Word construction
Kourosh Karimi; Arezoo Najafian; Razieh Mahdi Beyraghdar; Seyed Mohammad Hosseini-Maasoum
Abstract
This study attempted to explore the hierarchical schematic system governing the formation of Sorani Kurdish exocentric nominal compounds to achieve their general meaning making model via the application of analytical-descriptive method based on Booij's (2010) construction morphology framework. In the ...
Read More
This study attempted to explore the hierarchical schematic system governing the formation of Sorani Kurdish exocentric nominal compounds to achieve their general meaning making model via the application of analytical-descriptive method based on Booij's (2010) construction morphology framework. In the first phase of data collection, 1400 nominal compounds of Kurdish-Persian Dictionary of Hahnbane Burina (Sharafkandi, 1991) and Persian-Kurdish Dictionary of university of Kurdistan (2014). Data analysis phase initiated with the identification of exocentric nominal compounds of the corpus by making use of Scalise and Goyura's (2011) hyponymy test beside the judgement of two author of the study as native speakers of Sorani Kurdish. Finally, 842 instantiations or 60% were found to be exocentric. The results showed that Sorani Kurdish exocentric compounds dominated by one macro-schema, 12 second-order schemas, and 54 sub-schemas. The results can be counted as a proof for the fact that nominal compounds of this type neither in form nor in semantic specifications are in total agreement with constituting elements. In other words, the rupture of motivation and blockage of the relationship between form and meaning is not a general feature among all exocentric compounds, while instantiations of this type cover a wide range of words with less dark meaning to absolutely dark lexical items. Accordingly, some of the nominal compounds did not benefit from formal head while the output constructions fall under “noun” as their parts of speech; thus it is the schemas that are effective both in determination of formal and semantic characteristics manifested in the output.
Reza Heidarizadi; Seyed Mohammad Hosseini-Maasoum; Arezoo Najafian; Belqeis Roshan
Abstract
1. Introduction
Persian compound verbs have been the topic of much research and have been investigated on the basis of various approaches. A clear fact about complex predicates is that they are constructions formed by more than one lexeme. The light verb in a complex predicate is the head and the other ...
Read More
1. Introduction
Persian compound verbs have been the topic of much research and have been investigated on the basis of various approaches. A clear fact about complex predicates is that they are constructions formed by more than one lexeme. The light verb in a complex predicate is the head and the other segments are considered as nonverbal. This paper tries to describe how complex predicates formed by the light verb "Kard-an = to do" are derived. On the one hand, complex predicates are regarded as lexical units as they are input to morphological rules; on the other hand, they have been supposed to be syntactic because they can split in syntax like independent lexical items. This paper describes morphological derivation of Persian complex predicates and their syntactic separability on the basis of Phase Derivation Theory which has recently gained much attention in the minimalist tradition. The data were extracted out from Sokhan Dictionary and the online version of the Persian Linguistic Database. Tree diagrams are usually used in this theory to show the details of the structural derivations. Phase derivation theory (Chomsky, 2000, 2001, 2008) is the newest version of the generative grammar. Marantz (2001, 2007), Di Sciullo (2003) referred to the morphological phases inside word structure and explained how derivation is performed morphologically. Megerdoomian (2002) following Marantz (1997) and Chomsky (2000) claimed that there is a phase head in Persian complex predicates. In studies by Vahedi-Langrudi (1996), Karimi (1997), Megerdoomian (2002), Folli, Harley, and Karimi (2005), and Pantcheva (2008), Persian complex predicates are syntactic unites as output of the syntactic operations. Karimi Doostan (1997) regarded complex predicates as morphosyntactic units.
2. Methodology
This paper deals with two theoretical problems: first, how is the complex predicate derived, which leads to the interaction of morphology and syntax; second, why does the interaction between morphology and syntax take place during the derivation of complex predicates. In this paper, complex predicates are the output of the derivational operations in morphology that are in turn the input of the syntactic operations, so the interaction between morphology and syntax emerges. The derivation method suggested here is that roots and categories are merged first. Roots are bare and have no category and inflection. Then, a phase head is merged which carries inflectional or functional information. Phase head in complex predicates is a light verb head (v) which is merged after the merge of all the roots. The sister of the phase head is called the phase domain. This domain is impenetrable. By phase impenetrability condition, phase domain is transmitted to the interface levels and remains out of the access of syntactic operations; while, phase head plus Spec-phase is at the phase edge which is accessible to the syntactic operations. Before the spell-out, every segment should satisfy its computational needs.
3. Results and Discussion:
In Persian grammar, verb roots represent out as a tensed stem. In other words, verb root is [u-tense] which should be checked during the derivation. It is possible for a phase head to have [tense] feature (Chomsky, 2008; 2013); so, it is assumed that phase head (v) carries feature [tense]. Before spelling out, the verb root "Kon = do" in the phase domain is adjoined to (v) to check [u-tense]. By default, in Persian the nonverbal segment is represented before the verb head. Based on the correspondence axiom principle (Chomsky, 1995) the linear order is dependent on the c-command in the derivation; that is, the nonverbal element is located at the phase edge and c-commands the light verb. The nonverbal element moves in order to omit [EPP] feature of the phase head and to remain in a common derivational domain near the light verb, so that they spell out in a common step of the derivation and hence, the interpretation of the complex predicate is performed in a common minimal domain. Therefore, the verb root adjoined to the phase head (v) operates as a light verb head, and the nonverbal is adjoined to the phase edge, which is accessible to syntactic operations and can split in syntax. In some cases, a lexical root which moves to the phase edge is adjoined to an affix head. According to Lieber's (1980) morphological theory, every affix has a subcategorization frame containing the category information and the selectional restrictions. When a lexical root moves to edge of the morphological phase; if adjoined to an affix, it is inserted into the subcategorization frame.
4. Conclusion
It is concluded that the complex predicates are derived by a morphological phase. The domain of the phase remains out of access to syntactic operations. But the nonverbal element in the phase edge is accessible to the syntactic operations and becomes separable in syntax. Then, the complex predicates are derived by a phase the edge of which can split in syntax and remain separable during the syntactic derivation.
Arezoo Najafian; Belghis Rovshan; Zahra Ghirati
Abstract
1- Introduction
The literature review of Persian suffixes show that “-i, -in, -ineh, -gan, -ganeh, -aneh, and -iyeh/yeh” are attributive suffixes. Linguistic evidences show that once these suffixes are added to a word, in addition to the central senses of “related to” and “attributed to”, ...
Read More
1- Introduction
The literature review of Persian suffixes show that “-i, -in, -ineh, -gan, -ganeh, -aneh, and -iyeh/yeh” are attributive suffixes. Linguistic evidences show that once these suffixes are added to a word, in addition to the central senses of “related to” and “attributed to”, they add peripheral sense such as possession, similarity, possibility, obligation, origin, direction, goal, rank, manner, limit, quantity, intermediary, and so on to some words. Such secondary senses are actually related to pragmatics. The way the main senses are related to the pragmatic ones is the subject of study of morphopragmatics which explains the pragmatic roles of words within morphological process and in relation with other words. The aim of the present research is the morphopragmatical study of attribution derivational suffixes in Persian in terms of Jurafsky radial model (1996).
2- Theoretical Framework
Lakoff (1987) argues in his idealized cognitive model (ICM) that words show radial categories. Following Lakoff’s radial category model, Jurafsky (1996) performed a typological study of “diminutive” in different languages in terms of morphopragmatics and proposed that semantic expansion and relation can be a reason for the plurality of pragmatic characteristics. He came to the conclusion that the numerous meanings of diminutive affixes are extensions of the central senses of child/small/female gender which are related to the main meanings of child/small/female gender through different semantic change mechanisms such as metaphor, inference, generalization, and lambda-abstraction.
The radial category is a graphic representation of a polysemous category, composed of a central and main meaning of “prototype”, which is represented in a network of nodes and links through the expansion of its meaning. Nodes show meanings, and links show metamorphic extensions, transfer in terms of mental overall plans, transfer to different domains, or inference. Therefore, once interpreted as a synchronic phenomenon, the radial category describes active relations among the notions of a polysemous category, and once interpreted as a diachronic phenomenon, it reaches expansions on different mechanisms of semantic change.
3- Methodology
The methodology of the present research is descriptive-analytical, with both library and field data collection methods. The data for the present research are collected from the spoken (conversational) and written versions of the Persian language in different ways. At the beginning, we used some Persian dictionaries such as Ravaghi Dictionary of Persian Suffixes (2009), Farshidvard Dictionary of Persian Prefixes and Suffixes (2007), The Zansou Kashani Persian Dictionary (1993), and Suffix Derivation in Contemporary Persian Language (Kashani, 1992). We used suffix derivative words (attributive suffixes) for note taking on cards. We also used the daily conversation of persons in different contexts and situations for finding out suffixes which are used in everyday conversational Persian. We named different usages of suffixes based on Syntax Patterns in the Persian Language (Sameei and Tafsiri, 2004). We also made some innovations based on prior researches.
4- Results & Discussion
The study of attributive affixes show that the main and central sense of these affixes has always been “attribution”, and that they are used in the meaning of “related to” or “attributed to”. However, in the contemporary Persian language, in addition to this central sense, affixes have got other different pragmatic senses which have been derived from the main sense through different mechanisms in different eras based on different needs of speakers. Furthermore, the analysis of data and drawing of the radial diagram of attributive suffixes showed that some of their pragmatic senses overlap with the semantic domains of other derivative suffixes such as diminutive, similarity, and place suffixes.
5- Conclusions & Suggestions
The overlapping of the pragmatic senses of attributive suffixes with other derivative suffixes of the Persian language shows network links between different linguistic senses which have always been in continuous interaction all through the history. The relation nodes among the semantic network of words are so interconnected that sometimes the prominence of one relation leads to the prominence of some other relational branches, in a way that different meanings are conveyed to mind. Language works in terms of a network all through its history, a complicated and heavily interconnected network which leads to the creation of different meanings and applications in language. In some cases, the pragmatic meaning of an attributive suffix overlaps with the meaning and application of other attributive suffixes or even that of other suffixes of the Persian language such as suffixes of similarity, description, possession, and diminutive. All suffixes subject to this study (“-i, -in, -ineh, -gan, -ganeh, -aneh, and -iyeh/yeh, či, eki, and ou) rotate around one network and are correlated in some way. Another important point is that the process of semantic change in the attributive suffixes of the Persian language conforms to the “unidirectionality of semantic change” claim of Lak off (1987) and Jurafsky (1996) radial model, i.e., diachronically speaking, the meanings of the attributive suffixes of the Persian language are expanded from the central meanings to peripherial ones of the category.
Key Words: Morphopragmatics, attributive derivational suffix, cognitive approach, Jurafsky radial model.
References (in Persian)
Ravaghi, A.(2009).Dictionary of Persian Suffixes, Tehran: Academy Persian Language and Literature.
Sameei,H. and M.Tafsiri.(2004). Syntax Patterns in the Persian Language, Tehran: Academy Persian Language and Literature.
Farshidvard,Kh.(2007). Dictionary of Persian Prefixes and Suffixes, Tehran.
Keshani,Kh.(1993). The Zansou Persian Dictionary, Tehran: University Publication Centre.,
Keshani,Kh.(1992). Suffix Derivation in Contemporary Persian Language, Tehran:University Publication Centre.
References (in English)
Dressler W. & Merlini – Barbaresi, L (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. In Werner (Ed), Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 76. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, B. et al. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Frame work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jurafsky, Daniel. (1996). “Universal tendencies in the Semantics of the diminutive”. Language, Source: Language, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 533-578.
Kiefer, F. (1998). Morphology and Pragmatics. In A. Spencer & S. Zwicky, The handbook of morphology (pp. 272-279). Massachusetts Blackwell.
Klaus Laalo(2001). Diminutives in Finnish Child-Diercted and Child Speech: Morphophonemic and Morphophonemic Aspects,
Psychology of Language and Communication, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp.71-80.
Körtvélyessy, Lívia (2015).Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Newcastle.Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lakoff, G (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Meibauer, Jorg (2014). Word-formation and Contextualism. International Review of Pragmatics ,Vol. 6,pp. 103–126.
Prieto,Moises,victor(2005).Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Socialinguistic, and Semantic Issue.PhD Dessertation, University of Florida.
