Explanation for Alternating Light verbs (LVs) in Persian Complex Predicates from a Generative Lexicon Viewpoint

Authors
Z. roohi bygi 1
G. Karimi-Doostan 2
G. Karimi-Doostan 2
B. Sharif 3
1 General linguistics Ph.D., Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
2 linguistics professor, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
3 l linguistics Ph.D., University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
This paper aims to examine and explain, from a Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky 1995) viewpoint, the alternation and substitution of light verbs (LVs) in Persian complex predicates (also referred to as light verb constructions). To this aim, the hypothesis we are going to test is that semantic features including meaning commonality, distinct aspectual features (LVs’ aktionsarts), difference in argument structure, etc. are some of factors involved in LV alternation with a particular PV. A thorough examination of various kinds of alternation and substitution of LVs combined with the same pre-verbal element (PV) suggests that the information encoded in different lexical-semantic structures (Argument structure, Event structure and Qualia structure) of PVs and LVs, including arguments encoded in a-structure of predicative PVs, as well as aspectual features, such as initiatory vs. transitory or spontaneous vs. durative aspect, of light verbs make it (im)possible to substitute different light verbs occurring with a particular PV. Information represented in lexico semantic structure of linguistic items, especially Qualia structure which includes limited but necessary information for explaining lecical semantic relations between two LVC components serves to account for alternation ant substitution of LVs in complex predicate structures based on the concepts of Generative Lexicon theory.
The research method is descriptive-analytic and the data under study consist of Persian complex predicates (gathered and cited from Anvari 2002) consisting a nominal PV and each of the light verbs kardan (‘do, make’), zadan (‘hit’), kešidan (‘pull, drag’) and dâdan (‘give’).

Keywords

  • انوری، حسن (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران: سخن.

  • برزگر، حسن (1393). ساختار موضوعی افعال مرکب مشتق از صفت در زبان فارسی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران.

  • حسینی، اعظم (به اهتمام) (1387). دا: خاطرات سیده‌زهرا حسینی. تهران: سوره مهر.

  • دبیرمقدم، محمد (1376). «فعل مرکب در زبان فارسی». مجله زبانشناسی. س 12. ش 1 و 2. صص 2-46.

  • روحی بایگی، زهرا (1395). باهمایی و جانشینی مؤلفه‌های فعل مرکب فارسی. پایان‌نامه دکتری. دانشگاه تهران. تهران.

  • سیاوشی، سارا (1392). تحلیل شناختی انتخاب همکرد در افعال مرکب فارسی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبان‌شناسی. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

  • شریف، بابک (1394). بررسی شناختی افعال سبک در زبان فارسی. پایان‌نامه دکتری. دانشگاه اصفهان.

  • شریف، بابک و محمد عموزاده (1396). «تشکیل افعال مرکب فارسی از منظر دستور شناختی». جستارهای زبانی. د 8. ش 2 (پیاپی 37). بهار 1396. صص 149-170.

  • صفری علی (1394). «معناشناسی زمینه و تناوب فعل‌های مرکب در زبان فارسی». جستارهای زبانی، د 6. ش 1 (پیاپی 22). صص153-172.

  • طباطبائی،‌ علاءالدین‌ (1376). فعل بسیط فارسی و واژه‌سازی. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.

  • طبیب‌زاده، امید (1382). جشن‌نامه دکتر علی اشرف صادقی. تهران: هرمس.

  • عبدالکریمی، سپیده (1390). بررسی محدودیت‌های واژی‌ـ‌معنایی حاکم بر اشتقاق فعل مرکب از بسیط متناظر و فعل بسیط از مرکب متناظر در فارسی معاصر معیار: رویکردی شناختی. پایان‌نامه دکتری. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

  • گندم‌کار، راحله (1388). بررسی معنایی افعال مرکب اندام بنیاد در زبان فارسی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی. تهران.

  • منصوری، مهرزاد (1392). «فعل سبک در افعال مرکب فارسی». فصلنامة مطالعات زبان و گویش‌های غرب ایران. س 1. ش1. صص 77-104.

  • ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1365). تاریخ زبان فارسی.جلد دوم. تهران: نشر نو.

  • ·      نغزگوی کهن، مهرداد و شادی داوری ( 1391). «همکردشدگی». دستور. ش 8. صص 227-244.

    • Abdolkarimi, S. (2011). Study of Morpho-semantic Limitations on the Derivation of Compound and Simple Verbs of Contemporary Standard Persian from Morpho-semantic Analogue Simple and Compound Verbs: A Cognitive Approach.  (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Tehran: University of Tarbiat Modares. [In Persian].

    • Anvari, H. (2002). The Great Sokhan Dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].

    • Barzegar, H. (2014). The Argument Structure of the Complex Predicates Derived from Adjectives in Persian Language. M.A. Thesis. Tehran University. [In Persian].

    • Bashiri, I. (1981). Persian Syntax. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company.

    • Dabir-Moghaddam, M. (1997). “Compound verbs in Persian. The Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 12. No 1, 2. Pp. 2-46. [In Persian].

    • Folli, R. et al. (2005). “Determinants of event type In Persian complex predicates”. Lingua. Vol. 1(15). Pp. 1365–1401.

    • Gandomkar, R. (2009). Semantic Study of Body -based Complex Predicates In Persian Language. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Tehran. Allame Tabatabaie University. [In Persian].

    • Haji-Abdolhusseini, M. (2000). “Event types in the generative lexicon: implications for Persian compound verbs”. In Proceedings of NLS2000. Vol. 19. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.

    • Husseini, A. (ed.) (2008). Daa: The Memoires of Seyyedeh Zahra Husseini. Tehran: Soure-ye-Mehr. [In Persian].

    • Karimi-Doostan, G. H. (1997). Light Verb Constructions In Persian. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Essex.

    • Khanlari, P. (1986). History of Persian Language. Vol.2. Tehran: Tehran. Nashre-e- Now. [In Persian].

    • Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav (1995), Unaccusatives: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.

    • Mansouri, M. (2013). “Light verb In Persian complex predicates”.  Studies Of West Iranian Languages And Dialects. No.1. Pp: 79-106. [In Persian].

    • Naghzguy-e- Kohan, M. & Sh. Davari (2013). Light Verb Development.Vol.8. [In Persian].

    • Pantcheva, M. (2009). “First phase syntax of  Persian complex predicates: argument structure and telicity”. JSAL. Vol. 2(1). Pp. 53-72.

    • Partee, B. (1985). “Syntactic categories and semantic types”. Lecture. CSLI Summer School. Standford.

    • Pustejovsky, J. & E. Ježek (2008), “Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis”.Italian Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 20(1). Pp. 181-214.

    • Pustejovsky, J. (1991). “The generative lexicon”. Computational Linguistics. Vol. 17(4.( Pp. 409-441.

    • Pustejovsky, J. (1993). “Type coercion and lexical selection”. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.). Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    • Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    • Pustejovsky, J. (2001). “Type construction and the logic of concepts”. In P. Bouillon& F. Busa (Eds.), The Syntax of Word Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Pustejovsky, J. (2002), “Syntagmatic processes”. In Herausgegeban et al.(Eds.).Handbook of Lexicology and Lexicography (Pp. 1-9). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    • Pustejovsky, J. (2007), “Type theory and lexical decomposition”. In P. Bouillon and C. Lee, editors,Trends (Eds.). Generative Lexicon Theory. Kluwer Publishers.

    • Rouhi Bygi, Z. (2016). Co-occurrence and Substitution of Components of Persian Complex Predicate. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tehran. [In Persian].

    • Safari, A. (2015). “Frame semantics and LVC alternation in Persian”. Language Related Research. Vol.6. No.1 (Tome 22). Pp: 153-172. [In Persian].

    • Sharif, B. & M. Amouzadeh (2017). “Persian compound predicates formation from a cognitive grammar viewpoint. Language Related Research. Vol. 8, No. 37. Pp. 149-170. [In Persian].

    • Sharif, B. (2016). A Cognitive Study of Light Verbs in the Persian Language. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Isfahan. [In Persian].

    • Siavashi, S. (2013). A cognitive Analysis of Light Verb Selection in Persian Complex Verbs. MA Thesis. Allameh Tabataba'i University. [In Persian].

    • Tabaian, H .(1979). “Persian compound verbs” .Lingual.Vol. 47. Pp. 179-208.

    • Tabatabai, A. (1997). Persian Simple Verbs and Word Formation. Iran University Press. Tehran. [In Persian].

    • Tabibzadeh, O. (ed.) (2003). Festschrift for Dr. Ali Ashraf Sadeghi. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian].




 

Language Related Research
Volume 8, Issue 7
March and April 2017
Pages 429-452