جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « طرحواره ساختی » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

Compounding is one of the most productive word-formation processes through which new words are formed. Concerning the semantic headedness, compounds are divided into endocentric compounds and exocentric compounds. This article examines Persian exocentric non-verbal compound nouns based on construction morphology theory (Booij, 2010) and explores the semantic relations in constructional schemas based on the semantic relations models of Jackendoff (2010) and Girju et al. (2005). The data is comprised of nearly 450 words and have been collected from Farhang Moɑser: Contemporary Persian Dictionary (1381) as well as media and daily conversations. According to the data, there were 9 semantic relations between the semantic head and the inner constituents of the noun compounds. Besides, there were 11 semantic relations between the inner constituents. Based on the derived constructional schemas, it was found that patterns produce the nouns of "instrument, plant, animal, location, food, part of something, job, profession, social status, job hierarchy, disease, material, sign, rhythm of a music/poem, geometric shape, object, prayer, game"..

The light verb of "kӕrdӕn" has the most participation in the production of Persian compound verbs due to the fact that it can be empty of meaning more than other Persian light verbs in the process of lightenization and moves away from its meaning by combining with various words with different meanings and parts of speech to make various compound verbs. Therefore, compound verbs in conjunction with "kӕrdӕn" light verb have formed the largest share of all compound verbs in Persian. The present study aims at how Persian compound verbs with “kærdæn” light verb are formed, and identifying and analyzing the polysemy between them based on Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010a&b). To this end, the authors have used the concepts of Construction Morphology such as structural schema and sub-schema to show the polysemy in meanings in these compound verbs at the abstract level of schema. The data of this study, which includes a corpus containing 3326 numbers of compound verbs with “kærdæn” light verb, are gathered from Zanso dictionary (Keshani, 1994), Sokhan (2002), syntactic valency lexicon for Persian verbs corpus (Moloudi, Kouhestani and Rasouli, 2011), and Persian Calligraphy Spelling Dictionary (Sadeghi and Zandi Moghaddam, 2016). Findings show that in compound verbs with “kærdæn” light verb, we are faced with a kind of polysemy that can be explainable not at the level of concrete words, but at the abstract level of structural schemas. Also, a high-order structural scheme that is at a high level of abstraction, and below it there are more objective structural sub-schemas with verb formation patterns. They show the compound in different groups.

The aim of this comparative research is to investigate the polysemy of “head-compounds” in Persian and English and to identify the constructional schemas governing the construction of these compounds based on Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010). To this end, all compounds consisting of “head” as their first constituent were collected from different Persian and English sources. Our data consist of 300 compound words collected from Comprehensive Sokhan Dictionary, Zansoo Dictionary, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Online Merriom-Webster, Collins, and Cambridge Dictionaries. Then the collected compounds were semantically categorized and their similarities and differences were examined. The findings showed that the polysemy in these compounds could be explained not at the level of words, but at the level of abstract constructions and constructional schemas in both languages. Therefore, it was considered as a type of constructional polysemy. Moreover, it was found that although there were similar constructional schemas and subschemas for "head-compounds” in both languages, the semantic variations and the number of subschemas in Persian were more than that of English. This difference indicated that the schematic hierarchy of the construction [Head-X] in Persian was more semantically complex and more extended compared to English.

Much research has been done on semantics of the verbal element of complex predicates (CPr), usually referred to as light verb (LV). Most researchers have confined their studies to a few limited features of light verbs. After criticizing major views proposed by scholars on the semantics of light verbs, this article presents a hypothesis on the formation of complex predicates, arguing that all of which directly or indirectly have roots in incorporation process. This process starts with a complete sentence, incorporating two elements into it and ends in eliminating other elements. Formation of each complex predicate leads to the formation of the constructional schema X+LV0 which sanctions formation of new complex predicates with the same light verb and in the same semantic field. Accordingly, the meaning of light verb in direct incorporation case is the same meaning as its heavy verb, and in indirect incorporation case is dissolved in constructional meaning of the sanctioning schema. The meaning of light verb in each of these two cases could be different and each of them is taken or similar to one of its heavy meanings. There is a third case in which the light verb plays the role of verbalizing element and makes possible for a nonverbal predicate to inflect as a verb. Thus light verbs vary from having completely schematic and non-thematic meanings to their own primary heavy meanings.

This paper aims to examine the construction of the word-formation pattern [sar-X] (compounds of the body part “head”) in Persian and investigate its semantic variations, the most general schema and subschemas both synchronically and diachronically employing the Construction Morphology approach (Booij, 2010). To this end, firstly, a collection of 178 compound words consisting of “sar” as the first constituent were collected from Bijankhan Corpus, Comprehensive Sokhan Dictionary, Dehkhoda and Zansoo Dictionaries and also from a Google search. Secondly, the historical data were collected from a comprehensive search of Farhang-yar Corpus consisting of the historical information about the words, their origins, meanings and changes in time from the 4th century onwards in the library of Academy of Persian Language and Literature. Then, all collected words were assigned to different categories based on their semantic variations and the specified categories were closely studied as follows: 1-Feature consisting of a) agentive adjectives and in some cases, object-oriented adjectives; b) Simple (descriptive) adjectives, 2-Entity consisting of a) job names; and b) other names such as instruments and objects. It is worth mentioning that in addition to Booij’s Construction Morphology (2010) as the main theoretical framework of this research, we benefited from Rainer’s views (2005) on semantic changes in word-formation patterns so that we can capture all the semantic extensions and developments of the word-formation pattern [sar-X], and in line with Rainer (2005) we divided all semantic change mechanisms involved in the construction [sar-X] into two main categories namely 1-Semantic/conceptual mechanisms (cognitive factors) such as metaphor, metonymy, approximation, reanalysis, and analogy, and 2-Non-semantic factors such as (historical) ellipsis, homonymisation, borrowing and loan-translation.The results reveal that two general constructional schemas and several subschemas have command of this construction and the central meanings “an entity related to SEM sar and X” and “distinctive feature of an entity related to SEM sar and X” are the most abstract pairings of form-meaning inferred from the products of this word-formation pattern and some of these subschemas refer to the meanings such as “the above part of SEM X”, “head SEM X”, “main SEM X”, “the best in SEM X”, “the start point or the end of X” and “distinctive feature of sth/sb whose head is X (has got X). This implies that the [sar-X] pattern is basically a construction with multiple functionality. Furthermore, it was revealed that the polysemy we deal with here is not at the word level but it is at the construction level (a type of constructional polysemy with multi-levels of abstraction for the constructional idiom [sar-x]) and the meaning contribution of the mentioned compounds lies within the construction [sar-X] on the one hand, the meaning of the constituents, the operation of conceptual metaphor (metonymy) and the encyclopedic knowledge on the other. This implies that the constructional idiom [sar-X] is basically both an adjective-making and simultaneously a noun-making construction and the dual usage of some of its compounds is through conversion activated by metonymy at the lexicon level. That is why the conceptual metonymy and metaphor play a significant role in determining the meaning of the mentioned words. Also, it was revealed that there is no need to be a complete and one-to-one correspondence between a word and the word-formation pattern from which the word is derived, as Rainer (2005; pp. 430-431) points out, it is assumed that human communication, in order to be effective, does not require a 100% match between model and copy, pattern and neologism (Gloning 1996; p. 152). In other words, an approximation, in many cases, will suffice if the hearer is able to bridge by inference the distance between model and copy. This is especially the case if model and copy are linked by metaphor or metonymy. That is why, approximation will thus be defined as a process of word formation where the relation between a pattern of word formation and a neologism formed according to it is not one to one, but mediated by metaphor or metonymy. Among the products of this construction also there are few words that have some exceptional properties, although they are regular in most respects, and for these cases, we benefited from the crucial notion of default inheritance which means “the specification of a word for a particular property is inherited from the dominating node, unless the actual lexical entry has another specification for that property” and thus, these few cases were considered as some objective instantiations derived from the higher hierarchical and more general constructional schemas, such as [N-X]A, [N-N]N, or [N-V]A to generate different kinds of compound words which take their constructional licenses from these abstract schemas rather than from the word-formation pattern [sar-X].Finally, postulating a paradigmatic nature of word-formation and positing the concept of construction as a basis for argument, Construction Morphology can account for our data and necessitate reevaluation of the demarcation between derivation and compounding at least in compounds of the body part “head” in Persian.

This study aims at examining the construction of the word-formation pattern of [del-X] (compounds of “heart”) and investigating its semantic variations, the most general schema and subschemas in Persian employing the Construction Morphology approach (Booij, 2010). To this end, a collection of 71 compound words starting with “del” were collected from Bijankhan Corpus, Dehkhoda and Zansoo Dictionaries and Google. Then they were assigned to different categories based on their semantic variations and the specified categories were closely studied. The results reveal that one general constructional schema and Three subschemas have command of this construction and the central meaning “distinctive feature of an entity related to SEM del and X” is the most abstract pairing of form-meaning understood from all products of this word-formation pattern. This implies that the [del-X] pattern is basically an adjective-making construction and the usage of its compound words in nominal category is through conversion activated by metonymy. Furthermore, it was revealed that the polysemy we deal with here is not at the word level but it is at the construction level.

The process of compound predicates (CPr) formation in Persian has got little attention on behalf of linguists. This paper aims to situate the components of Persian light verb constructions in contexts that can be justifiably invoked as a motivation for CPr formation. The authors believe that CPrs can be considered as direct or indirect products of incorporation process.
We hold here a broad concept of incorporation, namely X incorporation (XI), in which X indicates categories including nominals, adjectives and prepositional phrases. This process, explicated by means of some concepts from Cognitive Grammar, involves CPrs originating from complete clauses, and then passing through a compositional path where a nonverbal and a verbal element are selected out of a clause and end up in a complex predicate. In such a hypothetical path, a verb argument is occasionally omitted and the verb complement or adjunct, having a higher cognitive salience, is incorporated to it.
The investigation will continue with focusing on the LVCs constructed with LV kardan ‘do, make’, as the most frequently used light verb in Persian. The paper will also explore how different paths could be associated with different ‘heavy’ meanings of kardan.
Moreover, each CPr may further provide speakers with constructional schemasupon which other LVCs formed with a given LV can be sanctioned.
Considering different kinds of LVCs explained in this paper, we can say that the semantic contribution of LVs falls into one of the two following possibilities depending on how the LVC in question is formed:i. Compositional path is directly conceivable. When this is the case, the semantics of LV is equivalent to, or derived from, a main or extended sense of its non-light counterpart, as in emtehân dâdan ‘to take an exam’ (lit. to exam-give), xâb raftan ‘to fall asleep’ (lit. to sleepN-go), and lâne kardan ‘to nest’ (lit. to nestN-do).
ii. Compositional path is indirectly accessible through a constructional schema. In this case, the LV‘s semantic contribution can be thought of as dissolved in the constructional meaning of the relevant schema, as in imeyl zadan ‘to email’ (lit. to emailN-hit) whose LV has nothing to do with ‘hit‘, but imports a sense of ‘communication’ immanent in the constructional schema X zadan which is in turn inherited from telegrâf zadan ‘to telegraph’ (lit. to telegraphN-hit).
iii. The compound verb is a denominal verb in which the light verb serves to verbalize a non-verbal element. In this case the semantic contribution of the light verb is to add processual meaning to the predicate.