1
PhD student, general linguistics University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2
assistant professor of general linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
. Coercion is a long-discussed issue in linguistics and its mechanisms have been imaged differently. This article tries to introduce the theoreticians' views about the nature of coercion and analyzes this phenomenon in some morphological and syntactic Persian colloquial data. It is supposed that this analysis will elucidate some points in Persian morphology and syntax. This study relies on the framework proposed by Audring and Booij (2016). According to this approach we will expound three coercion mechanisms or effects: selection, enrichment and override. In coercion by selection, the resulting meaning is a part of the semantic repertoire of the coerced word to begin with. From this perspective, coercion works largely ‘bottom-up’, with only a light role for the context selecting one interpretation from the range of alternative readings. In coercion by enrichment, lexical semantics is preserved, but augmented in context. It represents a stronger ‘top-down’ influence, adding meaning to the utterance. In coercion by override, in turn, contextual ‘top-down’ force is strongest; it modifies, replaces, or removes properties of the coerced item. The current research is presented within the framework of Construntion Grammar. The data is based on the the analysis of modern Persian colloquial data drawn from the oral data, including radio and television programs and the researcher's interactions with others and also Google Persian sites sentences. The data analyzed showed that we can put all three above mentioned mechanisms along a single axis, considering the degree of top-down influence of complex morphological and syntactic constructions on the lexical semantics or category of the unified element. Idiomatic constructions are the most radical coercion of the override type. The present study shows the applicability of the approach in Persian data analysis. Moreover, it shows that coercion can support the notion of 'construction' and subsequently the Construction Grammar. Using coercion besides construction, this study presents a new analysis for making not only words basad on possible words but also the so-called fake infinitives.
چارچوب صرف ساختمحور. پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. دانشکده زبانهای خارجی: دانشگاه اصفهان.
رفیعی، عادل (1380). فرضیه افزایش و کاهش معنایی در همنشینی واژههای زبان فارسی. پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد زبانشناسی همگانی. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
رفیعی، عادل (1391). «صرف ساختمحور: شواهدی از فرایندهای واژهسازی در زبان فارسی». مجموعه مقالات هشتمین کنفرانس زبانشناسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
رفیعی، عادل و سارا ترابی (1393). «وراثت و انگیختگی رابطه صورت و معنی در واژگان: نمونههایی از واژهسازی زبان فارسی». علم زبان. د 2، ش 3. صص 49-64.
سلندری رابری، مرادعلی و همکاران (1395). «تکرار بهمثابۀ دوگانسازی صرفی: شواهدی از زبان فارسی».دوماهنامه جستارهای زبانی. د 7. ش 5 (پیایی 33). آذر و دی. صص 91-118.
عباسی، زهرا (1396). «تحلیل واژههای غیربسیط فارسی در صرف واژگانی و صرف ساختی». دوماهنامه جستارهای زبانی. د 8. ش 3 (پیاپی 38). مرداد و شهریور. صص 67-93.
صفوی، کورش (1390). درآمدی بر معنیشناسی. چاپ چهارم. تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و هنر اسلامی.
محمدی، عباسقلی و همکاران (1390). «توانهای بالقوه و بالفعل زبان فارسی در واژهسازی». نثرپژوهی ادب فارسی (ادب و زبان). دورۀ جدید. ش 30 (پیاپی27). زمستان. صص 281-299.
Abbasi, Z. (forthcoming). “An analysis of complex words in lexical morphology and construction morphology”. Language Related Research. [In Persian].
Aït-Kaci, H. (1984). A Lattice-Theoretic Approach to Computation Based on a Calculus of Partially Ordered Type Structures. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Dissertation.
Audring, J. & G. Booij (2016). “Cooperation and coercion”. Linguistics. Vol. 54(4).Pp. 617-637. Retrieved 18 Nov. 2017, from World Wide Web: doi:10.1515/ling-2016-0012.
Boas, H. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Booij, G. (2002). “Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics. Vol.14 (4). Pp. 301-329.
Booij, G. (2004). “Constructions and the interface between lexicon and syntax”. In H. Aertsen, M. Hannay & G. Steen (Eds.). Words in their Place. Festchrift for J. L. Mackenzie (Pp. 275-281). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2007). “Construction grammar”. In Geerarerts D. & H. Cuykens (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Pp. 463-509). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culicover, P. & R. Jackendoff (2005), Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Swart, H. (1998). “Aspect shift and coercion”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. Vol. 16(2). Pp. 347-385.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1991). “Parts and boundaries”. Cognition. Vol. 41(1). Pp. 9-45.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Jackendoff, R. (2008). “Construction after construction and its theoretical challenge”. Language. Vol. 84. Pp. 8-28.
Lauwers, P & D. Willems (2011), “Coercion: definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends”. Linguistics. Vol. 49. Pp. 1219–1235
Michaelis, L. A. (2003). “Word meaning, sentence meaning and constructional meaning”. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.). Cognitive Perspectives on Lexical Semantics (Pp. 163-210). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). “Type shifting in construction grammar: an integrated approach to aspectual coercion”. Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 15(1). Pp. 1-67.
Michaelis, L. A. (2011). “Stative by construction”. Linguistics. Vol. 49 (6). Pp. 1359-1399.
Moens, M. & M. Steedman (1988). “Temporal ontology and temporal reference”. Computational Linguistics. Vol. 14. Pp. 15–28.
Mohammadi, A.; M. Pourkhaleghi; A. Estaji & Gh. Saiedian, (2011). “Persian actual and potenial resources in word formation. Journal of Literature andLanguage. 30 (27) .[In Persian].
Partee, B. & M. Rooth (1983), “Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity”. In R. Bäuerle, Ch. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.). Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language (Pp. 361–383). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Piñango, M. et al. (1999), “Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax–semantics interface”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Vol. 28. Pp. 395– 414.
Pustejovsky, J. & E. Jezek (2008), “Semantic coercion in language: beyond distributional analysis”. Italian Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 20(1). Pp. 181-214.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995), The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (2011), “Coercion in a general theory of argument selection”. Linguistics. Vol. 49 (6). Pp. 1401-1431
Pustejovsky, J. & B. McElree (2007), “An MEG study of silent meaning”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Vol.19. Pp. 1905–1921.
Pustejovsky, J. (2008), “Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior”. Language and LinguisticsCompass. Vol. 2. Pp.712–738.
Rafiei, A. & S. Torabi (2015), “Inheritance and motivation of form and meaning in lexicon: instances of Persian word formation patterns”, Language Science, (3) 49-65 .[In Persian].
Rafiei, A. (2001). A Hypothesis of Semantic Decreasing and Increasing in the Co-occurance of Persian Words. M.A Thesis, Allameh Tabatabayi University. [In Persian].
Rafiei, A. (2012). “Construction morphology: evidences from Persian word formation processes”, Proceedings of the 8th Iranian Conference on Linguistics, Tehran, Allameh Tabatabayi University.Pp. 327-336. [In Persian].
Safavi, K. (2000). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Islamic culture and art Institute. [In Persian].
Salandari, M. A.; A. Rafiei & B. Alinezhad (forthcoming). “Reduplication as Morphological Doubling: Evidences from Persian”. Language Related Research. [In Persian].
Spencer, A. (2013). Lexical Relatedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talmy, L. (1978). “The relation of grammar to cognition”. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Torabi, S. (2015). A Study of the Agentive Derivational Affixes In Persian Based on Construction Morphology, M.A Thesis, University of Isfahan, Isfahan- Iran. [In Persian].