Tid: Torsdag 7 maj 2015, kl 15:00-17:00
Plats: C307, Södra huset, Frescati

Seminariet är ett halvtidsseminarium baserat på Ghazaleh Vafaeians avhandlingsarbete.
Postseminarium följer direkt efter seminariet i institutionens pentry.

Abstract
In this talk I will present the results of a finished project on the dāštan progressive in Persian as well as an ongoing project on the imperfective domain in Iranian languages. The first study investigates the functional scope of the Persian dāštan construction by using a progressive questionnaire as well as conducting a study where five Iranian movies are searched for the construction. The study shows that the main function of the construction is to mark the progressive, mainly in focalized contexts but that it also occurs in non-focalized contexts. In addition, the construction receives the proximative/avertive reading and the iterative reading depending on the type of predicate with which it occurs. Focality is shown to be part of the core meaning of the construction explaining the different functional interpretations that are given with the different types of predicated. In addition to being focalized, it is also shown that the construction almost always occurs in the present tense and is often used in emphatic contexts. Grammatically, the construction can be seen as a signaler of the affirmative and indicative. These factors leads to the conclusion that the construction is a marker which signals that the information given is of immediate relevance to the listener.

The second study investigates the imperfective domain, that is, the present, the past imperfective and the present and past progressive within the Iranian language family. More specifically it contrasts the progressive with the present and past imperfective. In order to investigate the imperfective domain, a template created by Östen Dahl, is used. The template aims at covering the functional spans of some tense-aspect constructions in languages, in particular the present tense, the progressive (present and/or past), and the past imperfective.  Ultimately this study may answer the following two questions:

Within one and the same language family, if we would compare the progressive gram type with other inflectional gram types within the imperfective domain:

  • will the progressive gram type be expressed by a larger number of constructions (both within one language and across languages) than a grammatical category which is marked inflectionally?
  • will the progressive be functionally simpler but formally more complex than categories which are inflectionally marked? 

Hjärtligt välkomna!
Ljuba Veselinova