Persian Endocentric Compounds: Simple or Complex Conceptual Structures?

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
M. Diyanati 1
H. Rezaei 2
A. Rafiei 3
1 PhD Candidate in General Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isf
Abstract
A number of linguistic studies on compounding have acknowledged that due to the existence of head element, endocentric compounds are semantically compositional and transparent. The current study aims to focus on the semantic aspect of Persian endocentric compounds to show that: 1) in some cases, the existence of head element does not entail the semantic compositionality and simplicity of conceptual structure in endocentric compounds, and 2) compound words which are categorized as endocentric compounds differ in terms of the complexity of conceptual structure. Considering that the ability of Conceptual Blending Theory (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) to describe meaning construction in compound words has been previously approved by some cognitive linguists, this theory has been applied to analyze meaning construction in a number of Persian endocentric noun-noun nominal compounds. A close analysis reveals that although some endocentric compounds are semantically compositional and prompt for simplex networks, there are endocentric compounds which are not semantically as transparent and compositional. In this kind of endocentric compounds, metaphor or metonymy has affected the modifier element, thus meaning construction triggers single-scope networks which are neither as complex as double-scope networks nor as simple and compositional as simplex networks. This result implies the diversity of conceptual structure in words which are defined as endocentric compounds..



1. Introduction

Compounding is a common word-formation process almost in all languages (Dressler, 2006: 23), for forming new lexical units by merging two or more pre-existing lexical units. Based on the most pervasive and traditional semantic categorization of compound words, as proposed by Bloomfield (1933), there are two main groups of compounds, namely endocentric and exocentric compounds. In endocentric compounds, one of the constituents plays the role of head and a hyponymic relation is observable between the compound and the head element. Numerous prior studies have acknowledged that, due to the existence of head element, the semantics of endocentric compounds is transparent and compositional. However, no study has been made yet to specify whether the presence of head element leads necessarily to the semantic simplicity of conceptual structure in endocentric compounds.

Given that conceptual blending theory can account for the meaning construction process of compound words (cf. Coulson, 2001; Fauconnier & Tuner, 2003; Benczes, 2006; Schmid, 2011), the current study applies the network model of conceptual blending to explore the semantics of Persian noun-noun nominal compounds in order to show that: 1) in some cases, the existence of head element does not entail the semantic compositionality and simplicity of conceptual structure in endocentric compounds, and 2) compound words which are categorized as endocentric compounds differ in terms of the complexity of conceptual structure.



2. Literature Review

The semantics of compounds has been one of the most challenging aspects of compound words being investigated in numerous studies. These studies cover many areas of investigation including semantic transparency and opacity (e.g., Afrashi, 2000; Sabzevari, 2013; MirEmadi & Majidi, 2007), headedness and the position of head (e.g., Tabatabaei, 2004; Khabbaz, 2008), the relation between constituents (e.g., Tabatabaei, 2013; Sabzevari, 2012, 2018), and the role of metaphor (or metonymy) in the meaning of compounds (e.g., Estaji & Ghanun, 2009; Torabian, 2013).

Besides, through the development of conceptual blending theory, several studies have analyzed compound words within the integration network model of conceptual blending (e.g., Turner & Fauconnier, 1995; Sweetser, 1999; Coulson, 2001; Fauconnier & Turner, 2003; Benczes, 2006).



3. Methodology

To the aim of collecting noun-noun nominal compounds in Persian, Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary (2003) was consulted and a total number of 694 compounds were extracted from the dictionary. As a next step, endocentric compounds were taken out from the collected data (a number of 372 endocentric compounds) and the possible action of metaphor and/or metonymy upon their meaning was examined. This procedure led to 216 non-metaphorical and non-metonymical compounds, 137 compounds with metonymical modifier, and 19 words with metaphorical modifier. Following this, considering the frequency of identified patterns, we randomly analyzed a number of compounds from each pattern based on the network model of conceptual blending theory.



4. Results and Discussion

The blend analysis of Persian endocentric nominal compounds reveals that, besides semantically compositional endocentric compounds, such as âb-anbâr, which trigger simplex network and their modifier is linked through a role-to-value relation to their head element, there are several endocentric compounds that show a slightly more complex conceptual structure. In the meaning construction of non-compositional endocentric compounds, such as taxte-sang and sofre-mâhi, while the input space corresponded to the head element contributes literally to the blended space, the input space corresponded to the modifier is projected metaphorically or metonymically. This group of endocentric compounds prompt for single-scope networks which are neither as complex as double-scope networks nor as simple as simplex networks.

5. Conclusion

The current study found that the existence of head element does not necessarily guarantee the semantic simplicity and compositionality of endocentric compounds. In a number of cases, metaphor or metonymy acts upon the modifier element of endocentric compounds, therefore the meaning construction triggers single-scope networks which are not as simplex and compositional as simplex networks. In other words, not all endocentric compounds are semantically simple and compositional. Instead, there are several endocentric compounds that are not fully compositional, that is, they have a slightly more complex conceptual structure. This implies that drawing a strict boundary between endocentric and exocentric compounds, based on compositionality and semantic transparency, is not reasonable, because there are endocentric compounds which, like exocentric compounds, are metaphorical or metonymical. This study suggests a continuum to show different degrees of complexity of compounds. While non-metaphorical and non-metonymical endocentric compounds lie at the one end of the hypothetical continuum, endocentric compounds with metaphorical or metonymical modifier are nearer to the other end of the continuum where compounds with metaphor- and/or metonymy-based head and modifier lie.

Keywords

Subjects

استاجی، اعظم و محمد قانون (1389). بررسی نقش استعاره در ساختواژه زبان فارسی. مجموعه مقالات پنجمین همایش پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه سبزوار، 668-684.
افراشی، آزیتا (1378). نگاهی به شفافیت و تیرگی معنایی در سطح واژه‌های مرکب. زبان و ادب دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، شماره 9و 10، 61-74.
انوری، حسن (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران: سخن.
پرتو، ابوالقاسم (۱۳۷۳). واژه‌یاب: فرهنگ برابرهای پارسی واژگان بیگانه. تهران: اساطیر.
ترابیان، امیر (1392). بررسی استعاره در اسم‌های مرکب اسم- اسم زبان فارسی درچارچوب زبان‌شناسی شناختی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد، دانشگاه شیراز.
خباز، مجید (1386). جایگاه هسته در کلمات مرکب غیرفعلی فارسی. دستور، شماره 3، 153-166.
دهخدا، علی‌اکبر (۱۳۷۷). لغت‌نامه دهخدا (زیرنظر محمد معین و سیدجعفر شهیدی). تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
سبزواری، مهدی (1391). تبیین و تحلیل رابطه‌های معنایی در اسامی مرکب برون‌مرکز فارسی معیار. پژوهش‌نامه انتقادی متون و برنامه‌های علوم انسانی، سال 12، شماره 1، 45-61.
سبزواری، مهدی (1392). شفافیت و تیرگی معنایی اسامی مرکب زبان فارسی از دیدگاه شناختی. جستارهای زبانی، دوره 4، شماره 3 (پیاپی 15)، 55-73.
سبزواری، مهدی (۱۳۹۷). بررسی معنی‌سازی و استنباط و الگوهای مفهومی اسم‌های مرکب درون‌مرکز فارسی. زبان‌پژوهی. سال دهم، شماره ۲۷، 49-68.
شقاقی، ویدا (۱۳۸۶). مبانی صرف. تهران: سمت.
طباطبایی، علاءالدین (1382). اسم و صفت مرکب در زبان فارسی. تهران: مرکز نشردانشگاهی.
طباطبایی، علاءالدین (1393). ترکیب در زبان فارسی (بررسی ساختاری واژه‌های مرکب). تهران: فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی.
عمید، حسن (۱۳۸۹). فرهنگ فارسی عمید (ویراستار عزیزاله علیزاده). تهران: راه‌رشد.
قطره، فریبا و مینا قندهاری (۱۳۹۵). بررسی اسم‌های دارای ساختار «اسم1 (و) اسم2» در زبان فارسی براساس نظریه آمیزش مفهومی. مجموعه مقالات چهارمین همایش ملی صرف (صص ۱۷۱-۱۹۰). تهران: نشر نویسه پارسی.
کریمی ‌دوستان، غلامحسین و انیس وحید (1392). تحلیل معنایی کلمات مرکب اسم-اسم در زبان فارسی. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، سال پنجم، شماره اول، 65-82.
معین، محمد (۱۳۶۳). فرهنگ فارسی معین. تهران: امیرکبیر.
میرعمادی، سیدعلی و ستاره مجیدی (1386). تحلیل معنایی واژگان مرکب مفعولی در زبان فارسی. زبان و زبان‌شناسی، شمارة پنجم، 55-70.
Bauer, L. (1979). On the need for pragmatics in the study of nominal compounding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(1). 45-50.
Benczes, R. (2006). Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Benczes, R. (2009). What motivates the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds? In M. Brdar, M. Ozmazić, & V. Pavičić Takač (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to English: Fundamental, methodological, interdisciplinary and applied issues (pp. 45-62). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Benczes, R. (2010). Setting limits on creativity in the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds. In S. Michel & A. Onysko (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to word formation (pp. 221-245). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Benczes, R. (2013). On the non-viability of the endocentric–exocentric distinction: Evidence from linguistic creativity. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics. 1(1), 3–18.
Benczes, R. (2014). What can we learn about the mental lexicon from non-prototypical cases of compounding? Argumentum, 10, 205-220.
Benczes, R. (2015). Are exocentric compounds really exocentric? SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 12/3, 54-73.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3–4), 175–96. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.2001.014
Dressler, W. U. (2006). Compound types. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (PP. 23-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fabb, N. (1998). Compounding. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 66-84). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 2, 33–187.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2003). Conceptual blending: form and meaning. Recherches en communication, 19, 57–86.
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2009). Constituent integration during the processing of compound words: Does it involve the use of relational structures? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 20-35.
Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Compositionality. In N. Reimer (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Routledge, (pp. 419-434). New York: Routledge.
Guevara, E., & Scalise, S. (2009). Searching for universals in compounding. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of Language Today, (pp.101-128). Berlin: Springer.
Hintikka, J. (1984). A hundred years later: The rise and fall of Frege’s influence in language theory, Synthese, 59, 27–49.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty [Linguistic inquiry monograph 28]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language, brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jullian, P. (2002). Uncovering implicit information in original compounds. ELT Journal, 56/4, 359–367.
Kavka, S. (2009). Compounding and idiomatology. In R. Lieber, & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, (pp.19-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, M. & Gao, Y. (2011). An analysis of internet catchwords from the perspective of conceptual blending theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6), 635-643. DOI:10.4304/tpls.1.6.635-643
Mierzwińska-Hajnos, A. (2015). More than blends and compounds: Conceptual integration theory behind plant related linguistic expressions in Polish and English. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 39/2, 65-89.
Nicoladis, E. (2006). Preschool children’s acquisition of compounds. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, (pp. 96–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Okoye, A. N. (2016). Blending in Etulo compound words, Journal of African Studies, 5 (2), 32-47.
Onysko, A. (2014). Figurative processes in meaning interpretation: A case study of novel English compounds. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 69–88.
Punske, J. (2016). Compounding. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10/8, 382–393.
Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, Th. & Siemund, P. (2007). The construction of meaning in language. In G. Radden et al. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 1-15). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/z.136.02rad
Scalise, S. & Guevara, E. (2006). Exocentric compounding in a typological framework. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 185–206.
Schmid, H.-J. (2011). Conceptual blending, relevance and novel N+N-compounds. In S. Handl & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 219-246). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, E. (1999). Compositionality and blending. In Th. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: foundations, scope, and methodology [Cognitive Linguistics Research 15] (pp. 129-162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tarasova, E. (2013). Some new insights into the semantics of English N+N compounds, Ph.D. dissertation, Wellington: Victoria University.
Taylor, J.R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tribushinina, E. (2011). Reference points in adjective-noun conceptual integration networks. In S. Handl & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 269-290). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: the study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183-203.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.-J. (2006).An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd edition). London & New York: Routledge.
Vorobeva, Y. (2016). Cognitive-pragmatic approach to the meaning of new compound nouns in English. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6 (4), 117-124.
Wujastyk, D. (1982). Bloomfield and the Sanskrit origin of the terms 'exocentric' and 'endocentric'. Historiographia Linguistica, 9 (1-2), 179-184.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 6 - Serial Number 60
January and February 2020
Pages 35-68