---

The present study aims to investigate the Ezafe construction in Kurdish (Sorani dialect) based on cognitive grammar. The nature of the methodology of this qualitative research is descriptive-analytic, and the data have been collected via the interview with Kurdish speakers. The authenticity and originality of the collected data have been approved by Kurdish speakers of this linguistic variety. Ezafe marker is considered as the invoker of an intrinsic relationship between two entities having a kind of conceptual proximity.  In a way, one entity is considered as a reference-point based on which the location of the other entity is cognitively determined. In this construction, the landmark plays the role of a reference-point to provide a mental path to the trajector as the target. The findings showed that Ezafe in this dialect is the result of the grammaticalization of a relative pronoun HYA by which the intrinsic-conceptual relation between elements is profiled in a complex sentence. It should be noted that Ezafe marker has developed from the relative pronoun HYA in Old Persian. Accordingly, this relative pronoun, as an Ezafe marker, has been gradually transformed into an element profiling an asymmetric relationship between congruent entities within a single phrase (N Ez N; N Ez adj; N Ez preposition; N Ez nominalized verb) or in a clause (predicative Ezafe and topicalizing Ezafe). Also, the results showed that Ezafe marker indicates this asymmetric relation at different linguistic levels.

1. Introduction
The Cognitive Linguistics approach is considered as a new approach in linguistics (Langacker 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1980) which tries to explain linguistic phenomena according to cognitive processes without drawing a strict boundary and limitation between linguistic and non-linguistics capabilities. Rejecting the modularity of grammar, it ties to explain syntactic constructions according to the same cognitive processes that are used in non-linguistic phenomena. In harmony with this approach, we try to explain Ezafe construction in Kurdish from a cognitive perspective. In other words, we try to explain the fundamental cognitive processes underlying this frequent and important construction.
The traditional grammarians (Qharib, et al. 1971: 39-45; Moiin 1984; Anvari and Ahmadi-Givi,2011: 134- 138) have described Ezafe as a pure relationship between two entities that may convey a wide variety of meanings. They (ibid) have proposed many functions and senses for Ezafe in Iranian languages. Its numerous functions have been described as Eazfe for possession (ezafeye melki: ketābe ʔali: Ali’s book), Ezafe for expressing the material of a nominal head (ezafeye bayāni: halqeye talā: ring of gold), Ezafe for specifying a noun (ezafeye taxsisi: mize motāleʔe: table for studying), Ezafe for elaborating on the noun (ezafeye tozihi: ŝahre tehrān: city of Tehran) and kinship Ezafe (ezafeye bonovvat: mādar-e ʔisā: mother of Jesus). However, its real semantic and syntactic diversity goes beyond this number. Ezafe linker covers not only a variety of semantic relationships, but also it is used in different grammatical constructions including nominal phrase (nominal collocation: noun Ez noun and nominal periphrasis: noun Ez nominalized verb), prepositional phrase (preposition Ez noun), predicative Ezafe (determiner noun EZ noun copular verb), topicalized structure (topic Ez proposition) and Ezafe for modification by an adjective (noun Ez adjective). This semantic and syntactic diversity leads the formal linguists to consider it as a vacuous element emerging just because of formal computations and structural restrictions (Samiian 1994; Ghomeshi 1997; Samvelian 2005; Karimi 2007; Kahnemuyipour 2014).
The Ezafe construction has been traced back to the (h)ya as a relative pronoun in Old Persian (Moiin 1984: 8-9; 18; Abolqhasemi 2006: 38). The cognitive function of this relative pronoun was for identifying the trajector with another participant in the relative clause. The following example (inscription of Darius at the Naqsh-i-Rostam (DNa)) illustrates the function of hay in Old Persian:
baga vazraka Auramazdā   hya   imām būmim adā,      
the god great Ahuramazda            who  this       earth    created     
hya avam asmānam adā,
who this     sky         created
hya martiyam adā,         hya šiyātim adā  martiyahyā, hya Dārayavaum
who  mankind  created,        who happiness created for mankind, who Darius
 xšāyaθiyam akunauš.
  king made.
Great god is Ahuramazda, who created the earth, who created the sky, who created the man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king.
It may be argued that the main and primary function of hya is to make a linguistic coordination between two entities that are conceptually parallel and co-equal. However, this relative pronoun undergoes a drastic change in modern Kurdish. It can illustrate any possible relationship between two participants within a single noun phrase. In other words, the Ezafe (as the successor of the hya) is used for demonstrating a relation between two entities that are linked together in a way. Thus, we can say that Ezafe has undergone a kind of subjectification (see Langacker 2009, p.85) through which the relative pronoun (that was to illustrate identification and correspondence between the trajector and a participant in the relative clause) has metamorphosed into a morpheme evoking a schematic model of essential relationship between two participants within a nominal phrase. Through this subjectification, the identification of the sentential trajector with the participant of the relative clause has been turned into any kind of relationship held between two participants in a phrase. Let’s consider the following examples in this case:

1. dæst-i hemən (part-whole)

 hand-Ez Hemn
Hemn’s hand

2. xwardən-i sef (part (patient)-whole (event))

   eating-Ez   apple
eating of apple

3. Halatn-i  Ali (part (agent)-whole (event))

 running-Ez     Ali
Ali’s running

4. gærdænbænd-i tæɬa (material)

  necklace-Ez      gold
necklace of gold

5. ŝār-i bokān (identification)

city-Ez Bokan
city of Bokan

6. raqib-i ʔæli (association)

competitor-Ez ʔæli
Ali’s competitor

7. ktew-i hæsæn (ownership)

book-Ez hæsæn
Hasan’s book

8. bāwk-i hemən (kinship)

father-Ez Hemɵn
Hemɵn’s father

9. hemɵn-i mokryani (nominal collocation)

hemɵn-EZ mokrjani
Hemɵn Mokryani
      The question crossing the author’s mind is that what kind of relationship is evoked by the Ezafe linker that is capable of covering all of these various meninges such as possession, part-whole, participant-event, object-material, nominal collocation, and pure association. It may be discussed that Ezafe evokes a schematic intrinsic relationship that can convey different kinds of semantic association. However, it should be noted that this schematic interconnection is not semantically vacuous. In other words, the linear order of the words in the Ezafe construction cannot be modified, it is because some semantic restrictions dominate this conceptual relationship.
 

1. Literature Review

In this section, we will take a look at previous linguistic studies that have explained Ezafe construction from differet perspective. It is worth mentioning that before this research, some researches have been done in the field of Ezafe construction that have considered this marker as a formal marker and it is explained as the outcome of pure syntactic computations. Some of these researches have been done by Samiian, 1994; Ghomeshi, 1997; samvelian, 2005; Karimi, 2007; kahnemuyipour, 2014. Most previous researches in this area have ignored the polysemic aspect of this construction. Therefore, as far as the authors are aware, no research has been done on the subject of Ezafe construction in Kurdish from a cognitive perspective. Some of the researches done in this regard are those which have been written by Qarib, et al. (1972), Moiin (1985), Abolghasemi (2007), Anvari and Anvari (2011), Razavian, et al. (2016), Amouzadeh and Asmoudeh (2017), Nassajian, et al. (2019).
 

2. Methodology

The nature of the methodology of this qualitative research is descriptive-analytical, and the data have been collected via the interview with Kurdish speakers. The authenticity of the collected data has been approved by Kurdish speakers of this language variety.
 

3. Results

This paper indicated that Ezafe may express different semantic relationship in the level of noun phrase. For example, it can express relations such as ownership, part-whole, identification, and association. However, these different semantic connections are the elaborations of an abstract schematic relation which is evoked by Ezafe. In other words, Ezafe primarily evokes a schematic relation between two elements in which the first one acts as the reference point and the second one functions as the target. The former is used by the conceptualizer to have a cognitive access to the latter.
It was argued that Ezafe is the result of the grammaticalization of a relative pronoun by which the pivot and a participant in the relative clause are matched with one another. The pivot and the relevant participant are characterized by a conceptual contiguity. Accordingly, Ezafe has been gradually turned into an element evoking an asymmetric relationship between contiguous entities within a single phrase (N Ez N; N Ez adje; N Ez preposition; N Ez nominalized verb). However, we showed that this schematic relation is not bound to nominal phrases, but it can play a significant semantic role in the sentential level. As a result, two different constructions such as predicative Ezafe and topicalizing Ezafe were introduced in the paper. In these constructions, the Ezafe mediates between an element and the rest of the sentence. In other words, one of the sentential elements acts as a reference point for the whole sentence. As a result, the conceptualizer gains a mental access to the sentence only via the linguistic element (such as topic) which plays the role of reference point. The common attribute among these various grammatical constructions refers to the intrinsic relationship held between the entities.

---

This paper attempts to explain the relationship between the imperative paradigm and the system of tense, aspect, and modality in Kurdish. This study employs the theoretical framework proposed by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017). Additionally, the data were collected by interviewing Kurdish informants. The results indicate that the imperative paradigm in Kurdish is based on three imperative constructions, and four imperative strategies are also used to convey directive meanings. The results also show that the imperative constructions have different syntactic behaviors in different temporal zones of the tense system. The imperative constructions mainly combine with verbs that have a positive dynamic aspectual feature; however, these constructions transform these verbs during the process of coercion and highlight only the preparatory phases of the verbs. Consequently, these constructions combine easily with ingressive verbal operators because they represent only the preparatory phases of the actions. However, the imperative constructions do not combine with imperfective operators as they highlight the middle phases of the events. Furthermore, the imperative constructions do not host perfective aspectual operators due to semantic incongruity between them. Finally, the results show that the imperative constructions and strategies lack a rich eventual semantic layer and appear mainly as expressive speech acts.

1. Introduction
The tripartite system of tense, aspect, and mood constructs the composite eventual and modal structure of a sentence. However, this composite system manifests differently in various sentential types such as declarative, interrogative, and imperative. Although the interaction of these three subsystems has been extensively studied in declarative sentences, they have not been adequately explored in imperative constructions. Given the highly particular and idiosyncratic syntactic and semantic behavior of imperatives, it is crucial to study these subsystems and their interactions within imperative sentences. This paper aims to examine these subsystems and their interactions within the imperative paradigm, employing the theoretical framework proposed by Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017). Thus, it studies tense, aspect, and modality in canonical and non-canonical imperative constructions in Kurdish.

2. Literature Review
Imperative constructions have not been extensively investigated in Iranian languages in general, and Kurdish in particular. Most traditional grammatical sources in Kurdish adopt a prescriptive approach, primarily focusing on declarative and interrogative constructions and largely ignoring imperatives (IKSA 1976, 1985; Nabaz 1976; Mahvi 2011). No research to date has investigated tense, aspect, and modality in imperative constructions. However, Veisi Hasar (2021) studied imperative constructions in Kurdish, identifying two imperative constructions and four imperative strategies. Yet, he does not explore aspect, modality, and tense within these structures.

3. Methodology
The theoretical approach used in this study is based on the work of Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017) and the typological approach of Van der Auwera et al. (2005). Aikhenvald and Dixon (2017) categorize imperative constructions into canonical and non-canonical types. The canonical construction refers to the imperative for the second person singular subject. According to them, any structure derived from and matching the canonical construction can be considered an imperative construction. However, a non-canonical imperative, whose primary function is to express a directive function but structurally differs from the canonical construction, should be in complementary distribution with the canonical ones. If a directive structure is not structurally related to the canonical construction and is not in complementary distribution with it, it is not an imperative construction but an imperative strategy. In addition, based on the typological framework presented by Van der Auwera et al. (2005), we explain the imperative paradigm in Kurdish. This model illustrates different imperative paradigms as follows: 
- a. The language has a maximal system, but not a minimal one.
- b. The language has a minimal system, but not a maximal one.
- c. The language has both a maximal and a minimal system.
- d. The language has neither a maximal nor a minimal system.

4. Findings
By analyzing the data, it is revealed that the Kurdish language has three imperative constructions and four imperative strategies. The second person singular imperative is formed by a special inflectional ending, an omitted subject, and a subjunctive mood indicated by the prefix -bǝ. The second person plural imperative uses a deleted subject and the prefix -bǝ, but lacks a special verbal ending. Imperative constructions for other person-number categories (first, third, singular, and plural) use a specific imperative operator bā and the prefix -bǝ. These three constructions form the imperative paradigm in Kurdish. Additionally, four strategies are used to express commands and directive meanings, which are not syntactically imperative. These constructions are based on the verbs heŝtәn (let), řoʔin (going), and hātәn (come), each possessing distinct grammatical attributes and used in various contexts.
Regarding the interaction between imperatives and tense, imperative constructions are mainly bound to the present tense and do not appear in other tenses. Interestingly, even the imperative strategies are primarily limited to the present tense and do not convey commands in other tenses. Only the second person singular imperative can appear in the future tense, in contrast to other categories, and takes a different inflectional ending.
Imperative constructions predominantly combine verbs that have a dynamic aspectual feature. However, through coercion, they highlight only the preparatory phase of these verbs. Static verbs within this construct are marked. Dynamic verbs in an imperative structure undergo coercion, and only their preparatory phases are highlighted in the imperative construct. Regarding grammatical aspects, imperative verbs do not combine with imperfective (progressive) verbs, as they do not profile the middle phases indicated by the progressive operators. Instead, they combine with ingressive operators, as both highlight the preparatory phases of the verbs. Additionally, imperative constructions do not combine perfective verbs due to semantic incompatibility. The perfective operator refers to a bounded process, while imperative constructs do not profile the ending limitation of the verbs.