語がタジク語である。タジク語は、イランのペルシア語やアフガニスタンのダリー語もその成員である西南イラン語の一員である。本書はタジク語文法の要諦を言語学的に整理した参考書である。
本書では、学習書や入門書とは異なり、タジク語文法の全体像が把握できるようになっている。また、文法項目ごとの章立てや項目間の綿密な相互参照などが施され、学術的利用の便が図られている。
Editorial work by Shinji Ido
It is hardly an overstatement to say that Soviet linguists had a monopoly over Tajik linguistics before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when most studies on the language were accessible exclusively through Russian and Tajik. Today, however, linguists dealing with Tajik are diverse not only in terms of their location but also in terms of their disciplinary orientation within linguistics, making it difficult for the general linguist to work out the state of the art of the linguistic study of Tajik.
This volume aims to address this difficulty by collecting in a handbook format recent (post-Soviet) developments in the study of Tajik that now lie scattered in different subdisciplines of linguistics. The volume thus showcases the state of the art of post-Soviet Tajik linguistics and can be used as a guide for linguists interested in the language.
Articles by Shinji Ido
The present study offers an overview of standard Tajik phonology, focusing mainly on its phonemes and their phonetic representations. Prosodic units and intonation are largely ignored in this article, though some analyses on interrogative intonation patterns are presented in Section 3.
This article also surveys previous studies on the phoneme inventory of standard Tajik. It aims to reconcile contradictory statements made in those studies, thereby consolidating them into a coherent description of the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It will be demonstrated that the contradiction derives, in part, from the fact that some major sound changes that have taken place in standard Tajik since its inception are not acknowledged in the Tajik linguistic literature. Accordingly, particular attention is devoted to the diachronic changes that have taken place in the standard Tajik phoneme inventory, and in the phonetic representations of some of the phonemes it comprises.
In describing the changes, this study relies not only on the existing literature in Tajik phonology, most of which was produced during the Soviet period, but also on a speech corpus of present-day standard Tajik. The speech corpus, which the present author compiled in 2012, contains recorded speech produced by newsreaders and announcers working at Dushanbe-based television and radio stations. This use of different data sources facilitates comparison between the standard Tajik in the Soviet period as it is described in the literature, and that in post-civil war Tajikistan, allowing us to identify some recent changes in standard Tajik.
This article is organized in four sections. The first section introduces the terminology adopted in this article, after which it describes the development of standard Tajik in relation to its phoneme inventory and the phonetic realization of the phonemes it contains. The section also explains the relationship between standard Tajik and the dialects that have affected it. The second section then provides an overview of the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It briefly explains the aforementioned speech corpus, after which it describes the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It reviews the phoneme inventory that has been widely circulated and routinely replicated in grammars and textbooks. This is followed by a discussion of issues, some of them contentious, related to the inventory. Section 2 also puts the prescribed realization of some Tajik phonemes in contrast with the actual realization used in standard spoken Tajik where the latter differs from the former. Seciton 3 touches upon the use of intonation in yes/no and wh- question-answer pairs identified in the aforementioned Tajik speech corpus. The study concludes with a summary of the insights gained from the overview of standard Tajik phonology.
Standard Tajik, or Modern Literary Tajik as it was called during the Soviet era, was established in the nineteen twenties and thirties based largely on the dialects of the Bukhara-Samarkand area, which was at the time the undisputed cultural centre of the Tajik-speaking population. Dushanbe, the current capital of Tajikistan, was then a small village with a population of only a few hundred and had no cultural heritage comparable to that of Bukhara or Samarkand. Bukharan Tajik, whose phonology is described in this paper, is a variety of Tajik that played a particularly influential role in the phonological standardization of Tajik, which took place for the most part in 1930. For instance, the Scientific Conference of Uzbekistan Tajiks of 1930 resolved that the dialect of Bukhara must be the designated basis of the sound and orthography of literary Tajik (вaroji tajjorī вa kanfiransijaji ilmiji istalinoвod 1930: 2). In August the same year, the Linguistic Conference held in the then newly established Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic also adopted a similar resolution that establishes the ‘language of the Tajiks of Samarkand and Bukhara’ as the reference point in establishing the literary (i.e. standard) pronunciation (Halimov 1974: 126). According to Bergne (2007: 82), ‘the same Linguistic Conference of 22 August 1930 in Stalinabad decided that the phonetic base for the language had better be the dialect of Bukhara’. Thus, the Bukharan Tajik of today is the direct descendant of the variety of Tajik which served as a primary basis of standard Tajik phonological norms; and hence differs little from standard Tajik phonologically and phonetically.
The present article describes the vowel chain shift that occurred in the variety of Tajik spoken by Jewish residents in Bukhara. It identifies the chain shift as constituting of an intermediate stage of the Northern Tajik chain shift and accordingly tentatively concludes that in the Northern Tajik chain shift Early New Persian ā shifted before ō did, shedding light on the process whereby the present-day Tajik vowel system was established. The article is divided into three parts. The first provides an explanation of the variety of Tajik spoken by Jewish inhabitants of Bukhara. The second section explains the relationship between this particular variety and other varieties that have been used by Jews in Central Asia. The third section deals specifically with the vowel system of the variety and the changes that it has undergone since the late 19th century.
Huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a New Persian glossary compiled in China during the Ming period (1368–1644), has been largely neglected in the linguistic study of Persian despite its obvious importance as a source of data on the historical development of New Persian. In this article, all entries in one particular manuscript of huihuiguan zazi are tabulated and supplemented with translations and transcriptions, thus rendering the linguistic information contained in the glossary easily accessible to linguists.
Many English sound symbolic reduplicatives are known to exhibit the vowel alternation patterns of /ɪ/-/æ/ and /ɪ/-/ɒ/ (e.g. in zig-zag and ding-dong) where the first vowel is higher than the second vowel. The data collected for this paper from Chinese, Korean, Manchu, Modern Uyghur, Mongolian, Persian, Tatar, Turkish, Uzbek, and Vietnamese evidence that most of these languages also have their preferred patterns of vowel alternation for sound symbolic reduplicatives. For example, Chinese and Vietnamese sound symbolic reduplicatives show a clear preference towards vowel alternations where the first vowel is higher than the second one. An analysis of sound symbolic words in Qarakhanid Turkic also reveals the prevalence of particular patterns of vowel alternation; vowel alternations in the disyllabic sound symbolic reduplicatives that appear in the Compendium of the Turkic Dialects are confined to the following patterns: fatḥa-ḍamma /{a,e}/-/{o,u,ö,ü}/, fatḥa-kasra /{a,e}/-/{é,ı,i}/, and alif-wāw /{ā,ē}/-/{ō,ū,ȫ,ǖ}/. This paper claims that sound symbolic reduplicatives in Qarakhanid Turkic (as well as those in Turkish, Uzbek, etc.) prefer the vowel alternation pattern of ‘low vowel-high vowel’ and that this preference confines the vowel alternations in such reduplicatives in Qarakhanid to those that are represented with fatḥa-ḍamma, fatḥa-kasra, and alif-wāw.
Translation by Shinji Ido
This book analyses ‘incomplete sentences’ in languages that utilise distinctively agglutinative components in their morphology. In the grammars of the languages dealt with in this book, there are certain types of sentences which are variously referred to as ‘elliptical sentences’ (Turkish eksiltili cümleler), ‘incomplete sentences’ (Uzbek to‘liqsiz gaplar), ‘cutoff sentences’ (Turkish kesik cümleler), etc., for which the grammarians provide elaborated semantic and syntactic analyses. The current work attempts to present an alternative approach for the analysis of such sentences. The distribution of morphemes in incomplete sentences is examined closely, based on which a system of analysis that can handle a variety of incomplete sentences in an integrated manner is proposed from a morphological point of view. The linguistic data are taken from Turkish, Uzbek, Japanese, and (Bukharan) Tajik.
Tajik is a South-West Iranian language that is genetically closely related to such major languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within Uzbekistan, Samarqand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. In the beginning of the twentieth century, Tajik was considered by a number of writers and researchers to be a variety of Persian. The language that this book describes is the modern Tajik language which is referred to in the Soviet linguistic literature typically as zaboni khozirai tojik. The morphological segmentability of Tajik words is markedly high compared to words in the Indo-Iranian predecessors of Tajik, which makes Tajik morphologically more agglutinative than inflectional. Outstanding features of Tajik include the modal opposition between the indicative mood and the mood of indirect evidence, i.e. the inferential mood, that pervades the verbal system, and the utilization of both post-nominal and pre-nominal relative clauses.
Some Iranian languages have been in intensive contact with Turkic languages for many centuries. Tajik and Uzbek are representative of the languages that have co-existed in the Iranian-Turkic language contact in Central Asia. Uzbek is a Turkic language that has Chaghatay as its literary predecessor and is the 'state language' of the republic of Uzbekistan. Tajik, on the other hand, is a South-West Iranian language which is genetically closely related to such Iranian languages as Persian and Dari. Most Tajik speakers are in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan; within the latter Samarkand and Bukhara are particularly densely populated by Tajik speakers. The cohabitation of Tajik speakers with Uzbek speakers has made Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism the norm in much of this area. Bukhara is one of the cities where Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism is most pronounced; virtually all Tajik speakers in Bukhara are bilingual in Tajik and Uzbek.
This book contains transcriptions of recordings of the Tajik language used by Bukharans who have had no formal education in/of Tajik. A large number of linguistic features of Bukharan Tajik are considered to have emerged or have been retained under the influence of Uzbek.
かつてソヴィエト連邦を構成していた中央アジアの共和国タジキスタンにおいて現在「国家語」という位置づけを与えられている言語がタジク語である。タジク語は、イランのペルシア語やアフガニスタンのダリー語もその成員である西南イラン語の一員である。本書はタジク語文法の要諦を言語学的に整理した参考書である。
本書では、学習書や入門書とは異なり、タジク語文法の全体像が把握できるようになっている。また、文法項目ごとの章立てや項目間の綿密な相互参照などが施され、学術的利用の便が図られている。
It is hardly an overstatement to say that Soviet linguists had a monopoly over Tajik linguistics before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when most studies on the language were accessible exclusively through Russian and Tajik. Today, however, linguists dealing with Tajik are diverse not only in terms of their location but also in terms of their disciplinary orientation within linguistics, making it difficult for the general linguist to work out the state of the art of the linguistic study of Tajik.
This volume aims to address this difficulty by collecting in a handbook format recent (post-Soviet) developments in the study of Tajik that now lie scattered in different subdisciplines of linguistics. The volume thus showcases the state of the art of post-Soviet Tajik linguistics and can be used as a guide for linguists interested in the language.
The present study offers an overview of standard Tajik phonology, focusing mainly on its phonemes and their phonetic representations. Prosodic units and intonation are largely ignored in this article, though some analyses on interrogative intonation patterns are presented in Section 3.
This article also surveys previous studies on the phoneme inventory of standard Tajik. It aims to reconcile contradictory statements made in those studies, thereby consolidating them into a coherent description of the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It will be demonstrated that the contradiction derives, in part, from the fact that some major sound changes that have taken place in standard Tajik since its inception are not acknowledged in the Tajik linguistic literature. Accordingly, particular attention is devoted to the diachronic changes that have taken place in the standard Tajik phoneme inventory, and in the phonetic representations of some of the phonemes it comprises.
In describing the changes, this study relies not only on the existing literature in Tajik phonology, most of which was produced during the Soviet period, but also on a speech corpus of present-day standard Tajik. The speech corpus, which the present author compiled in 2012, contains recorded speech produced by newsreaders and announcers working at Dushanbe-based television and radio stations. This use of different data sources facilitates comparison between the standard Tajik in the Soviet period as it is described in the literature, and that in post-civil war Tajikistan, allowing us to identify some recent changes in standard Tajik.
This article is organized in four sections. The first section introduces the terminology adopted in this article, after which it describes the development of standard Tajik in relation to its phoneme inventory and the phonetic realization of the phonemes it contains. The section also explains the relationship between standard Tajik and the dialects that have affected it. The second section then provides an overview of the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It briefly explains the aforementioned speech corpus, after which it describes the standard Tajik phoneme inventory. It reviews the phoneme inventory that has been widely circulated and routinely replicated in grammars and textbooks. This is followed by a discussion of issues, some of them contentious, related to the inventory. Section 2 also puts the prescribed realization of some Tajik phonemes in contrast with the actual realization used in standard spoken Tajik where the latter differs from the former. Seciton 3 touches upon the use of intonation in yes/no and wh- question-answer pairs identified in the aforementioned Tajik speech corpus. The study concludes with a summary of the insights gained from the overview of standard Tajik phonology.
Standard Tajik, or Modern Literary Tajik as it was called during the Soviet era, was established in the nineteen twenties and thirties based largely on the dialects of the Bukhara-Samarkand area, which was at the time the undisputed cultural centre of the Tajik-speaking population. Dushanbe, the current capital of Tajikistan, was then a small village with a population of only a few hundred and had no cultural heritage comparable to that of Bukhara or Samarkand. Bukharan Tajik, whose phonology is described in this paper, is a variety of Tajik that played a particularly influential role in the phonological standardization of Tajik, which took place for the most part in 1930. For instance, the Scientific Conference of Uzbekistan Tajiks of 1930 resolved that the dialect of Bukhara must be the designated basis of the sound and orthography of literary Tajik (вaroji tajjorī вa kanfiransijaji ilmiji istalinoвod 1930: 2). In August the same year, the Linguistic Conference held in the then newly established Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic also adopted a similar resolution that establishes the ‘language of the Tajiks of Samarkand and Bukhara’ as the reference point in establishing the literary (i.e. standard) pronunciation (Halimov 1974: 126). According to Bergne (2007: 82), ‘the same Linguistic Conference of 22 August 1930 in Stalinabad decided that the phonetic base for the language had better be the dialect of Bukhara’. Thus, the Bukharan Tajik of today is the direct descendant of the variety of Tajik which served as a primary basis of standard Tajik phonological norms; and hence differs little from standard Tajik phonologically and phonetically.
The present article describes the vowel chain shift that occurred in the variety of Tajik spoken by Jewish residents in Bukhara. It identifies the chain shift as constituting of an intermediate stage of the Northern Tajik chain shift and accordingly tentatively concludes that in the Northern Tajik chain shift Early New Persian ā shifted before ō did, shedding light on the process whereby the present-day Tajik vowel system was established. The article is divided into three parts. The first provides an explanation of the variety of Tajik spoken by Jewish inhabitants of Bukhara. The second section explains the relationship between this particular variety and other varieties that have been used by Jews in Central Asia. The third section deals specifically with the vowel system of the variety and the changes that it has undergone since the late 19th century.
Huihuiguan zazi 回回館雜字, a New Persian glossary compiled in China during the Ming period (1368–1644), has been largely neglected in the linguistic study of Persian despite its obvious importance as a source of data on the historical development of New Persian. In this article, all entries in one particular manuscript of huihuiguan zazi are tabulated and supplemented with translations and transcriptions, thus rendering the linguistic information contained in the glossary easily accessible to linguists.
Many English sound symbolic reduplicatives are known to exhibit the vowel alternation patterns of /ɪ/-/æ/ and /ɪ/-/ɒ/ (e.g. in zig-zag and ding-dong) where the first vowel is higher than the second vowel. The data collected for this paper from Chinese, Korean, Manchu, Modern Uyghur, Mongolian, Persian, Tatar, Turkish, Uzbek, and Vietnamese evidence that most of these languages also have their preferred patterns of vowel alternation for sound symbolic reduplicatives. For example, Chinese and Vietnamese sound symbolic reduplicatives show a clear preference towards vowel alternations where the first vowel is higher than the second one. An analysis of sound symbolic words in Qarakhanid Turkic also reveals the prevalence of particular patterns of vowel alternation; vowel alternations in the disyllabic sound symbolic reduplicatives that appear in the Compendium of the Turkic Dialects are confined to the following patterns: fatḥa-ḍamma /{a,e}/-/{o,u,ö,ü}/, fatḥa-kasra /{a,e}/-/{é,ı,i}/, and alif-wāw /{ā,ē}/-/{ō,ū,ȫ,ǖ}/. This paper claims that sound symbolic reduplicatives in Qarakhanid Turkic (as well as those in Turkish, Uzbek, etc.) prefer the vowel alternation pattern of ‘low vowel-high vowel’ and that this preference confines the vowel alternations in such reduplicatives in Qarakhanid to those that are represented with fatḥa-ḍamma, fatḥa-kasra, and alif-wāw.
A number of other languages also have their preferred patterns of vowel alternation for disyllabic sound-symbolic reduplicatives (hereafter DSRs).
For example, German, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese DSRs, like English DSRs, show a clear preference towards vowel alternation patterns of the type ↓ 'high-low'.
On the other hand, vowel alternation patterns of the type ↑ 'low-high vowel' where the vowel in the reduplicant is higher than that in the ‘base’ (e.g. tak tuk) is prevalent in Turkic DSRs.
There are also languages in which no clear preferred vowel alternation patterns (↕) are identifiable in their DSRs. Mongolian, which has both far fɜr 'low-high' and fɜr far ‘high-low’ exemplifies this group of languages.
1. Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese belong to different language groups but are geographically close to one another. Their DSRs are mostly of the type ↓ 'high-low'.
2. The vowel alternation type ↑ is utilized in all but one of the Turkic languages investigated here.
3. The only Turkic language under investigation here that utilizes the type ↕ alternation is Tuvan, which has been under a strong influence of (Khalkha) Mongolian, a type ↕ language.
These observations appear to point to the arealty (and perhaps also to the genetic nature) of vowel alternation patterns in disyllabic sound-symbolic reduplicatives.