Analyzing Complex Words in Persian in Construction Morphology and Lexical Morphology/Phonology

Author
Z. Abbasi
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
In Persian, two processes of derivation and compounding are used in a generative way to form new words. Thus, in this paper, in addition to analyzing complex words in Persian in construction morphology and lexical morphology /phonology, it is also tried to answer this question that which model is more effective in the analysis of complex Persian words? According to this question, the following hypothesis is proposed: ‘since construction morphology takes advantage of abstract morphological schemas, it would be more effective to construct hierarchical complex words and to present a semantic analysis of this model in the analysis of complex Persian words.’ Two main processes of compounding and derivation in construction morphology and lexical morphology /phonology were examined with regard to Persian data, comparing them with each other and studying irregular cases in lexical morphology/phonology. The results showed that the above-mentioned models both have a word-based approach to morphology. However, construction morphology, taking advantage of construction concept as the pairing of form and meaning in the analysis of morphological phenomena, proposing abstract schema for word formation patterns, hierarchical formation of complex words and the possibility of justifying their meanings especially endocentric compounds, is more effective than lexical morphology in the analysis of complex words based on Persian data and therefore the hypothesis of the study is accepted.

Keywords

  • آرام، یوسف (1387). «بررسی فرایند اشتقاق در زبان ترکی آذری». پژوهش علوم انسانی. ش 24. صص 185- 207.

  • آرام، یوسف ( 1388). اشتقاق در زبان ترکی آذری. رساله دورۀ دکتری زبان­شناسی. تهران: دانشگاه علامۀ طباطبایی.

  • اگرادی، ویلیام و دیگران (1989). درآمدیبرزبان­شناسیمعاصر. ترجمۀ علی درزی. ج1. تهران: سمت.

  • بهرامی خورشید، سحر (1394)، «کارایی انگارۀ صرف واژگانی تحلیلی بر اساس داده­های زبان فارسی»، جستارهای زبانی. ش 6. صص47-73.

  • زاهدی، محمد­صدی (1392). «لایه­های واژگانی فارسی در مدل واج­شناسی و صرف واژگانی». زبان و ادب فارسی. دانشکدۀ ادبیات و زبان­های خارجی. ش 71. صص35-44.

  • غلام­علی­زاده، خسرو و یداالله فیضی پیرانی (1390). «بررسی لایه­ها و سطوح واژگانی در وندهای زبان فارسی از نگاه صرف واژگانی». پژوهش­های زبان­شناسی. س 3. ش2. صص 65-84.


 



  • Allen, M. (1978). Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. dissertation.
    University of Connecticut.

  • Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge:MIT Press.

  • Booij, G. E. (1996). “Inherent versus contextual inflection and the splitmorphology hypothesis .”eds. G. E. Booij and J. Van Marle. Yearbook of Morphology. Pp. 1- 16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Bochner, H. (1993). Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin. NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Booij, G. (2002a). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Booij, G. (2002b). “Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics. No. 14. Pp 301-327.

  • Booij, G. (2004). “Constructions and the interface between lexicon and syntax”. eds. Henk Aertsen et al. Words in Their Place. Festchrift for J.L. Mackenzie. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

  • Booij, G. (2005a). Construction Morphology. Unpublished Manuscript. Leiden University.

  • Booij, G. (2005b). “Compounding and derivation: evidence for construction morphology”. eds. W. U. Dressler et al. Morphology and its Demarcations. Pp. 109-132. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Booij, G. (2007a). The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Booij, G. (2007b).“Polysemy and construction morphology”. eds. F. Moerdijk et al. Leven         Mmet Woorden. Pp. 336-55. Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie.

  • Booij, G. (2009). “Construction morphology and compounding”. eds. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Stekauer. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp 201-216.

  • Booij, G. (2010a). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Booij, G. (2010b). “Construction morphology”. Language and
     Linguistics Compass    . No. 3(1). (2010). Pp1–13.

  • Booij, G. (2011).“Compounding and construction morphology”. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. eds. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Pp 201-216.

  • Booij, G. (2012). The Grammar of Words. 3rd, Revised and Updated Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bybee, Joan (1995). “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon”. Language and Cognitive Processes. No. 10. Pp. 425-455.

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press.

  • Corbett, Greville G. and N. Fraser (1993). “Network morphology: a
     DATR account of Russian nominal Inflection”Journal of Linguistics. No. 29. Pp. 113-142.

  • Croft, W. and A. Cruse (2003). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Culicover, P. W. and R. Jackendoff (2006). “The simpler syntax hypothesis”. Trends in Cognitive Science. No.10. Pp.413–8.

  • De Jong, Nivja H. et al. (2000). “The  morphological family size effect and morphology". Language and Cognitive Processes. No. 15. Pp. 329-365.

  • Downing, P. (1977). “On the creation and use of English compound nouns”. Language. No.53. Pp. 810–842.

  • Fillmore, Charles J. (1986). “Varieties of conditional sentences".Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Pp. 163-182. Columbus, OH Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.

  • Fillmore, Charles J. et al. (1988). “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of Let Alone". Language. No. 64. Pp. 501–538.

  • Fried, M. and J.-O. Östman (2004). “Construction grammar: a thumbnail sketch”. eds. M. Fried and J.-O Östman. Construction Grammar in a Crosslanguage Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 11-86. eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle. Yearbook of Morphology. 1999. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pp. 221-262.

  • Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Harley, H. and R. Noyer (1999). “Distributed morphology”. GlotInternational: No.4. Pp. 3–9.

  • Halle, M. (1973). Prolegomena to a Theory of Word-formation. Cambridge:MIT Press.

  • Hockett, C. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.

  • Hippisley, A. (2001). “Word formation rules in a default inheritance framework: a network morphology account of Russian personal names”. Inkelas, Sharon and Cheryll, Z. (2005). Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jackendoff, R. S. (1975). “Semantic and morphological regularities in the lexicon”. Language. No.51. Pp. 639-671.

  • Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Koenig, J-P. (1999). Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI.

  • Krieger, H.-U. and J. Nerbonne (1993). “Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons". Ted Briscoe, Ann Copestake, and p. Kiparsky (1982). Lexical Morphology and Phonology. Seoul: Hanshin.

  • Katamba, F. (2006). Morphology. )2nd edition(. USA: Macmillan Press Ltd.

  • Katamba, F. and J. Stonham (2006). Morphology. London: Macmillan Press. LTD.

  • Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical Morphology and Phonology. Seoul: Hanshin.

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

  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Langacker, R. W. (1998a). “Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar”. ed. Michael Tomasello. The new psychology of language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah NJ. / London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publ. Pp. 1-39.

  • Langacker, R. W. (1998b). “Linguistic evidence and mental representations”. Cognitive Linguistics. No. 9. Pp.151-173.

  • Matthews, P. (1974). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Michaelis, L. & K.Lambrecht (1996). “Toward a construction-based theory of language functions: the case of nominal extraposition". Language. No.72. Pp. 215–247.

  • Riehemann, S. Z. (1998). "Type-based Derivational Morphology". The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. No.2. Pp. 49-77.

  • Riehemann, S. Z. (2001). A constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation. PhD Dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University.

  • Schultink, H. (1962). De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern Nederlands. Den Haag: Van Goor Zonen.

  • Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English Morphology. New York: Garland.

  • Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Tomasello, Michael. (2003). “Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language Acquisition”. Cambridge Mass / London Engl. Harvard University Press.

  • Valeria de Paiva (eds.). Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 90-136.

  • Vallès, T. (2003). “Lexcial creativity and the organization of the lexicon”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics. No.1. Pp. 137-160.

  • Van Marle, J. (1985). On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.

Language Related Research
Volume 8, Issue 3
July and August 2017
Pages 67-93