Volume 14, Issue 2 (2023)
LRR 2023, 14(2): 261-292 |
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:
Imani A. The Superlative Comparison Schemas in Persian. LRR 2023; 14 (2) :261-292
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-53130-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-53130-en.html
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran , ava.imani@basu.ac.ir
Abstract: (2358 Views)
The present paper aims to investigate the superlative comparison schemas and to capture the way this grammatical notion is encoded linguistically in Persian based on Heine’s (1997) cognitive approach. To this end, all comparative constructions involving the notion of superlative comparison were collected as our data through a comprehensive search of the Colloquial Persian Dictionary by Najafi (2008). The research hypothesis is that Heine’s proposed model cannot account for the Persian data. The results of the study showed that in Persian, five more schemas, namely the Linking, the Possession, the Equation, the Body part, the Idiomatic schemas and three more subschemas, as well as some schema blends encoded the superlative notion, in addition to the eight schemas listed in Heine’s. Furthermore, it seemed that some schemas (subschemas), especially the Linking schema, were specific to Persian and they had not been documented in Heine's approach. Moreover, the formal expression of the degree marker, the marker of standard, and the standard was not obligatory and, in such cases, the superlative comparative meaning was encoded by an element that combined the meaning of these elements together in some way or other. Finally, our hypothesis was confirmed and the study ended with a suggestion to modify Hein's schema list to account for the Persian data.
1. Introduction
Comparison is a cognitive general concept in human language dealing with the description of the status and the howness of two or more entities compared to each other. This conceptual domain is encoded in a variety of ways in the languages of the world. Heine (1997: 109) points out “the domain of comparison in general, and the term comparative construction in particular, refer to a number of different conceptual and linguistic forms and the main kinds of comparative notions that are commonly distinguished are as follows: 1- positive, 2-equative, 3- superior comparative, 4- inferior comparative, 5- superlative, 6- elative, 7- excessive.” The superlative notion as a main kind of comparative notion, concerns with the description of the status of one entity and its superiority or priority to more than two entities. The present study aims to focus on this kind of comparative construction, namely “the superlative”.
In Persian, there are a variety of comparative constructions including various types of superlatives, some of them are not observed and attested in other languages due to the existence of some characteristic features, such as “Ezafe construction”, as well as some morphological constructions (phrasal/complex predicates). The present study is innovative and practical in identifying comparative constructions not documented in Heine's cognitive approach making some suggestions to modify this model to make it more comprehensive and inclusive to account for the comparative constructions in the languages of the world. This research will provide the answer to the following questions:
Research Question(s)
1-Which schemas are used to encode the superlative comparative notion in Persian?
2-To what extend Heine’s cognitive approach (1997) is able to account for the superlative comparative constructions in this language?
3-What morpho-syntactic mechanisms does the Persian language use to encode the notion of "superlative comparison"?
2. Literature Review
Among the first seminal works on comparison and comparative constructions, it can be referred to Ultan (1972) and Stassen's (1985) classification of the comparative constructions in different languages of the world. An interesting fact pointed out by Stassen (1985) and, a decade later, by Breivik (1994) is that most languages do not have a separate construction, but employ existing ones to convey difference in gradeability (Parra-Guinaldo, 2011: 141). Furthermore, some researches have been done about thr comparative constructions in the English language based on these fundamental works. For example, using parallel corpora, Nose (2010) examines different types of comparative constructions in three languages, English, Japanese, and Tok Pisin based on Stassen's classification. He claims that the functional differences observed in the comparatives of three languages can be explained in terms of the transitivity model. The last but not the least study, Paraginaldo (2011) investigates the comparative constructions -more than in Old English and he proposes grammaticalization as a proper explanation for the evolution of the grammatical form "particle" from a lexical form.
As the focus of the present study is to investigate the superlative comparative constructions, the theoretical framework applied here is that of Heine’s (1997) cognitive approach examining all kinds of comparative constructions in the languages of the world as the schematic constructions which are usually formed based on other more abstract conceptual sources. Heine (1997, 111) calls these conceptual source structures as event schemas. This study is the first research investigating the superlative comparative constructions in Persian benefiting from a cognitive approach.
3. Methodology
As far as the methodology of present research is concerned, this research is a corpus-based and descriptive-analytic study. The data and examples mentioned in this study were extracted from The Colloquial Persian Dictionary by Najafi (2008). The corpus on which this dictionary is based comprises more than 120 prose works of Modern Persian. These works include short stories, novels, periodicals, books and articles. Then, the superlative comparison schemas were identified based on Heine’s cognitive approach (1997) as the theoretical framework.
4. Results and Discussion
The findings of the present research revealed that, in addition to the eight schemas proposed by Heine, five more schemas and three more subschemas were used to encode the superlative notion in this language. The important fact obtained from the results of the study is that the Linking Schema as a language-specific schema in Persian not been observed in other languages of the world, is used frequently not only to express the comparison notion, but also it is used to express some other grammatical notions, such as possession. This fact itself might be considered as one of the typological consequences of the free word order in this language, compared to other languages such as English (having a rather fixed word order) which give rise to form the various superlative comparison schemas in Persian.
Therefore, although Heine’s cognitive approach to the study of comparison can explain many of the comparative constructions in the languages of the worlds, it needs to be modified to account for the superlative comparative constructions in this language. Below, the figure (1) demonstrates the author’s suggestion to modify Hein's schema list to account for the Persian data:
Fig 1.
The superlative comparison schemas in Persian
Furthermore, the findings indicated that the Persian language used more various morpho-syntactic mechanisms to encode the superlative comparative notion. That’s why, the components "parameter marker" and "standard marker" had no formal expression in most of the comparative constructions in this language and their presence was mostly optional.
5. Conclusion
This research was conducted with the aim of examining the superlative comparison schemas in Persian based on Heine’s (1997) cognitive approach. The findings of the present research showed that in addition to the eight schemas proposed by Heine, five more schemas, namely the Linking, the Possession, the Equation, the Body Part, the Idiomatic Schemas and three more subschemas, as well as some schema blends encoded the superlative notion in Persian.
Furthermore, it was found that the Linking Schema expressing the superlative comparative constructions in Persian can be considered as a language-specific schema not observed and documented in the list of languages studied by Heine. Moreover, the results indicated that due to the existence of some typological features in this language, such as “Ezafe construction”, “free word order”, as well as other morpho-syntactic items including the constructional idioms, some lexical items and phrasal/complex predicates, the formal expression of "parameter marker", "standard marker" and "standard" in Persian is not obligatory and their order is flexible.
Finally, it was revealed that Persian used more various morpho-syntactic mechanisms, such as reduplication, Ezafe construction, reduplifixation, complex predicates and some lexical items meaning 'better/superior', constructional idioms, and idiomatic/proverbial expressions, compared with other Languages. So, we came to the conclusion that Heine's proposed model is not adequate enough to capture the Persian language. This study ended with a suggestion to modify Hein's schema list to account for the Persian data
1. Introduction
Comparison is a cognitive general concept in human language dealing with the description of the status and the howness of two or more entities compared to each other. This conceptual domain is encoded in a variety of ways in the languages of the world. Heine (1997: 109) points out “the domain of comparison in general, and the term comparative construction in particular, refer to a number of different conceptual and linguistic forms and the main kinds of comparative notions that are commonly distinguished are as follows: 1- positive, 2-equative, 3- superior comparative, 4- inferior comparative, 5- superlative, 6- elative, 7- excessive.” The superlative notion as a main kind of comparative notion, concerns with the description of the status of one entity and its superiority or priority to more than two entities. The present study aims to focus on this kind of comparative construction, namely “the superlative”.
In Persian, there are a variety of comparative constructions including various types of superlatives, some of them are not observed and attested in other languages due to the existence of some characteristic features, such as “Ezafe construction”, as well as some morphological constructions (phrasal/complex predicates). The present study is innovative and practical in identifying comparative constructions not documented in Heine's cognitive approach making some suggestions to modify this model to make it more comprehensive and inclusive to account for the comparative constructions in the languages of the world. This research will provide the answer to the following questions:
Research Question(s)
1-Which schemas are used to encode the superlative comparative notion in Persian?
2-To what extend Heine’s cognitive approach (1997) is able to account for the superlative comparative constructions in this language?
3-What morpho-syntactic mechanisms does the Persian language use to encode the notion of "superlative comparison"?
2. Literature Review
Among the first seminal works on comparison and comparative constructions, it can be referred to Ultan (1972) and Stassen's (1985) classification of the comparative constructions in different languages of the world. An interesting fact pointed out by Stassen (1985) and, a decade later, by Breivik (1994) is that most languages do not have a separate construction, but employ existing ones to convey difference in gradeability (Parra-Guinaldo, 2011: 141). Furthermore, some researches have been done about thr comparative constructions in the English language based on these fundamental works. For example, using parallel corpora, Nose (2010) examines different types of comparative constructions in three languages, English, Japanese, and Tok Pisin based on Stassen's classification. He claims that the functional differences observed in the comparatives of three languages can be explained in terms of the transitivity model. The last but not the least study, Paraginaldo (2011) investigates the comparative constructions -more than in Old English and he proposes grammaticalization as a proper explanation for the evolution of the grammatical form "particle" from a lexical form.
As the focus of the present study is to investigate the superlative comparative constructions, the theoretical framework applied here is that of Heine’s (1997) cognitive approach examining all kinds of comparative constructions in the languages of the world as the schematic constructions which are usually formed based on other more abstract conceptual sources. Heine (1997, 111) calls these conceptual source structures as event schemas. This study is the first research investigating the superlative comparative constructions in Persian benefiting from a cognitive approach.
3. Methodology
As far as the methodology of present research is concerned, this research is a corpus-based and descriptive-analytic study. The data and examples mentioned in this study were extracted from The Colloquial Persian Dictionary by Najafi (2008). The corpus on which this dictionary is based comprises more than 120 prose works of Modern Persian. These works include short stories, novels, periodicals, books and articles. Then, the superlative comparison schemas were identified based on Heine’s cognitive approach (1997) as the theoretical framework.
4. Results and Discussion
The findings of the present research revealed that, in addition to the eight schemas proposed by Heine, five more schemas and three more subschemas were used to encode the superlative notion in this language. The important fact obtained from the results of the study is that the Linking Schema as a language-specific schema in Persian not been observed in other languages of the world, is used frequently not only to express the comparison notion, but also it is used to express some other grammatical notions, such as possession. This fact itself might be considered as one of the typological consequences of the free word order in this language, compared to other languages such as English (having a rather fixed word order) which give rise to form the various superlative comparison schemas in Persian.
Therefore, although Heine’s cognitive approach to the study of comparison can explain many of the comparative constructions in the languages of the worlds, it needs to be modified to account for the superlative comparative constructions in this language. Below, the figure (1) demonstrates the author’s suggestion to modify Hein's schema list to account for the Persian data:
Fig 1.
The superlative comparison schemas in Persian
Furthermore, the findings indicated that the Persian language used more various morpho-syntactic mechanisms to encode the superlative comparative notion. That’s why, the components "parameter marker" and "standard marker" had no formal expression in most of the comparative constructions in this language and their presence was mostly optional.
5. Conclusion
This research was conducted with the aim of examining the superlative comparison schemas in Persian based on Heine’s (1997) cognitive approach. The findings of the present research showed that in addition to the eight schemas proposed by Heine, five more schemas, namely the Linking, the Possession, the Equation, the Body Part, the Idiomatic Schemas and three more subschemas, as well as some schema blends encoded the superlative notion in Persian.
Furthermore, it was found that the Linking Schema expressing the superlative comparative constructions in Persian can be considered as a language-specific schema not observed and documented in the list of languages studied by Heine. Moreover, the results indicated that due to the existence of some typological features in this language, such as “Ezafe construction”, “free word order”, as well as other morpho-syntactic items including the constructional idioms, some lexical items and phrasal/complex predicates, the formal expression of "parameter marker", "standard marker" and "standard" in Persian is not obligatory and their order is flexible.
Finally, it was revealed that Persian used more various morpho-syntactic mechanisms, such as reduplication, Ezafe construction, reduplifixation, complex predicates and some lexical items meaning 'better/superior', constructional idioms, and idiomatic/proverbial expressions, compared with other Languages. So, we came to the conclusion that Heine's proposed model is not adequate enough to capture the Persian language. This study ended with a suggestion to modify Hein's schema list to account for the Persian data
Keywords: comparison, superlative comparative construction, schema, subschema, Heine’s cognitive approach
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |