Volume 13, Issue 4 (2022)
LRR 2022, 13(4): 691-725 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tabeshfar L, Sharifi S, Haghbin F. Introducing “Construction and Interpretation” As a New Approach to Morphology. LRR 2022; 13 (4) :691-725
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48881-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48881-en.html
1- PhD.Candidate, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2- Associate professor, Linguistics department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdwosi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran ,sh-sharifi@um.ac.ir
3- Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate professor, Linguistics department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdwosi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran ,
3- Professor of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1449 Views)
The purpose of this paper has been an introduction of a new approach into morphology as “construction and interpretation”. To achieve this goal, some parts of Role and Reference Theory has been extended to morphology; it has integrated with a new approach and constructed new perspective as “construction and interpretation”. This new approach has been provided to analyze how conceptualization in language is and how the function of correlate between polysemy and synonymy is and what causes this correlation. This new approach has been provided within inflectional and simple morphology to analyze some affixes and words that have been selected randomly. It has been performed in three steps: in the first step, different morphological approaches about polysemy have been reviewed, in the second step, the proposed approach has been presented and in the third step, problematic samples of previous approaches within the proposed approach have been analyzed. The results suggest that usage is different from meaning and it is the basis of language and axis of conceptualization. Usage simultaneously and continuously is in interaction with both meaning and form. This simultaneous and permanent interaction causes correlative and competitive formation of polysemy and synonymy. Pragmatic competence is in the mind of the speaker, so the speaker refers by creating interaction among usage, meaning and form inside cultural cognition and context, and the listener interprets and infers the reference unit or “construction”, in this way, conceptualization of form takes place.
Booij (2010) suggests that the affix has no meaning and assumes general scheme for each affix. He believes that affixes have no meaning and that the meaning of derived words results from the meaning of the base and the morphological structure in which the base is placed.
Karimidoostan & Moradi (2011a.) argue the function of some Persian's Suffixes like /-ande/ and /-ar/ violate Liber's viewpoint. They believe that polysemy in these affixes is due to homonymity or metaphorical expansion.
Rafiei (2012) eliminates argument structure from Liber's viewpoint to explain polysemy in some Persian's adjectives. He considers feature meanings with two positive and negative values for each affix that logically create polysemy.
3. Methodology
This study has been performed in three steps: in the first step, within previous approaches, different morphological approaches about polysemy and synonymy have been reviewed, in the second step, the proposed approach has been presented that it is based on this hypothesis to creating interaction between usage and form plays a role in conceptualization. In the third step, samples of polysemy, synonymy and correlated polysemy and synonymy have been analyzed in different parts of morphology and with focus on nominative adjective; In the end, the hypothesis has been proven. Some qualified samples were selected in this respect. The focus was on choosing morphological patterns of nominative adjective in terms of derivation. These patterns have been collected from various researches analyzing within the approach of “construction and interpretation.
4. Results
Analyzing the samples suggests that morphology has a communicational function like syntax; although this function is less than syntax .Usage, due to its dynamic and flowing nature, is different from meaning and is the basis of language and the axis of conceptualization. An inseparable amalgamation of form and meaning is not possible. Meaning is not in the essence of grammatical units rather it is as a pragmatic competence in the minds of speakers .The speaker in the context of cultural cognition, according to the situation of verbal communication refers by creating an interaction among usage, form and meaning; the listener infers and interprets the reference unit or “construction”, and in this way, conceptualization takes place. Applying usage and creating interaction between it and form or meaning, the speaker creates a new construction and by interpreting this construction by the listener, communication successfully establishes. Interaction of the usage with form and meaning, respectively forms polysemy and synonymy. Its simultaneous interaction with form and meaning also forms correlated, competitive polysemy and synonymy; so that neither overcomes the other completely and both continue to co- existe in parallel.
5. Discussion
According to the authors, usage is the fundamental element of language because there can be one form and several meanings and several forms and one meaning; while there exists no form and meaning in parallel to another form and a meaning in different parts of morphology. Sometimes the interaction between usage and form makes a meaning and sometimes the interaction between usage and meaning makes the form. In fact, the final production of any construction in language is based on the interaction among usage, form, and meaning. The speaker connects the intended usage and the form or meaning, depending on the communication position relative to the listener. In this case, the speaker produces a new meaning or form as “construction”, the listener interprets the new construction and conceptualization takes place.
6. Conclusion
The data analyses led to a new perspective in “construction and interpretation” approach; which implies that different meanings of each morphological unit appear in the mind of the speaker as a conversational implication. At the initial production stage of each morphological unit, the speaker attributes their intended usage to any of the lexical forms and creates interactions between usage and form; the listener also interprets the interaction formed and primary meaning is formed.
The primary usage becomes the relatively fixed and social meaning of the form and it is recorded in dictionaries. In this case, a relative connection forms between form and meaning. Afterward, the speaker can associate a new usage to the form or meaning, based on the conversation situation. In this way, the speaker creates a new meaning or form as “construction” and the listener also interprets that and every time a new concept is created.
- Introduction
- Literature Review
Booij (2010) suggests that the affix has no meaning and assumes general scheme for each affix. He believes that affixes have no meaning and that the meaning of derived words results from the meaning of the base and the morphological structure in which the base is placed.
Karimidoostan & Moradi (2011a.) argue the function of some Persian's Suffixes like /-ande/ and /-ar/ violate Liber's viewpoint. They believe that polysemy in these affixes is due to homonymity or metaphorical expansion.
Rafiei (2012) eliminates argument structure from Liber's viewpoint to explain polysemy in some Persian's adjectives. He considers feature meanings with two positive and negative values for each affix that logically create polysemy.
3. Methodology
This study has been performed in three steps: in the first step, within previous approaches, different morphological approaches about polysemy and synonymy have been reviewed, in the second step, the proposed approach has been presented that it is based on this hypothesis to creating interaction between usage and form plays a role in conceptualization. In the third step, samples of polysemy, synonymy and correlated polysemy and synonymy have been analyzed in different parts of morphology and with focus on nominative adjective; In the end, the hypothesis has been proven. Some qualified samples were selected in this respect. The focus was on choosing morphological patterns of nominative adjective in terms of derivation. These patterns have been collected from various researches analyzing within the approach of “construction and interpretation.
4. Results
Analyzing the samples suggests that morphology has a communicational function like syntax; although this function is less than syntax .Usage, due to its dynamic and flowing nature, is different from meaning and is the basis of language and the axis of conceptualization. An inseparable amalgamation of form and meaning is not possible. Meaning is not in the essence of grammatical units rather it is as a pragmatic competence in the minds of speakers .The speaker in the context of cultural cognition, according to the situation of verbal communication refers by creating an interaction among usage, form and meaning; the listener infers and interprets the reference unit or “construction”, and in this way, conceptualization takes place. Applying usage and creating interaction between it and form or meaning, the speaker creates a new construction and by interpreting this construction by the listener, communication successfully establishes. Interaction of the usage with form and meaning, respectively forms polysemy and synonymy. Its simultaneous interaction with form and meaning also forms correlated, competitive polysemy and synonymy; so that neither overcomes the other completely and both continue to co- existe in parallel.
5. Discussion
According to the authors, usage is the fundamental element of language because there can be one form and several meanings and several forms and one meaning; while there exists no form and meaning in parallel to another form and a meaning in different parts of morphology. Sometimes the interaction between usage and form makes a meaning and sometimes the interaction between usage and meaning makes the form. In fact, the final production of any construction in language is based on the interaction among usage, form, and meaning. The speaker connects the intended usage and the form or meaning, depending on the communication position relative to the listener. In this case, the speaker produces a new meaning or form as “construction”, the listener interprets the new construction and conceptualization takes place.
6. Conclusion
The data analyses led to a new perspective in “construction and interpretation” approach; which implies that different meanings of each morphological unit appear in the mind of the speaker as a conversational implication. At the initial production stage of each morphological unit, the speaker attributes their intended usage to any of the lexical forms and creates interactions between usage and form; the listener also interprets the interaction formed and primary meaning is formed.
The primary usage becomes the relatively fixed and social meaning of the form and it is recorded in dictionaries. In this case, a relative connection forms between form and meaning. Afterward, the speaker can associate a new usage to the form or meaning, based on the conversation situation. In this way, the speaker creates a new meaning or form as “construction” and the listener also interprets that and every time a new concept is created.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |