Allomorphy in Gilaki: an Optimality Theoretic approach Gregory Antono JAL401, University of Toronto Allomorphy appears to be a common occurrence in Gilaki, where there are stem changes as a result of affixation or verbal inflection, and various forms for certain affixes. Through an analysis based on the Optimality Theory (OT) framework (Prince and Smolensky 2004), this study seeks to examine the phonological constraints and constraint ranking involved in Gilaki allomorphy, focusing on the phonologically-conditioned allomorphs of the plural morpheme -ʃɑn and the negative affix –nV-. The plural morpheme -ʃɑn can surface as several forms like -ɑn and –jɑn: (1) tup-ɔ-ʃanə (2) tup-ɑn ball-ɔ-PL ball-PL balls balls (3) kor-ɑn (4) putʃɑ-jɑn girl-PL cat-PL girls cats The negative bound morpheme, –nV-, surfaces with varying vowels, such as nɔ-, nɪ-, or neɪ-. (5) nɔ-dʊvas-əm/ (6) mo nɪʃkæstʌm NEG.run.1SG 1.SG break.NEG did not run I did not break (7) mo neɪmijaɾʌm/ (8) nɔ-ʃɔn-ɔm/ 1.S NEG.die.1SG NEG.go.1SG I did not die not go An Optimality Theoretic approach to allomorphy has been taken by many, such as Rubach and Booij (2001) on Polish iotation, Anderson on phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (2008), and Udammadu (2017) on the Igbo language. For this study, translation tasks are carried out with the Gilaki consultant to elicit more plural and negation data, using various simple storyboards that contain singular and plural subjects (animals), as well as dialogue that would elicit the negation affix. The focus of this elicitation is to observe how the affixes vary depending on the stem. Additionally, short reading passages in Gilaki that contain the plural and negative forms are created and checked with the consultant. Following which, this data is analyzed from an OT approach, examining constraints and their rankings that result in these alternations. 1 References: Anderson, Stephen. 2008. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch). Word Structure. 1. 109-134. 10.3366/E1750124508000184. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, Mass., and Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Rubach, Jerzy and Booij, Geert. 2001. Allomorphy in Optimality Theory: Polish Iotation. Language 77, 26-60. Udammadu, Thecla. 2017. Allomorphs in the Igbo Language: An Optimality Theory Approach. Unizik Journal of Arts and Humanities. Vol 17. 3. 30-47. http://dx.doi.org//10.4314/ujah.v17i3.2 2 Iranian languages workshop Koorosh Ariyaee Loanword adaptation in Persian This study is an attempt to describe how loanwords from Arabic, English and French are adapted to Persian phonology. The main goal of this study is to provide evidence for the claim that loanwords nativize based on the duration of the time they have been used in a borrowing language. As a result of this claim, it can be deduced that there are different degrees of nativization among foreign words. And the longer a loanword has been frequently used, the more it resembles the native words of the language. In this study, so as to be able to measure the nativization degree of loanwords in vernacular Persian, these borrowings have been studied through the Core-Periphery model proposed by Itô and Mester (1999). They argue that based on certain constraints in the host language phonology, lexical items are classified into different strata, from the core stratum (native words) to the periphery stratum (least nativized loanwords). This study shows that according to vernacular Persian markedness constraints, French an English loanwords, form the periphery stratum as the least nativized borrowings. These loanwords violate more native Persian phonology markedness constraints than Arabic loanwords and Persian words that are used in formal Persian writing/speech; thus, formal Persian lexical items and Arabic loans are in a stratum which is closer to the core than English and French loanwords. However, formal Persian and Arabic loans violate more constraints than vernacular Persian words and Arabic borrowings which are used in vernacular Persian; in fact, Persian words and Arabic loans used in daily vernacular speech form the core stratum of Persian by satisfying all Persian phonology constraints. Consequently, following Itô and Mester (1999), it can be deduced that loanword adaptation in Persian is not haphazard and random; rather, Persian phonological constraints stratify lexical items of this language based on their degree of nativization. Abstract for Adjective ordering in Gilaki Crystal Chen In constructions involving multiple pre-modifying adjectives, it has been noted that in certain languages, these adjectives are ordered in a specific manner based on semantic categories. In the case of English, the order is as follows: ADJQuantity > ADJOpinion > ADJSize > ADJShape > ADJAge > ADJColour > ADJOrigin > ADJMaterial > ADJType/Purpose (Zielinska 2007). My presentation seeks to explore whether such an ordering also exists for pre-modifying adjectives in Gilaki. I will cover observed restrictions and preferences in Gilaki adjective order. However, I claim that while there are a few generalizations, the restrictions on Gilaki adjectival order is more lax than English especially when it comes to quality adjectives. More specifically, the position of Gilaki adjectives seems to depend more on what the speaker wishes to emphasize rather a predefined order inherent to the language. I propose that Gilaki has an adjective topicalization process in order to capture this variation in position. Locating objects in space and time: An analysis of temporal-spatial copular constructions in Gilaki Liam Donohue November 28, 2018 1 Abstract Gilaki, a Northwest Iranian language spoken in the Iranian provinces of Gilan and Mazan- daran, uses at least three distinct copular verbs for locating objects and events in space and time: ni@, dar@, and h@s@. The copular verb ni@ has broad distribution, functioning as a sort of `default' locational copula; however, it is not always preferable, nor even available. For example, ali idZ@ h@s@ `Ali is here' is preferable to ali idZ@ ni@ `Ali is (lying) here', with the latter carrying the specific interpretation of lying prone. Thus a temporary interpretation is available, but a stative one is not (i.e. ali idZ@ ni@ cannot mean `Ali is here (he lives here in this neighborhood'). Another alternation of interest involves the adposition d@l `in/on' and the copulas ni@ and darE. The adposition d@l has a `base' meaning of `in(side)', but when paired with varying figures, grounds, and copulas, has quite distinct interpretations. Consider the following examples: (1) a. kEfS pA-; d@l d@r@/*ni@ b. kItab Rafas-@ d@l *d@r@/ni@ shoe foot-loc d@l d@r@/*ni@ book shelf-loc d@l *d@r@/ni@ `The shoe is on the foot' `The book is in the shelf' The goal of this research is to analyze the distributional properties of Gilaki's three (or more) available copulas in varying spatial-temporal contexts, and thus to determine what underlying properties govern that distribution. While the overall orientation of the analysis will be syntactic, semantic considerations will also be brought to bear in pursuit of an understanding of the data. 2 References Boroditsky, L., Gaby, A., Levinson, S. C.. (2008). Time in space. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.492932 Levinson, S. C.. 1999. Hypotheses concerning basic locative constructions and the verbal ele- ments within them. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3002711 Maienbord, Claudia. 2005. On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences. Theoretical Linguistics, 31(3). Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rastorgueva, V. S., Kerimova, A. A., Mamedzade, A. K., Pireko, L. A., Edelman, D. I., Lockwood, R. M. (Eds.). 2012. The Gilaki language. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. 1 Everything I know about Gilaki Arsalan Kahnemuyipour In this talk, I am going to share with you everything I know about Gilaki, which is restricted to two phenomena involving the Gilaki noun phrase. The first one is known as Reverse Ezafe (schematically: RED-REZ CAR). I am going to start by sharing my perspective about a related and much better studied phenomenon in Persian, namely the Ezafe construction (schematically: CAR-EZ RED). Building on that, I will tell you why Gilaki Reverse Ezafe is really interesting and a topic we intend to investigate more closely in the context of the SSHRC-funded project on the syntax of nominal linkers. I won’t provide an analysis of Reverse Ezafe, because I don’t have one! Then, I will spend most of the time of my talk discussing two types of split NP topicalization in two dialects of Gilaki (joint work with Mansour Shabani). The first type involves the splitting of the head noun from various modifiers, exemplified by the numeral in the talk (schematically: BOOK, I BOUGHT TWO ---). We call this numeral split. A similar splitting can occur in possessive constructions in Gilaki, taking the possessum and placing it in a clause-initial position. We call this possessor split. In the Eshkevarat dialect of Gilaki, this splitting leaves no resumptive element behind (schematically: BOOK, I BOUGHT YOUR -----.) In the Rasht dialect (spoken in the provincial capital), possessor split leaves a resumptive element shin behind (schematically: BOOK, I BOUGHT YOUR SHIN.) Persian has a construction similar to the possessor split with resumption in Rasht Gilaki. I will argue that possessor split without resumption involves a case of movement, while numeral split and possessor split with resumption are base-generated structures. I will try to make sense of why things are the way they are! Breanna Pratley Distribution of Active and Passive Constructions in Gilaki Research Question What contexts allow for naturally occurring passive constructions in Gilaki? Motivation Passive constructions appear to be very uncommon in Gilaki.