Comparative Linguistic Research

Comparative Linguistic Research

Imperfective Aspect in Kurdish: A Typological Analysis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Zaniar Naghshbandi 1
Nian Foad Ahmad 2
1 University of Kurdistan
2 Department of Linguistics and English Language, Faculty of Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
10.22084/rjhll.2025.29784.2338
Abstract
Introduction
Kurdish refers to a continuum of Western Iranian dialects spoken across Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Despite abundant descriptive grammars, few studies have examined its grammatical systems comparatively. One underexplored area concerns the morphosyntactic realization of aspect, particularly the imperfective. This study investigates the imperfective aspect typologically across Northern, Central, Southern, and Hawrami (Gorani) varieties. Building on Smith’s (1997) model distinguishing viewpoint aspect (perfective vs. imperfective) from situation aspect (lexical Aktionsart), it focuses on the grammatical strategies Kurdish dialects employ to encode imperfectivity and its subtype, showing both shared patterns and innovation.

Literature Review
Theoretical treatments of aspect in general (Vendler 1967; Comrie 1976) and typological studies (Smith 1997) have clarified distinctions between the temporal contour of events and their internal structure. For Kurdish, early grammarians provided description without typological framing. Later works have mainly focused on Central Kurdish: According to Veisi Hesar (2015), Kurdish exhibits a binary tense system—past and non-past—where the past tense can host both perfective and imperfective aspects, whereas the non-past exclusively expresses the imperfective. Najafifar et al. (2016) analyzed various imperfective constructions in Central Kurdish (Mokriani) within the sign-based construction grammar approach. They argue that imperfective structures in Sorani Kurdish—including progressive, perfect, habitual, and present forms—are derived through the interaction of three aspectual operators (a-, xarik, and -uwa), each focusing on specific phases of an event while omitting its endpoint in conceptual representation. Building on Smith’s (1997) typology, Veisi Hesar (2017) further examined lexical aspect types in Sorani Kurdish and explained aspectual shifts resulting from combinations of verbs with temporal adverbs and aspectual operators in terms of the Alpha Rule. Tabi‘i et al. (2021) discussed aspectual operators in a Minimalist framework. Mohammadi-Rad and Shwan (2025) explored imperfective markers in Gorani dialects, revealing diverse strategies but without situating them comparatively. In sum, existing studies are fragmented, each limited to a single variety or framework. The present work thus offers the first cross-Kurdish typological comparison of imperfective aspect, tracing morphological and periphrastic encoding patterns across major dialect zones.

Methodology
Three dialects from each Kurdish group, Northern, Central, and Southern, plus Hawrami were selected to capture the internal variation. The data set includes Shikaki, Zakho, Sarhadi (Northern), Mokriani, Bane’i, Ardalani (Central), Kalhori, Gorusi, Kermanshahi (Southern), and Paveie, and Nowsudi (Hawrami). To maintain comparability, two verb types were elicited: the activity verb to run and the accomplishment verb to build a house. Informants produced positive and negative clauses in past and non-past tenses. Each dialect’s system was analyzed according to Smith’s (1997) framework, distinguishing general imperfective (non-progressive) and progressive subtypes. The speakers were older native informants with minimal literacy, ensuring that the data represent conservative dialectal forms. This typological approach aims not to document phonetic variation but to trace structural correlations between morphology, periphrasis, and aspectual meaning.

Findings
Northern Kurdish
Across Shikaki, Zakho, and Sarhadi, imperfectivity is mainly expressed through the prefix dɪ- attached to both present and past stems (dɪ-hal-et ‘runs’, dɪ-hal-at ‘was running’). These forms denote non-progressive imperfectivity, while addition of the particle je (je dɪ-hal-et ‘is running’) yields progressive meaning. The Sarhadi dialect further innovates by adding the auxiliary Kirin ‘do’—fully inflected and bearing dɪ-—to mark the progressive aspect. This combination of prefixal and auxiliary strategies exemplifies internal diversification even within Northern Kurdish.
Central Kurdish
Central Kurdish maintains continuity with Northern systems but introduces greater analytic structure. In Mokriani, the simple progressive aspect is expressed by the prefix da-, which is believed to be historically derived from the Kurmanji imperfective marker di-. (hæł-d-et ‘runs’, hæł-dæ-hat ‘was running’). In Bane’i and Ardalani, the prefix æ- replaces dæ-, signaling dialectal divergence. A hallmark of Central Kurdish is the xærik construction, meaning ‘busy’. Combined with the verb to be, it expresses progressive aspect:
Hiwa xærik-æ hæł-d-et “Hiwa is running.”
Hiwa xærik bu hæł-dæ-hat “Hiwa was running.”
This periphrastic pattern parallels Persian daštan + mi- and typologically marks a shift from inflectional to analytic imperfectivity, aligning Central Kurdish with broader Iranian trends.
Southern Kurdish
Southern Kurdish varieties reveal simplification and innovation. In Kalhori, simple imperfectivity is unmarked, and the same form covers both ongoing and habitual meanings (dæw-e ‘runs/is running’). Interestingly, the old prefix æ- reappears only in negative clauses (ni-æ-dæw-e ‘does not run’), suggesting fossilized imperfective morphology retained under negation. The progressive aspect is formed periphrastically with the auxiliary daštin ‘have’: Hiwa dɪr-e dæw-e “Hiwa is running.” Gorusi reintroduces the prefix dɪ- (cf. Northern) alongside daštin, showing contact-based retention. Kermanshahi develops a unique past suffix -a (dæwi-a-Ø ‘was running’), sometimes co-occurring with æ- in negatives (ni-æ-dæwi-a), producing a double-marked imperfective—typologically rare among Iranian languages.
Hawrami
Hawrami, though distinct, exhibits comparable typological patterns. The present imperfective uses the prefix mæ- (mæ-geł-o ‘walks/is walking’) in certain varieties, while the past relies on specialized agreement paradigms in almost all varieties. The progressive aspect in Hawrami, however, is encoded by a very special mechanism in which the infinitive is added to the conjugated imperfective verb. This mechanism shows variation among different Hawrami varieties.

Discussion
A comparison of the observed patterns indicates that, across all Kurdish dialect groups—except for some Southern Kurdish and Hawrami varieties—the imperfective non-progressive aspect is expressed by means of a prefixal operator applied to verbs in different tense forms. In contrast, in Kermanshahi Southern Kurdish and all Hawrami dialects, the non-progressive imperfective in the past tense is encoded through a suffixal operator, a feature not attested in other Kurdish varieties. The progressive imperfective is expressed differently across dialects: in Northern and Southern Kurdish, it is formed through inflected auxiliary verbs, whereas in Central Kurdish, it involves the aspectual particle xærik (‘busy’) combined with an appropriate form of the verb to be. Explaining the existence of these distinct mechanisms for expressing progressive and non-progressive imperfectivity among Kurdish dialects—representing the third level of analysis in classical typological studies—requires further independent research. Approaches focusing on competing syntactic motivations, historical development, and language contact may provide a coherent explanation for the typological patterns identified here regarding the morphosyntactic encoding of imperfective aspect in Kurdish.

References
- Gholami, S. (2023). Unpacking the Complexity of Guran Identity. Journal of Regional Minorities under Muslim Rules. 1. 67-112.
- Kareem, Rebeen. (2016).The Syntax of Verbal Inflection in Central Kurdish. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Newcastle University.
- MacKenzie, D, N. (1961b). The origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological Society. 68-86.
- MacKenzie, D, N. (1966). The Dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn). Køben-havn: Munksgaard.
- MacKenzie, D, N. (2002). Gurani. Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol XI, Fasc 4. 401-403. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gurani/
- McCarus, E, N. (1958). A Kurdish Grammar. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
- Mohammadirad, Masoud & Osman Karim, Shuan. (2025). the development of imperfective and subjunctive marking in Hawrami. Linguistics. 63(5): 1265-1292.
- Najafi far, Sharmin; Veisi hasar, Rahman; Badakhshan, Ebrahim (2016). Investigation of Imperfect Aspect in Kurdish Dialect Based on Sign-based Construction Grammar. Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects. 3 (13): 105-126. [in Persian] https://jlw.razi.ac.ir/article_1248.html?lang=en
- Smith, C. S. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Soane. E.B. (1913a). Grammar of Kurmanji or Kurdish Language. London: LUZAC & CO.
- Tabei, Roya, Tafakkori Rezaei, Shoja, Gheytouri, Amer. (2021). Progressive Aspect in Sorani Kurdish: A Minimalist Approach. Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects. 9(2): 43-64. [in Persian]
https://jlw.razi.ac.ir/article_1788.html?lang=en
- Veisi hasar, Rahman (2015). Tense and Aspect in Kurdish. Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects. 2(8): 101-124. [in Persian]
https://jlw.razi.ac.ir/article_597.html?lang=en
- Veisi hasar, Rahman (2017). Aspect in Kurdish: From Ontology to Grammar. Language Related Research. 8(3): 135-158. [in Persian]
https://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article_6562.html?lang=en
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2023-0247/html?lang= en&srsltid=AfmBOoqvrwjaa7lUp4P1_UQc-dNPF68FavVj_8KcXbMRY5DdRVRl-Cr8
https://brill.com/view/journals/rmmr/1/1/article-p67_4.xml
https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/bitstream/10443/3190/1/Kareem%2C%20R.A.%202016.pdf
Keywords
Imperfective Aspect
Continuous Aspect
Activity Verbs
Accomplishment Verbs
Kurdish Varieties
Subjects
-  بدلیسی، شرفخان بن شمس­الدین (1377). شرفنامه: تاریخ مفصل کردستان. به اهتمام ولادیمیر ولییامینوف زرنوف. تهران: انتشارات اساطیر.
-  تابعی، رویا؛ تفکری رضایی، شجاع و قیطوری، عامر (1399). «نمود مستمر در کردی سورانی: رویکردی کمینه‌گرا». فصلنامه مطالعات زبان­ها و گویش­های غرب ایران. (33)9: 63-43.
-  ذبیحی، عبدالرحمان (1401). قاموسی زمانی کوردی. سقز: انتشارات خانی.
-  کرمی، سعید (1396). وشه­ناسیی زمانی کوردی. سنندج: انتشارات دانشگاه کردستان.
-  کریمی دوستان، غلامحسین (1380). کردی ایلامی: بررسی گویش بدره. سنندج: انتشارات دانشگاه کردستان.
-  کریمی، یادگار و نقشبندی، زانیار (1390). «ساخت­های استمراری-تأکیدی در گویش هورامی»، مجله پژوهش‌های زبانی، 2،1:  83-100.
-  ناصری، فاطمه (1395). نمود در گویش کلهری. پایان­نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبان­شناسی. دانشگاه کردستان. سنندج.
-  نجفی­فر، شرمین؛ ویسی­حصار، رحمان و بدخشان، ابراهیم (1395). «بررسی نمود ناقص در زبان کردی بر اساس دستور ساختمدار نشانه­محور»، فصلنامه مطالعات زبان­ها و گویش­های غرب ایران. (13)3 : 105-126.
-  نغزگو، مهرداد (1389). «افعال معین و نمایش نمود در زبان فارسی»، ادب پژوهی، (4) 14: 93-110.
-  نەبەز، جەماڵ (١٩٧٦). زمانی یەکگرتووی کوردی. چاپی یەکەم. بامبێرگ. بڵاو کراوەی یەکیێتی-نەتەوەیی خوێنکارانی کورد لە ئرووپا.
-  ویسی حصار، رحمان (1394). «زمان و نمود در کردی موکریانی»، فصلنامه مطالعات زبان و گویش­های غرب ایران. 2،8: 101-124.
-  ویسی حصار، رحمان (1396). «نمود در کردی: از هستی­شناسی تا دستور»، جستارهای زبانی. (8)3: 135-158.
-  Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Fattah, Ismail Kamandar. (2000). Les Dialectes Kurdes m´eridionaux. Etude linguistique et dialectologique. Leuven: Peters.
-  Gholami, S. (2023). “Unpacking the Complexity of Guran Identity”. Journal of Regional Minorities under Muslim Rules. 1. 67-112.
-  Haji-Marf, R. (2000). The syntax of Kurdish language: Verb. Sulaymaniyah: Sardam. (In Kurdish)
-  Iraqi Kurdish Scientific Association. (1976). The grammar of kurdish language. Baghdad: Iraqi Scientific Association Printing House. (In Kurdish)
-  Kareem, Rebeen. (2016).The Syntax of Verbal Inflection in Central Kurdish. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Newcastle University.
-  MacKenzie, D, N. (1961b). The origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological Society. 68-86.
-  MacKenzie, D, N. (1966). The Dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn). Køben-havn: Munksgaard.
-  MacKenzie, D, N. (2002). Gurani. Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol XI, Fasc 4. 401-403.
-  McCarus, E, N. (1958). A Kurdish Grammar. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
-  Minorsky, V. (1915). The Kurds, Petrograd.
-  Mohammadirad, Masoud & Osman Karim, Shuan. (2025). “The development of imperfective and subjunctive marking in Hawrami”. Linguistics. 63(5): 1265-1292.
-  Smith, C. S. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
-  Soane. E.B. (1913a). Grammar of Kurmanji or Kurdish Language. London: LUZAC & CO.
-  Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.