An Interface between Prosodic Phonology and Syntax in Kurdish

Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics. Vol., 4 (1), 5-14, 2016 Available online at http://www.jlsljournal.com ISSN 2148-0672 2016 An Interface between Prosodic Phonology and Syntax in Kurdish Sadegh Mohammadi Bolban Abad *, Batool Alinezhad, Vali Rezai, Adel Rafiei Department of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran * Corresponding Author: Sadegh Mohammadi Bolban Abad ABSTRACT: The prepositional complements in Sorani Kurdish Dialect could always appear in forms of syntactic constituents, such as noun phrases (NP), independent pronouns, and critics. Implementation of complements in form of noun phrases or critics subordinates two types of simple prepositions/prepositions and absolute forms. Noun phrases and independent pronouns came together with simple prepositions/prepositions, and enclitics came together with absolute forms. Complements of absolute forms could be separated from their stem, and move to the right or left of the intended domain. In the past tense form of transitive verbs, the movement of critics was towards the right side, and simultaneous to this movement, it transformed its nature to the affix pronoun and attached to the verb. In case of the movement towards the left side, it would be added to the first constituent within verb phrase (VP), which was known as the second position clinic. The movement of clinic towards the right side was sensitive to the host position, and the movement of clinic towards the left side was sensitive to the host status; that the first arrangement was of affix type, and the second arrangement was of clinic type. For this reason, bound pronouns were divided to two groups of clinic pronouns, and affix pronouns in Kurdish. Klavans' view was able to determine properly the orientation and range of the movement of the critics, by applying parameter1. Keywords: Absolute Form, Second Position Clinic, Pronoun Clinic, Affix Pronouns. INTRODUCTION Klavans (1985) in an article titled:" Independence of Syntax and Phonology in Classicization", and Anderson (2005) in his book titled: "Aspects of the Theory of Clinics" proceeded to investigate the interaction of critics, and believed that these apparently little components, were so important that many linguists were written several articles on the basis of studying them, or were graduated with Doctoral degree. Clinics in general and pronominal critics specifically, were studied in different languages (Anderson, 2005; Klavans, 1982). Shaghiaghi (1997) could be named, in general, for the studying in critics, in Persian, and Rasekh Mahand (2007, 2010) could specifically be named, for the studying in pronominal critics. However, the level of attention to study of critics in Sorani¹ Kurdish was very low, and only the Mackenzie's studies (1961) could be noted. Pronominal critics in Kurdish Language had various distributions. These components could be appeared after the noun, verb, and preposition/prepositions categories. The following examples indicated these distributions. a. xwa rd-im "[I] ate." ate-clitic of the first person singular b.kiteb=aka=m xwend. "[I] read the book." Book = definite =critic of the first person singular read. c.pe =t a-le -m. "[I] say to you." To= critic of the second person singular declarative-say- first person singular The author intended to investigate the role of critics in the interaction with the prepositions/prepositions, and tried to determine the interaction between prepositions/prepositions and critics; to determine the especial behaviors of these two categories had towards each other, in this article.and also to indicate that the movement of critics in this language towards two opposite sides subordinates an especial parameter, by using Klavans' 5

theory. For this reason, in the second section, it would be preceded to introduce connected pronouns and pronoun critics. In the third section, prepositions/prepositions and its types would be introduced, and in the fourth section Klavans' theory would be introduced in brief. In the fifth section, the interaction between critics and prepositions/prepositions in the framework of Klavans would be introduced. The sixth section of the article was the conclusion. Pronominal clinics Mackenzie (1961) knew 6 forms of personal pronouns in Sorani Kurdish language, and divided each of these pronouns to two bound and unbound types. He introduced unbound personal pronouns as following: Min to aw (h)e ma e wa awa n The bound pronouns in singular forms were observed in two types: The first type were placed after the words ended by consonants.in case of first person singular or second person singular, the vowels of the bound pronoun was omitted, or was assimilated to the previous vowel. In case of third person singular, the vowel changed to the glide (y), for adjacency with the previous vowel. The interaction between the vowels in the border of words and critics could be observed in the following example (The sign = shows the border between clinics and the sign shows the border between affixes.) a.tere+im=terem tere=m xwa rd. grapes=clitic of the second person singular ate "[I] ate grapes." b.tere+i=tere+i=tere=y tere=y xwa rd. grapes= clinic of the third person singular ate "He/she ate grapes." Mackenzie (1961) divided bound personal pronouns to two groups of personal pronouns and personal affixes. He considered the following roles for the personal pronouns. A) In the Prepositions role such as: my book kiteb=ak=am B) In the role of direct object they take us. a -ma n ban C) In the role of the subject of the past tense form of the transitive verb, such as: We took them. bird= ma n-in D) In the role of prepositional complement [I] say to you. pe =ta n a -le -m Mackenzie (1961) expressed about the personal pronoun affixes in the Prepositions role that these suffixes placed immediately after the noun that had Prepositions relation; while the same pronouns in the other noted roles, could appear in other positions such as, the beginning of the sentence. If a noun, adjective, or pronoun had the role of an object or prepositional complement at beginning of the sentence, the personal pronoun suffix immediately attached to these words. a.la e ma=ta n war girt. From us=clinic of the second person plural back took "[You] took it back from us." b.am pa ra=ya=t c o n c iᶇ kawtuwa. This money=sign= clinic of the second person plural how claw fell "How did you take the money?" If the subject or the prepositional phrase placed at the beginning of the sentence in the role of adjunct, their personal pronouns affixes were disregarded and were not attached to them. a. e wa la e ma=ta n war girt. You from us= clitic of the second person plural back took "You took it back from us." b. ba pe y qa nu n e wa la e ma=ta n war girt. on based rule you from us=critic of the second person plural back took " You took it back from us based on the rule." If the verb was the only component of the sentence, the personal pronouns suffixes were attached to the negation, imperative, or indicative signs, which were placed before the verb, otherwise, would be attached to the stem of the verb. a. ra =m na-a-kird. "[I] was not running." Run= critic of the first person singular negation- continuative- did b. war=ta n na-girt. Delivery= critic of the second person plural negation- took "[You] did not take delivery." e. na=m a-kird. Negation= critic of the first person singular continuative- did "[I] was not doing." d. a=m kird Continuative= critic of the first person singular did "[I] was doing." e. kird=m Did= clitic of the first person singular "[I] did." f. kird-uw=ma n-in. 6

Did- present perfect= critic of the first person singular - third person plural "We have done them." Personal pronouns suffixes were sensitive about the topics of the verb, and could not be attached to the subject or adjuncts. If the quantitative adverbs placed at the beginning of the sentence, these components could sometimes select them as the host, such as: zo r=i h az la go a-kird. Overmuch= clitic of the third person singular like of flower continuative-did "He was liking flower overmuch." In this language, there was another bound pronoun besides of the personal pronouns suffixes, that Mackenzie categorized them to three groups of personal affixes in present tense cases, personal affixes of/in past tense, and conjunctive verbs. However, these affixes were similar to each other from many, and functioned similarly, but sometimes they were different, and from this view, they were important, in linguistic researches, affixes allomorph, and postponed these changes to the later studies. The personal affixes in present tense respectively were as following: im(m) -i (t) -e (t) -i n in In his view, the conjunctive verb (to be) was expressed, by applying personal affixes such as following. As you observe the affix of third person singular form has two allomorphs, which defined these affixes from the group of present tense. im/m -i (t)/yt -a(t)/a(s) -i n/yn -in/n Mackenzie knew the last group of personal affixes related to the past tense; as the third person singular was the only difference between this group and the present tense affixes. The third person singular was null, in the past tense form, and was defined as (Ø). im -i t -Ø -i n -in Then, personal pronouns in Kurdish language could be summarized, based on the things were expressed: Personal pronouns Bound pronouns unbound pronouns Personal affixes personal pronoun suffixes Past tense conjunctive affixes present tense -im im(m) im(m) =im(m) min i t -i t/ -i ((t) =it(t) to Ø a(t)/a(s) -e (t) =i (y) aw -i n -i n /yn -i n =ma n (h)e ma -in in/n in =ta n e wa -in in/n in =ya n awa n Figure 1. Personal pronouns. As it was said, in Sorani Kurdish, the pronoun clinics had various distributions, and could be appeared after the verb, preposition/prepositions, and noun. In this article our main attention was diverted to the interaction between prepositions/prepositions and bound pronouns, and postponed the investigation of the other categories to the later studies. Prepositions/Prepositions Mackenzie (1961) believed that the Kurdish language had two types of prepositions/prepositions: A) Simple prepositions/prepositions. B) Absolute forms. In this language, the simple prepositions/prepositions placed immediately before their complements, and their complements could be one of these noun, noun phrase, or unbound pronouns categories, such as: a. ba tifaᶇ s ar a-ka. 7

with weapon fight indicative-do " [ He/She] fights with weapon." b. ba tifaᶇ =I Rosi s ar a-ka. with weapon Russian fight indicative-do " [ He/She] fights with [a] Russian weapon." c. ba min bi-le. to me imperative- say "Say it to me." The most important simple prepositions/prepositions in this language were: ba " with, to" la "in" -a "to" bo " for" ta /hata " to" be " without" lagaƚ "together with" baraw " towards" wak/waku "such as" The simple prepositions/prepositions always placed before their complements. But in this language, the preposition/prepositions (-a); in form of post-position, always attached to the verb of the sentence, and prepositional phrase placed after the verb. min kiteb=aka a- da-m=a Mina. I book-definite indicative-gave-first person singular = Prepositions to Mina. I give [the] book to Mina. Another group of prepositions/prepositions were observed in Sorani Kurdish language, that their number is less in comparison of the simple prepositions/prepositions. Mackenzie (1961) named this type of prepositions as absolute forms. The most important of these prepositions were as following: pe "to" ba le "in" la -e "to" -a The most important feature of absolute forms was that the simple prepositions could be together with noun, noun phrase, and unbound pronouns. a. ba/*pe to =m wet. to you=clitic of first person singular said "[I] said to you." b.ba/*pe pyaw=a gawr=ak-a n=i am garak=a=m wet. To man= Prepositions adult = finite-plural= Prepositions this sector= demonstrative=critic of the first person singular said. "I said to [the] adult men of this sector." In previous section we reminded that besides of the bound pronouns were in Sorani Kurdish language that could have the roles of noun phrases. For example, we expressed bound pronouns in format of examples number (11). a. *ba/pe =t=im wet. to =clitic of the second person singular= critic of the first person singular said "[I] said to you." b. *ba/pe =ya n=im wet. To =critic of the third person plural= critic of the first person singular said "[I] said to them." Regarding to what it was said; we concluded that the personal pronouns were applied only together with the absolute forms, and the absolute forms were applied just as prepositional complements. The arrangement of prepositions/ Prepositions could be indicated in case of following diagram. Prepositions Absolute Simple Preposition Postposition Preposition Postposition (pe -le ) -e -a (ba-la-bo -ta /hata -be -lagaƚ-baraw) Figure 2. The arrangement of prepositions/ Prepositions. Interaction between the Prepositions and clinics In the second section we indicated that the pronouns in Sorani Kurdish language were appeared in two bound and unbound types. Bound pronouns were divided to personal pronoun suffixes and personal affixes. They could accept the roles that the noun phrases had.in the third section; we discussed about the types of Prepositions, and reminded that the Prepositions were divided to two simple and absolute groups that each of them could be appeared in preposition and postposition cases. But in this section we intended to investigate the interaction between Prepositions and clinics.by looking more accurately at these following sentences, we would understand that the pronouns might be appeared as the complements of Prepositions, in bound or unbound cases. Possessing such this capability made us to deliberate a bit in the interaction and distribution of them with the Prepositions: a. la e ma=y sand-in. From us=clitic of the third person singular took- third person plural "He took it from us." 8

b. da -n=i ba e ma. Gave- third person plural=clitic of the third person singular to us "He gave it to us." c.min kiteb=aka a-da-m=a Mina. I book=definite indicative-gave-first person singular= postposition Mina "I give the book to Mina." d.aw kiteb=ak-a n=i da ba minda ƚ =ak-a n. He/She book=definite-plural=clitic of the third person singular gave to kid=definite-plural "He/ She gave [the] book to [the] kids." e. Aw kiteb=ak-a n=i la mindal=a buchek=ak-a n sand. He/ She book= definite- plural= clitic of the third person singular from kid=[kurdish] Prepositions small=definite-plural took "He/ She took [the] books from [the] small kids." In the example (17-a) the prepositional phrase placed at the first of the sentence, and the Prepositions was amongst its simple type, and its complement was the first person plural unbound pronoun which came immediately after the Prepositions. Also in the example (b), the prepositional phrase was made up of Prepositions together with the unbound pronoun, and placed at the end of the sentence. In the example (c), the prepositional phrase was (=a Mina), and the simple Prepositions was attached to the verb in form of postposition. In the example (d), the simple Prepositions and a noun made the prepositional phrase. But in the example (e) the simple Prepositions came together with the noun phrase. Hence in case of their separation, the sentence would become ungrammatical. a. e ma to bo aw a-nir-in. we you by side his/her indicative-send-first personal plural " We send you by his/her side." *b. e ma to aw bo a-nir-in. we you his/her by side indicative-send-first personal plural " We send you by his/her side." *c. e ma to bo a-nir-in=it. we you by the side indicative-send-first personal plural=clinic of the third person singular " We send you by his/her side." In the example (18-a) the simple [Kurdish] Prepositions and the unbound pronoun were placed together, and so the sentence was grammatical. In the example (b) the complement was added to the before of [Kurdish] Prepositions, and in the example (c), this component moved towards the end of the sentence which was ungrammatical in both of the cases. Hence it had to be accepted that the simple [Kurdish] Prepositions and its complement should be placed together, and the complement could not move from its position. The second point was that their complements were always the noun phrase, and could not accept the unbound pronouns as the complement. a.*la=ma n=i sand-in. From= clinic of the first person plural= critic of the first person singular took-third person plural " [He] took it from us." b.da -n =i ba= ma n. Gave- third person plural= critic of the first person singular to= clinic of the first person plural "[He/ She] gave them to us." In the example (19-a) the personal pronoun suffix placed by the side of [Kurdish] Prepositions, as the complement, but the produced constituent was ungrammatical. If we compared this example with (17-a); we would observe that the only difference between these two sentences was that the complement came as unbound pronoun in the example (17-a), and it came as a bound pronoun in the example (19-a). In the example (19-b) similar to the example (17-b), the prepositional phrase was placed at the end of the sentence. But for the reason of collocation of simple [Kurdish] Prepositions with a personal pronoun suffix, in the role of complement, the sentence became ungrammatical. In case of changing to the unbound pronoun such as (17-a), the sentence had to be grammatical. Then we continued the discussion about interaction of [Kurdish] Prepositions with bound pronoun in the following examples. a. pe = ma n=i da -n. to =clitic of the first person plural= clinic of the third person singular gave-third person plural "[He/ She] gave them to us." b. le =ta n=im war na-girt. From= clinic of the second person plural= clinic of the first person singular delivery negation- took "[I] did not take delivery of it from you." c. da -n=i pe = ma n. Gave- third person plural= clinic of the third person singular to= clinic of the first person "He gave them to us." *d.pe e ma=i da -n. To us= clinic of the third person singular gave-third person plural "[He] gave it to us." 9

e. le e wa=m war na-girt From you= clinic of the first person singular delivery negation-took "[I] did not take delivery it from you." *f.aw kiteb=ak-a n=i da pe mindaƚ= ak-a n. He/ she book=definite-plural=clitic of the third person singular gave to kid=definite-plural "He / She gave [the] books to [the] kids. *g.aw kiteb=ak=a n=i le mimdaƚ= a bchuk=ak-a sand. He / she book=definite-plural= clinic of the third person singular from kid= Prepositions small=definite-plural took "He/She took [the] books from [the] small kids." The Prepositions, in the sentence (20-a), had the absolute Prepositions and the suffix of first singular pronoun that attached to the Prepositions. And from phonological view it was an enclitic. In the sentence (b) similar to the first sentence the complement of Prepositions; in the form of personal pronoun suffix attached to its stem. In the example (c) the same was ruling as well, with the difference in that the prepositional phrase moved to the other position of verb. Regarding to these examples, we understood that the prepositional complement was attached to syntactic core in the form of clinic. In these examples, Prepositions was the core of the group, and the clinics had the role of the complement, which they made a syntactic constituent. The bound pronouns in Kurdish language did not get word stress, and had to add to a host, so these components were afflicted from phonological view, and were depended on their adjacent word. In the noted examples, all the three personal pronouns were attached to the Prepositions, and made a constituent together. It could be said that there was a correspondence between the syntactic constituent and the phonological constituent. In the example (d) the absolute form selected the unbound pronoun as its component, so the constituent was ungrammatical. Similarly, in the examples (e-g) the complements of absolute forms were unbound pronoun, noun, and noun phrase; that all the cases were ungrammatical. Hence, we found that, in contrary of what was said in the example (14), the absolute forms could not select any complement from the forms of noun phrases, unbound pronouns; but had always to select the bound pronouns as the complement. The thing that was common between these groups of Prepositions was that the complement of these constructions appeared after the Prepositions, and made a syntactic and phonological constituent together. In continuing and regarding to the following examples, we investigated the interaction between the absolute forms, bound pronouns, and their collocations. a. awa n=i le sand-in. They =clinic of the third person singular from took- third person plural " [He/ She] took them from us." b. pe =y da -in To= clinic of the third person singular gave- first person plural [he/she] gave them to us." c. roj ba s = ya n pe wit-im Day nice=clitic of the third person plural to said- the first person singular "They said me nice time." d. awa n min= ya n bo na rd-it. They me= clinic of the third person plural by side sent- second person singular. "They sent me by your side." e. to bo =t na rd-in-i n. To by side= clitic of the third person plural by side sent-third person plural - first person plural. "You sent them by our side." In the example (21-a), the absolute form appeared lonely in the sentence, and the verb of the sentence placed after it. The complement of this Preposition was the bound pronoun (in), which was added to the verb, at the end of the sentence. Hence, in this sentence the complement of Prepositions moved from inward of prepositional phrase, and attached to the verb, at the end of the sentence. In the example (b), the absolute form was observed together with the suffix of personal pronoun (=y), which is the subject of the sentence, not a complement of Prepositions; from syntactic view. The complement of Prepositions, moved in form of personal affix (in), and attached to the verb. In the examples(c-e), similarly, the complement of Prepositions separated from its syntactic group, and moved towards the end of the sentence. In the all of these examples, the movement of the complement towards the right side caused that this component, appeared in form of non-local, and the nucleus and coda had to be separated. In other words, the complement of Prepositions had to be added to the verb, and to select it as the host. The movement of the complement towards the verb caused that a noncorrespondence was created between syntactic constituent and phonological constituent. And by moving towards the verb, these components attached to the verb for vocalic appearance, so the verb would be the host, from phonological view. It could be asserted that the complements of the absolute forms were appeared in forms of local and non-local, that in the noted cases the non- local appearance was towards the right side of the sentence. The interaction between the absolute forms and clinics was not ended to this point. If we compared the examples (20-a) and (21-a), we would find out that in the first example, the complement accomplished by the side of Prepositions, and in the second one, proved after the verb in form of non-local. The noticeable point was that, in the first example, the complement was amongst the personal pronoun suffixes, whereas in the second 10

example, the complement belonged to the personal affixes group. Hence, this personal pronoun suffix, simultaneous to the movement towards the verb, it transformed its nature to the personal affix; which was one of the noticeable points in this interaction. To now, we achieved to some important points at the interaction between the clinics and Prepositions: 1. the complement of absolute form had to be just a bound pronoun. 2. The complement of absolute form could accomplish in two local and non-local forms. 3. The personal pronoun transformed its nature to the personal affix, by moving towards the verb. In the following, we preceded to notice about the examples which were known as the second position. That, the coda of absolute forms moved in them, towards the left side-the first of the sentence. a. e ma to =i bo a-nir-in. We you= clinic of the third person singular by side indicative- first person plural "We send you by his/ her side." b. da = ma n-n=e Gave= clinic of the first person plural-third person plural=postpoition " We gave it to them." c.e ma kiteb=aka=t pe a-da-in. We book definite= critic of the second person singular to indicative-gave first person plural "We give you the book." In the example (22-a), the clinic (i ) moved towards the left side, as the complement, and was added to the unbound pronoun (to ), which had the role of object. In the example (b) there was the postposition (-e ) which both of its Prepositions and complement were added to the verb of the sentence. In the example (c) the complement of Prepositions moved towards the left side, and was attached to the prepositional phrase, that had the objective role, and similar to the example; the complement was placed before the Prepositions. The noticeable point in the movement of the clinics, in the role of complement of Prepositions- towards the left sidewas that; the complement could only place before the Prepositions, and no constituent could be placed these two elements. In deed it could be said that the movement of the complement towards the left side is local and short. It is important to mention that, the movement of clinics towards the right side is sensitive to the nature and type of category. And the movement to the left side is sensitive to the level of movement and the position of host category. To now, we could achieve to some results in clinics accomplishment for three positions: a) after Ezafe, and movement towards the right side, b)after verb, and movement towards the left side, c) after the first constituent before the Prepositions. But we did not discussed about motive and factor of this movement. If we took a look at the examples (15a-e) again, we would observe that the verb of all of these examples were past tense, while in the example (17) the verb had present tense form. Following Mackenzie (1961), we determined the distribution of clinics in this language on the basis of time sentence such as follows: A) If the sentence had a verb in past tense form, the complements of absolute forms had to move towards the right side, and to be added to the end of the verb. B) A) If the sentence had a verb in present tense form, the complements had to move towards the left side, and to be attached immediately to the first constituent before the Prepositions. In previous sections, adequate examples were mentioned based on these two principles. The noticeable point was that, excluding the subject, the other constituents, inwards the sentence, could be the host of the clinics. Hence, these clinics moved; not inwards the whole of the sentence, but inwards the verb phrase, and their functional domain, in this language, were verb phrase, not the whole. The sentence. In the final section, we investigated the cases that we expressed in clinics and absolute forms in Sorani Kurdish; from view of Klavans (1985, 1982). Klavans ' perspective and classicization in Kurdish language Klavans (1985) believed in the domain of classicization function, that node, tree diagrams could determine the domain of classicization process, that the syntactic placement of clinics are to be defined regarding to the immediate constituents of this node. For example, he cited the following sentence in the language of Ngiyamba. In this diagram the determiner was the node of the sentence (S), and the immediate constituent of it, which was effective to determine the placement of clinic, was the node (N ). Hence from view of Klavans, classicization happened at the sentence level, in this language: S N V ADV Ngadhay guya = ndu dha-yi gambira Delicious fish =second person ate- past yesterday "You ate a delicious fish yesterday." Figure 3. Classicization happened at the sentence level from view of Klavans. 11

Klavans believed that the classicization happened at the two levels of sentence and noun phrase. He knew cliticization of personal pronouns at the level of sentence, and the possessive suffix in English, at the level of noun phrase, amongst these levels. He determined the distribution of clinics in their functional domain, in subordinating of these three parameters. Klavans knew the first determinative parameter in position of the clinics, as dominance for parameter, which is known as the parameter number 1 (P1): First parameter: (dominance): First/ Last This parameter defined that if the clinics attached to the first or last constituent, in a specified domain. Klavans named the second parameter (P2) as the precedence for parameter. This parameter determined that if the clinics placed to the before or after the defined constituent of the first parameter. Second parameter (precedence): Before/After Ultimately, that Klavans brought the third parameter (P3). This parameter determined the orientation of the phonological liaison of the clinics. The third parameter (Phonological liaison): Proclitic/ Enclitic. Klavans predicted the interaction between the domain of classicization and these three parameters, as eight types of classicization process for all languages: First parameter Second parameter Third parameter First/Last Before/After Proclitic/Enclitic Example Type1: First Before Enclitic the sign of prepositional phrase in kwakwala Type2: First before Proclitic Definite Article in Greek Type3: First After Enclitic Enclitic in the language of Ngiyamba Type4: First After Proclitic Suffix (an) in the language of Tepecano Type5: Last Before Enclitic Clinics in the language of Ngancara Type6: Last before Proclitic Proverb in Sanskrit Type7: Last After Enclit Pronominal clinics in Spanish Type 8: Last After Proclitic Negation sign In Greek Klavans expressed about the differentiation between affixes and clinics that, the clinics were freer than suffixes in selecting of their hosts. In their view the suffix (ing), in English was just an affix, which added only to verb. While the possessive suffix ('s) was counted as a clitic, and was added to each word this placed before it. In the example: "The queen of England's hat "; The phonological host was the sign of possessive noun (England). Whereas in the example: "The boy who I saw's mother"; The phonological host was the verb (saw). And similarly, in the example: "The boy I talked to's sister"; The preposition/prepositions was the host. Klavans believed that, even by presence of the difference between the hosts in these examples, the functional domain of clinics - noun phrase, were common between all of the cases, and the critics were sensitive to their functional domain, not to the category of phonological host. The other point that Klavans reminded in relation to classicization, was that the host noun phrase in English, had to have the (+GEN) feature in the functional domain of the possessive sign ; that the possessive clinic could select it as a host, and on the basis of the first parameter, to attach the first constituent of this domain. In other words, the clinics had to access to some features of their functional domain. Klavans knew one other type of clinics that accessed to the features of their functional domain, as the verbal clinics in Spanish. He believed that, the functional domain of these clinics were at the level of sentence(s), in this language, and the feature(tense) determined the clinic position of this domain, as in the timeless verb cases, the clinics were added to the after of the verb, and in the time sentences, the clinics placed before the verbs. Then we returned to the analysis of classicization in Kurdish language in this framework. In Kurdish language we observed that pronominal clinics could be added to the all of categories, at the all levels, except the subject of the sentence. Then we determined the domain of these components with the help of following diagrams. 12

S S NP VP NP VP NP PP V NP PP V e ma kiteb=aka =t pe a-da-in. Ø awa n=i ie sand-i n we book-definite=clitic of the second person singular to indicative-gave-first person plural they= clitic of the third person singular from took- third person plural "We give the book to you." "He/ She took it from us." Figure 4. The domain of components. In these examples according to Klavans' analysis the first syntactic immediate constituent which was effective on determination of the position of clinics, was the noun phrase that was placed under the node of verb phrase, and was highlighted. In these diagrams, the determiner node for the domain of classicization was over the node of noun phrase,namely verb phrase(vp), not the node(s).hence the functional domain of these components were verb phrase, in Kurdish language. When the domain of the way, the distribution and position of them in this domain could be determined, by applying first parameter to the third one. On the basis of the first parameter,the clitics could be added to the first or last constituent of the intended domain.the second parameter cleared that if the clitic would be added to the before or to the after of the defined constituent, and the third parameter determined the phonological liaison. We said that the pronominal clinics, which had the role of complement of absolute form, could move towards the right and left. The level of movement of these components was done at the level of verb phrase, and the components could not move beyond it. The orientation of these components towards the right side or the left side, that by helping of the first parameter of the host constituents of these components were determined; at the first or the last of the domain. In case of movement towards the right side; they were added to the last constituent, and in case of movement towards the left side, they were added to the first constituent of the domain of verb phrase. Hence, the movement of pronominal clinics was in form of the movement towards the first or the last constituent. We represented that, in this language, the movement of these components determined the tense of the verb, and this was the same feature which Klavans believed that the clinics could access to it. If the verb phrase was in the past tense, the movement of the clinic was towards the right side, and if it was the present tense, the movement was towards the left. Hence, at the level of verb phrase the feature of time was effective on the level of verb phrase. If it was the past tense, the orientation of the movement would be towards the right side of the last constituent of the domain of the verb phrase, namely added to verb. This type of movement of critics would be appropriate for the clinic type 7 on the table of Klavans that the first parameter selected the last feature; the second parameter selected the next feature, and the third parameter selected the enclitic feature. If the defined node was in the present tense, the intended clinic would be amongst the type three, in which the first parameter selected the first feature; the second parameter selected the next feature, and third parameter selected the enclitic. If we compared the two types of 3 and 7, we would observe that the differences of these types of classicization were only in the first parameter, and the second and the third parameters were completely the same. It could be said that the movement of the time feature effected on just the first paragraph, and the second and the third parameters were not sensitive to this feature. Type 3: The first parameter: first Type 7: The first parameter: last The second parameter: after The second parameter: after The third parameter: enclitic The third parameter: enclitic CONCLUSION In this article we tried to classify the specifications of prepositions in Sorani Kurdish language to two groups of simple and absolute form,from viewpoint of being or not,as clinic, and being as local or non-local complements. In case of movement of these complements towards the right side, they selected the verb of the sentence, and in case of movement towards the left side, they selected the first VP domain constituent for the host. We also reminded that the movement of complement in the framework of Klavans' theory was finely 13

provable. The movement towards the verb was in orientation of clinic type (7), and the movement towards the left was in orientation of type (3). And the only difference between these two types of critics was the first/ last features of the first parameter. REFERENCES Anderson SR, 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klavans JL, 1982. Some Problems in a Theory of Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Klavans JL, 1985.The independence of syntax and in cliticization. Language. 61: 95-120. Mackenzie DN, 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rasekh Mahand M, 2007. Pronominal Enclitics in Persian Language. Humanity Magazine, Special Issue on Language and Literature. Bou Ali Sina University. 2(11-12): 9-39. Rasekh Mahand M, 2010. Persian Clitics by the Side of Verb. Linguistics Research Magazine. 2(2): 75-85. Shaghiaghi V, 1997. What is a Clitic?" Article series of 3 rd Seminar in Linguistics. Tabataba'i University and Institute for Humanities Research. 14