The semantic aspects of Persian spatial term "zir" based on the Principled polysemy model

Authors
M. Daneshvar kashkooli 1
M. Amoozadeh 2
H. Razaei 3
1 PhD student of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
The current paper focuses on polysemy of one highly flexible spatial term in Persian, namely "zir", from the Principled Polysemy Model perspective. The studied applications of "zir" are mostly taken from 'Farhang-e Sokhan-e Anvari' and the Principled Polysemy Model has served as the analytical tool. Besides discussing the semantic aspects of spatial "zir", the study aims to investigate the applicability and efficiency of Principled Polysemy model in semantic analysis this specific term. In fact, we seek to know what strong or weak points the principled polysemy framework shows regarding primary sense specification and distinct senses discrimination. After the model's application on uses of "zir", its primary spatial sense was specified and next, four distinct extended senses were determined and all of them constituted the semantic network of "zir". The results of its semantic analysis within principled polysemy framework confirmed this model's two points of advantage compared to some other leading cognitive investigations especially Lakoff (1987); one in determining the primary sense due to considering certain linguistic criteria in the procedure, and the other in restricting the number of distinct senses by adopting a moderate view towards polysemy. However, the semantic analysis of "zir" in the adopted framework faced some challenges too, among which two more significant issues included the psychological reality of distinct senses and their high level of context-dependency.

Keywords

  • انوری، حسن (۱۳۸۱). فرهنگ سخن. تهران: سخن.

  • حسن‌دوست، محمد (۱۳۸۳). فرهنگ ریشه‌شناختی زبان فارسی. تهران: فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی.

  • راسخ‌مهند، محمد و نفیسه رنجبر ضرابی (1392). «بررسی شبکه معنایی حروف اضافه در و سر». پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی تطبیقی. ش 5. ص. 95-111.

  • زاهدی، کیوان و عاطفه محمدی زیارتی (۱۳۹۰). «شبکه معنایی حرف ‌اضافه فارسی «از» در چهارچوب معناشناسی شناختی». تازه‌های علوم شناختی. ش. ۱. صص ۸۰-۶۷.

  • ‌صفوی، کوروش (۱۳۷۹). درآمدی بر معنی‌شناسی. تهران: سوره مهر.

  • ﮔﻠﻔﺎم، ارﺳﻼن؛ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻲ ﻋﺎﺻﻲ؛ ﻓﺮدوس آﻗﺎﮔﻞ‌زاده و ﻓﺎﻃﻤـﻪ ﻳﻮﺳـﻔﻲ‌راد (۱۳۸۸). «بررسی حرف اﺿﺎﻓه از در چهارچوب ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲِ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ و ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴه آن ﺑﺎ روﻳﻜـﺮد ﺳـﻨﺘﻲ». زﺑﺎن و زبان‌شناسی. ش 10. صص ۶۹-۸۰.

  • ·      گلفام، ارسلان و مهناز کربلایی صادق (در حال انتشار). «نگاهی بر واژه‌های مرکب و مشتق مکان‌ساز در فارسی: رویکرد صرف‌شناختی». جستارهای زبانی‌.

  • ·      مختاری، شهره و حدائق رضائی (۱۳۹۲). «بررسی شناختی شبکه معنایی حرف ‌اضافه «با» در زبان فارسی». زبان‌شناسی و گویش‌های خراسان. ش. ۲. صص ۹۴-۷۳.

  • ·      ناتل خانلری، پرویز (۱۳۶۹). تاریخ زبان فارسی. تهران: نشر نو.

  • نقی‌زاده‌، محمود (۱۳۹۰). بررسی چگونگی ساختاری‌شدن مفهوم فضا در زبان فارسی بر‌اساس زبان‌شناسی شناختی. رساله دکتری گروه زبان‌شناسی. اصفهان: دانشگاه اصفهان.

  • Brugman, C. & G. Lakoff (1988). Cognitive typology and lexical networks. In Steven Small, Garrison Cottrell and Michael Tanenhaus (eds.). Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. pp. 477-507. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Brugman, C. (1981)[1998]. The story of over. Ma thesis. University of California: Berkeley.

  • Coventry, K. R. (1999). “Function, geometry and spatial prepositions: Three experiments”. Spatial Cognition and Computation. Vol. 1. 145–154.

  • Evans, V. & M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Evans, V. (2000). The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Doctoral thesis. Linguistics Dept. Georgetown University.

  • Evans, V. (2005). “The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure”. Journal of Linguistics. 41 (01). pp. 33-75.

  • Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kreitzer, A. (1997). “Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space”. Cognitive Linguistics. 8. pp. 291-325.

  • Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago.

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • Langacker, R. W. (1991 a). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Leibniz, G. W. (1765). Nouveeaux Essats sur L’entendement Humain (Ectrits en 1704, Pulies 1765). In Leibniz (Ed.). In Philosophische Schriften. vol. Akademia, Berlin. pp. 39-527.

  • Levinson, S. C. & D. Wilkins (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lock, J. (1689). In: Nidditch. P.H. (Ed.). An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Luraghi, S. (2009). “A model for representing polysemy: The Italian da. In Actes du Colloque “Autour de la Preposition”". Jacques Francois, Eric Gilbert, Claude Guimier & Maxi Krause (eds). 167-178. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.

  • Rice, S. (1993). “Far afield in lexical fields: the English prepositions”. In: Michael Bernstein (ed.). ESCOL 92. pp. 206-217.

  • Rosch, E. (1975). “Cognitive representations of semantic categories”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 104. pp. 192-233.

  • Rosch, E. (1978). “Principles of categorization”. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.). Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Sandra, D. & S. Rice  (1995). “Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind - the linguist’s or the language user’s?” Cognitive Linguistics. 6(1). pp. 89-130.

  • Sandra, D. & S. Ri (1998). “What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft”. Cognitive Linguistics. 9(4). pp. 361-378.

  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II. Typology and process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  • Tyler, A. & V. Evans (2001). "Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over". Language. 77(4). pp. 724-765.

  • Tyler, A. & V. Evans (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tyler, A. & V. Evans (2004). “Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: the case of over” In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.). Cognitive linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 257-280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Yunkyoung Kang Kang, M. S., (2012). Cognitive linguistics approach to Semantics of spatial Relations in Korean. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University.


 



Language Related Research
Volume 7, Issue 5
November and December 2016
Pages 415-442