1887
Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper we analyse a family of compound constructions in Persian that show two interesting properties: (1) they split into two semantic patterns, human agent noun and instrument noun, and (2) they display categorial ambiguity between noun and adjective. The compounds in question, which are formed with the verbal stem - ‘find’, are collected from diachronic and synchronic corpora and analysed in the framework of Construction Morphology (Booij 2010). We argue that the instrumental pattern is an innovation under the influence of loan-translated English instrument nouns. This pattern dovetailed with a much older morphological construction for human agent nouns. This raises questions about the relation between the two constructions in the contemporary speaker’s lexicon. For the dual functionality of the words as nouns and adjectives, we argue that it can be understood as a second order schema (Booij & Masini 2015) or sister construction (Jackendoff & Audring 20192020), whereby no precedence is ascribed to either of the two patterns.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21007.azi
2022-12-22
2023-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Biruni, M.
    (5th century AH / 11th century AD). The exhaustive treatise on shadows translated by E. S. Kennedy (1976) Institute for the History of Arabic Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anvari, H., & Ahmadi Givi, H.
    (1999) Persian grammar, Vol. 2 (Dasture Zabān-e Fārsi, jeld 2). Fatemi. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Audring, J.
    (2019) Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296. 10.3366/word.2019.0150
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beard, R.
    (1990) The nature and origins of derivational polysemy. Lingua, 811, 101–140. 10.1016/0024‑3841(90)90009‑A
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(90)90009-A [Google Scholar]
  5. Booij, G.
    (1986) Form and meaning in morphology: The case of Dutch ‘agent nouns’. Linguistics, 241, 503–517. 10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.503
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.503 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2005) The Grammar of words. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) Morphological analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysis (pp.563–589). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0020 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2012) Construction Morphology, a brief introduction. Morphology, 221, 343–346. 10.1007/s11525‑012‑9209‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9209-x [Google Scholar]
  10. (2017) Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. InN. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory (pp.18–39). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Booij, G. & Audring, J.
    (2018) Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. InG. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology (pp.59–80). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Booij, G., & Masini, F.
    (2015) The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. InL. Bauer, L. Körtvèlyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp.47–66). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑14102‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2007) Construction Grammar. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.463–509). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, V., & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HasanDoust, M.
    (2013) Persian etymological dictionary (Farhange Riʃe ʃenɑ̃xtiye Zaban-e Farsi). Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoffmann, Th., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
    (2019) Relational Morphology in the Parallel Architecture. InJ. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory (pp.390–408). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2020) The texture of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kahnemuyipour, A.
    (2014) Revisiting the Persian ezafe construction: A Roll-up Movement Analysis. Lingua, 1501, 1–24. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kalbasi, I.
    (1992) The derivative structure of words in Modern Persian (Sāxt-e Ešteqāqi-ye Vāʒe dar Fārsi-ye Emrouz). Institute of Humanity and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Keshani, Kh.
    (1993) Zansu Dictionary (Farhang-e Zānsu). University Publication Center. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Khanlari, P.
    (1973) Persian Grammar (Dastur-e zabān-e Fārsi). Toos. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Khatibi, A.
    (2007) Comprehensive Persian Language Dictionary, Persian Lexicography Corpus and Computer-based Language Corpus (Farhang-e Jāmeɂ-e Zabān-e Fārsi, Peykare-ye Farhangnegāri-ye Fārsi va Peykare-hā-ye Rāyaneɂiye Zabān). Lexigraphy, 1(1), 4–60. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Khayyampour, A.
    (1993) Persian Grammar (Dastur-e zabān-e Fārsi). Sotoude. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Khormaee, A.
    (2008) Clipped compound agentive adjectives: Yes or No? (Sefat-e fāɂeli-ye morakab-e moraxam: āri yā xeir?). Language and Linguistics, 4(7), 64–80. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lazard, G.
    (2005) A grammar of contemporary Persian. Mazda Publications in assoc. with Bibliotheca Persica.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lüdtke, J.
    (2005) Romanische Wortbildung. Inhaltlich – diachronisch – synchronisch. Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Luschützky, H. Ch., & Rainer, F.
    (2011) Agent noun polysemy in cross-linguistic perspective. Language Typology and Universals, 64(4), 287–338. 10.1524/stuf.2011.0023
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2011.0023 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mashkur, M. J.
    (1989) A Pamphlet on Persian morphology and syntax (Dasturnāme dar Sarf va Nahv-e Zabān-e Pārsi). Institute of the East Press. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Masini, F., & Audring, J.
    (2019) Construction Morphology. InJ. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory (pp.365–389). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Menéndez Pidal, R.
    (1968) Manual de gramática histórica española (13th edition). Espasa-Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Meshkatoddini, M.
    (2005) Persian grammar (Dastur-e zabān-e Fārsi). Samt. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Meyer-Lübke, W.
    (1890) Italienische Grammatik. Reisland.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Morrison, J. E.
    (2006) The astrolabe. Janus.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nobahar, M.
    (1993) Practical Persian grammar (Dastur-e Kārbordi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi). Hafez. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Panagl, O.
    (1975) Kasustheorie und Nomina Agentis. InH. Rix (Ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9–14 September 1973 (pp.232–146). Reichert.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (1978) Agens und Instrument in der Wortbildung. InW. U. Dressler & W. Meid (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Linguists. Vienna, 28 August- 2 September 1977 (pp.453–456). Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rafiei, A.
    (2008) A study of the semantics of Persian derivational suffixes (Barresiye Maɂnāɂiye Vandhāye Ešteqāqiye Farsi), Ph.D dissertation, Allameh Tabataba’i University. [In Persian]
  40. Rafiei, A., & Rezaei, H.
    (2018) Derived nouns ending in -gar based on Construction Morphology (Sāxt-e Asāmi-ye Moštaq az -gar az Manzar-e Sarf-e Sāxti). Jostārhāye Zabāni, 10(3), 71–94. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rainer, F.
    (2004a) Del nombre de agente al nombre de instrument en español: ¿Cómo y cuándo?Iberoromania, 591, 97–122. 10.1515/IBER.2004.97
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IBER.2004.97 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2004b) L’origine dei nomi di strumento italiani in -tor. InT. Krisch, T. Lindner, & U. Müller (Eds.), Analecta homini universali dicata. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl zum 65. Geburtstag. Vol.11 (pp.399–424). Heinz.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2005a) Noms d’instruments/ de lieux en -tor dans la Galloromania, Vox Romanica, 641, 121–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2005b) Semantic change in word formation. Linguistics, 43(2), 415–441. 10.1515/ling.2005.43.2.415
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.2.415 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2011) The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -tor in Romance. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 11, 5–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sadeghi, A. A.
    (2001) Language planning in Iran: A historical review. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1481, 19–30. 10.1515/ijsl.2001.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2001.011 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2004) Compounds formed with the present stem of a verb (Kalamāt-e Morakab-e Sāxtešode bā Setāk-e Feɂl). Farhangestan Journal, 1(1), 5–11. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (Ed.) (2013) Comprehensive Persian Language Dictionary (Farhang-e Jāmeɂ-e Zabān-e Fārsi). Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Saussure, F. de
    (1959) Course in General Linguistics. Philosophical Library. (Translation of Cours de linguistique générale, 1915.)
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Shaghaghi, V.
    (2012) Morphology: The Basics (Mabāni-ye Sarf). Samt. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Shariat, M. J.
    (1970) Persian Grammar (Dastur-e Zabān-e Fārsi). Asatir. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Shieber, S. M.
    (1986) An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Soltanigard Faramarzi, A.
    (1997) From word to discourse (Az Kalame tā Kalām). Heidari.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Tabataba’i, A.
    (2003a) Clipped compound agentive adjectives (Sefat-e Fāɂeli-ye Morakab-e Moraxam). Farhangestan Journal, 6(2), 62–71. [In Persian].
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2003b) Persian noun and adjective compounds (Esm va Sefat-e Morakab dar Zaban-e Farsi). Markaz nashre daneshgahi. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2014) Compounding in Persian (Tarkib dar Zabān-e Fārsi). Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Torabi, S.
    (2014) A Construction Morphology Account of Agentive Suffixes in Persian (Barresiye Vandhā-ye Ešteqāqiye Esm-e ɂāmelsāz-e Zabān-e Farsi dar Čārčub-e Sarf-e Sāxtmehvar), MA thesis, University of Isfahan. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Vahidian Kamyar, T.; Omrani, Q.
    (2006) Persian Grammar, Vol. 1 (Dasture Zabān-e Fārsi, jeld 1). Samt. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Zomorrodiyan, R.
    (1970) The structure of words in Modern Persian (Sāxteman-e Kalame dar Zabān-e Fārsi-ye Konuni). Jostārhāye Zabāni, 211, 177–201. [In Persian]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21007.azi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.21007.azi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error