Some Theoretical Views on the Category of Voice in Participles of Tajik and English: A Contrastive Analysis

1. Introduction

The category of voice is a central grammatical phenomenon that expresses the relationship between a verb's action, its subject (agent), and its object (patient). Participles, as deverbal forms possessing both verbal (tense, aspect, voice, government) and nominal (case, number, gender, definiteness) characteristics, present a complex and nuanced field for studying voice. A comparative analysis of voice in participles across typologically distinct languages, such as Tajik and English, offers valuable insights into universal and language-specific features of grammatical organization. In the context of globalization and intensified linguistic contacts, a deep understanding of grammatical disparities between languages is crucial for effective translation, foreign language teaching, and computational linguistics. Tajik, as a Persian variety with a rich synthetic morphology, and English, as an analytic language with a strong syntactic orientation, represent two divergent strategies for encoding grammatical relations. The participle, straddling the boundary between the verb and adjective systems, serves as an ideal testing ground for contrasting these strategies. Despite existing descriptions of Tajik grammar [1, 2] and English grammar [3, 4], a systematic contrastive study focusing specifically on the voice in participles remains underdeveloped.

The primary objective is to conduct a profound theoretical and comparative analysis of the category of voice in the participle systems of Tajik and English.

The study is grounded in the fundamental principles of comparative and typological linguistics [5], functional grammar, and the theory of grammatical categories. The analysis draws upon traditional and modern descriptions of Tajik [1, 2, 6] and English grammar [3, 4, 7].

2. Methods

This research employs a qualitative methodology based on descriptive-analytical and contrastive (comparative) linguistic methods.

2.1. Data Collection. The linguistic material was drawn from:

Primary Sources: Grammatical descriptions and reference books for Standard Tajik [1, 2] and Standard English [3, 4].

Textual Corpora: Authentic texts in Tajik (literary works, media) and English (fiction, academic texts) were used to extract examples of participles in natural contexts.

Translational Equivalents: Parallel examples and translation pairs were analyzed to observe how voice relations expressed by participles in one language are rendered in the other.

2.2. Analytical Procedures.

1. Morphological Analysis: Identification and classification of participle-forming affixes and patterns in both languages, with a focus on markers correlating with active/passive meaning.
2. Syntactic Analysis: Examination of the syntactic roles of participles (attributive, predicative, adverbial, in absolute constructions) and their government (ability to take objects or agents).
3. Semantic-Functional Analysis: Determination of the semantic shades (temporal, aspectual, modal) conveyed by participles of different voices in various contexts.
4. Contrastive Analysis: Systematic juxtaposition of the obtained Tajik and English data according to the parameters of form, function, and meaning to establish points of convergence and divergence.

2.3. Theoretical Framework. The analysis is informed by theories of voice (diathesis), non-finite verb forms, and linguistic typology. The concept of "gradience" between lexical and grammatical categories is particularly relevant for participles.

3. Results

3.1. The Category of Voice in Tajik Participles.

The Tajik participle system is rich and derivational. The two primary participles are defined by their inherent voice orientation.

Сифати феълӣ (Active Participle). Formed by adding the suffix -анда to the present stem of the verb: хонд (to read) → хонанда (reading, reader). Its core meaning is active and ongoing. Crucially, it is typically formed from intransitive verbs (рафтан – to go → раванда – going) or used in an intransitive/agentive sense from transitive verbs (хонанда signifies 'the one who reads', not the act of being read). It cannot express direct passive meaning. Its primary function is attributive (одами хонанда – a reading person) or substantivized (хонанда – a reader).

Сифати маънулӣ (Passive Participle). This is the primary carrier of passive voice for participles. It has several forms with nuanced aspectual differences:

Simple Passive Participle: Formed by adding -а or -и to the past stem: кард (did) → карда (done); шунид (heard) → шунида (heard). This is the most common form, equivalent to the English past participle in passive contexts: китоби хондашуда (a read book / a book that has been read).

Imperfective Passive Participle: Formed with the suffix -ме + past stem + -а: карда мешуда (being done). This emphasizes the process of the action.

Perfective Passive Participle (исми мафъул): Formed with the prefix -мо + past stem + -а: навишта (written) → монавишта (having been written). This emphasizes the completed result.

The voice in Tajik participles is thus lexically and derivationally fixed. The choice of participle depends on the verb's transitivity and the desired active/passive meaning.

3.2. The Category of Voice in English Participles.

English has two main participles, whose voice interpretation is more context-dependent and syntactically integrated.

Present Participle (Participle I): Form V-ing (e.g., writing, doing).

Inherently Active Voice when used attributively or predicatively: a writing student, The student is writing a letter.

Can form part of a Periphrastic Passive when combined with the auxiliary be: The letter is being written. Here, the passive voice is expressed analytically by the entire construction be + being + V-ed, not by the -ing form itself.

In complex objects after verbs of perception, it implies active, ongoing action: I saw him writing.

Past Participle (Participle II): Form V-ed/V-en (e.g., written, done).

Inherently Passive Voice when derived from transitive verbs and used attributively/predicatively: a written letter, The letter was written.

Forms the core of all Passive Voice Constructions: is written, was written, will be written, has been written.

Forms the core of all Perfect Aspects: has written, had done. In this case, with intransitive or transitive verbs in active voice, it carries a resultative, not a passive, meaning. This is a key difference from Tajik: the English past participle is polyfunctional, serving both perfect active and passive voices.

3.3. Contrastive Analysis: Key Points of Divergence.

1. Morphological Nature vs. Syntactic Nature: Voice in Tajik participles is primarily a matter of derivational morphology (choosing the correct suffix: -анда vs. -а). In English, it is more a matter of syntactic combinatorics: the -ing form is neutral, and its active/passive reading depends on the construction (is writing vs. is being written); the -ed form is ambiguous between passive and perfect until placed in a syntactic context (is written [passive] vs. has written [active perfect]).
2. Transitivity as a Determining Factor: In Tajik, the formation of сифати феълӣ (-анда) is largely restricted to intransitive verbs or agentive nouns from transitives. A true passive can only be formed from a transitive verb. In English, the -ing form is freely formed from both transitive and intransitive verbs, and its passive interpretation requires an analytic construction.
3. Integration into the Verbal System: The English past participle is an integral component of two core grammatical subsystems: the passive voice and the perfect aspect. The Tajik сифати маънулӣ, while used in perfect tenses (e.g., кардааст – he has done), is not as inextricably linked to a single analytic paradigm; the perfect is also formed with other auxiliaries (мондааст), and the passive voice has its own finite synthetic forms (e.g., 3rd person singular past passive карда шуд – it was done).
4. Functional Range: Both languages use participles as attributes, predicates, and in adverbial phrases. However, English makes extensive use of non-finite clauses with participles where Tajik might prefer a finite subordinate clause. For example, "The book written by the professor is famous" often translates as "Китобе, ки аз ҷониби профессор навишта шудааст, машҳур аст" (The book that was written by the professor...), showing a preference for a finite passive clause over a participial phrase.

4. Discussion

The obtained results confirm the initial hypothesis of a profound typological difference in expressing voice in participles. These differences stem from the overall morphological profiles of the languages.

Theoretical Implications.

1. On the Status of the Category: In Tajik, voice in participles is a lexical-grammatical category closely tied to word formation. Choosing -анда or -а creates different lexico-grammatical units (often new words: донишҷӯ (student) vs. хонанда (reader)). In English, it is a more purely grammatical category realized within syntactic paradigms.
2. The Active-Passive Dichotomy: The analysis challenges a simple binary opposition. Tajik presents a clearer formal divide. English presents a gradient: the present participle is prototypically active but can be part of a passive; the past participle is prototypically passive but can express active perfect. This shows the polyfunctionality of English non-finite forms.
3. Typological Explanation: English, as an analytic language, compensates for its poor morphology with rigid syntax and auxiliary verbs. Hence, voice is often a property of a phrase, not a word. Tajik, with its richer synthetic tradition (inherited from Old Iranian), encodes more grammatical information, including voice orientation, directly into the participial word form via suffixes.
4. Translation Challenges: The lack of one-to-one correspondence leads to frequent transformations in translation: Tajik active participles may be translated by English present participles, gerunds, or relative clauses; Tajik passive participles may correspond to English past participles, relative clauses in passive voice, or even nominalizations. For instance, кобили дидан (worthy of seeing) uses a passive participle where English uses a gerund.

Limitations of the Study. This study focuses on the standard literary forms of both languages. Dialectal variations, especially in Tajik, and historical evolution have not been considered. The analysis is primarily synchronic.

Directions for Future Research. Further studies could: 

• Quantitatively analyze the frequency of participial constructions in comparable corpora.
• Investigate the acquisition of these structures by Tajik learners of English and vice versa.
• Explore the diachronic development of participial voice in both language families.

5. Conclusion

This contrastive study has provided a systematic theoretical analysis of the category of voice in Tajik and English participles. The central conclusion is that the realization of this category is fundamentally different in nature and mechanism.

In Tajik, voice is an inherent, derivationally fixed feature of the participle itself. The opposition between сифати феълӣ (-анда) and сифати маънулӣ (-а/-и) represents a clear morphological dichotomy primarily governed by the lexical feature of transitivity. The participle system is more self-contained and word-based.

In English, voice is a contextual, syntactic feature that emerges from the combination of a participle (which is more ambiguous) with auxiliary verbs and its position in the sentence. The same -ing or -ed form can participate in both active and passive constructions, making the system more flexible and syntactically driven.