Contact-Induced Emergence of a Genitive Case in Colloquial Tajik: Evidence from Pivot-Matching

doi:10.18627/jslg.41.4.202602.517

All Issue

2026 Vol.41, Issue 4 Preview Page Next Page

Research Article

Contact-Induced Emergence of a Genitive Case in Colloquial Tajik: Evidence from Pivot-Matching: Gafforov, Nurangez Shavkatovich^1*; ¹Chungbuk National University

28 February 2026. pp. 517-531

PDF

Abstract

This article examines the emergence of a replicated genitive construction in Colloquial Tajik (CT) that parallels the Uzbek genitive-possessive pattern in constituent order and morphological marking. Unlike the inherited Persian/Tajik ezafe construction, the CT pattern is head-final, double-marked, and employs the Tajik direct definite object marker -ro with a genitive function. Based on natural speech data and elicited translations from Tajik-Uzbek bilinguals, the study shows that this development arose through pattern replication rather than morphological borrowing. The replication is enabled by pivot-matching (Matras and Sakel, 2007), whereby Tajik possessive enclitics align with Uzbek possessive morphology, and by the colloquial reduction of Uzbek -ning to -ni, which allows functional extension of Tajik -ro into the genitive domain. The findings provide a mechanism-level account of contact-induced morphosyntactic change in an Iranian-Turkic contact setting.

Keywords

Contact-induced morphosyntactic change

Genitive-possessive construction

Pattern replication (PAT)

Pivot-matching

Colloquial Tajik

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2007. Typological Distinctions in Word-formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.001
Braunmüller, K. 2004. What Happens When Languages Meet? On the Concept of Receptive Multilingualism. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27.2, 5-29.
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.
Gafforov, N. 2021. Replication of Uzbek Genitive Construction in Colloquial Tajik. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Graduate School of Yeungnam University, Department of English Language and Literature.
Gribanova, V. 2015. Agreement and Morphotactic Mismatches in Turkic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33, 161-203.
Haspelmath, M. 2008. Creating Economical Morphosyntactic Patterns in Language Change. In J. Good (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185-214.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614132
Ido, S. 2005. On the Tajik Accusative Marker. Iranian Studies 38.4, 607-622.10.1080/00210860500338408
Johanson, L. 2002. Contact-induced Change in a Code-copying Framework. In M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 587-597.10.1515/9783110892598.285
Lazard, G. 1992. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matras, Y. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31.4, 829-865.10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat
Oranskiy, I. M. 1963. Tadzhikskiy Yazyk. Moscow: Nauka.
Perry, J. R. 2005. Bilingualism and Contact-induced Change in Tajik. In Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 285-306.
Perry, J. R. and Fattoyev, S. 2015. Convergence and divergence in Tajik dialects. Journal of Persianate Studies 8.1, 1-24.
Rastorgueva, V. S. 1964. Grammatika Tadzhikskogo Yazyka. Moscow: Nauka.
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Thomason, S. G. 2008. Social and Linguistic Factors as Predictors of Contact-induced Change. Journal of Language Contact 2, 42-56.10.1163/000000008792525381
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520912793
Trudgill, P. 2010. Contact and Simplicity in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.
Windfuhr, G. and Perry, J. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge, 416-544.

Information

Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
Volume : 41
No :4
Pages :517-531
DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.41.4.202602.517

[1] Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2007. Typological Distinctions in Word-formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.001

[2] Braunmüller, K. 2004. What Happens When Languages Meet? On the Concept of Receptive Multilingualism. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27.2, 5-29.

[3] Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.

[4] Gafforov, N. 2021. Replication of Uzbek Genitive Construction in Colloquial Tajik. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Graduate School of Yeungnam University, Department of English Language and Literature.

[5] Gribanova, V. 2015. Agreement and Morphotactic Mismatches in Turkic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33, 161-203.

[6] Haspelmath, M. 2008. Creating Economical Morphosyntactic Patterns in Language Change. In J. Good (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185-214.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008

[7] Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614132

[8] Ido, S. 2005. On the Tajik Accusative Marker. Iranian Studies 38.4, 607-622.10.1080/00210860500338408

[9] Johanson, L. 2002. Contact-induced Change in a Code-copying Framework. In M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 587-597.10.1515/9783110892598.285

[10] Lazard, G. 1992. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

[11] Matras, Y. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[12] Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31.4, 829-865.10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat

[13] Oranskiy, I. M. 1963. Tadzhikskiy Yazyk. Moscow: Nauka.

[14] Perry, J. R. 2005. Bilingualism and Contact-induced Change in Tajik. In Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 285-306.

[15] Perry, J. R. and Fattoyev, S. 2015. Convergence and divergence in Tajik dialects. Journal of Persianate Studies 8.1, 1-24.

[16] Rastorgueva, V. S. 1964. Grammatika Tadzhikskogo Yazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

[17] Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

[18] Thomason, S. G. 2008. Social and Linguistic Factors as Predictors of Contact-induced Change. Journal of Language Contact 2, 42-56.10.1163/000000008792525381

[19] Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520912793

[20] Trudgill, P. 2010. Contact and Simplicity in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[21] Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.

[22] Windfuhr, G. and Perry, J. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge, 416-544.

The Journal of Studies in Language ISSN:1225-4770(Print) 2671-6151(Online) 언어연구

All Issue