1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The lexicon-grammar continuum
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We argue for the lexicon-grammar continuum by looking into the separability of Persian complex predicates, an open class of verb constructions for which it has been argued that the components are either separable or inseparable. We contend that separability is best described as a scalar rather than an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Our analysis of ‘to hit’ within the framework of Construction Grammar yields a semantic description of complex predicates as a radial category. We measure both the frequency of complex predicates and their rate of separation based on corpus attestations. We explore the relationships between meaning, frequency, and separation rates and the implications of our findings for cognitive linguistics and construction grammar. We find that semantic compositionality and lower frequency are associated with a higher rate of separation. Overall, our data points towards separability as a continuum rather than a binary opposition.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
2025-03-24
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adli, A.
    (2010) Constraint cumulativity and gradience: Wh-scrambling in Persian. Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anvari, H.
    (2003) Farhang-e Bozorg-e Soxan (Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary). Sokhan.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bashiri, I.
    (1981) Persian syntax. Burgess Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonial, C.
    (2021) Précis of take a look at this! Form, function, and productivity of English light verb constructions. Colorado Research in Linguistics, . 10.33011/cril.v25i.1341
     https://doi.org/10.33011/cril.v25i.1341 [Google Scholar]
  5. Booij, G.
    (2007) The grammar of words. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226245.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226245.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A.
    (1995) The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1007/BF00992782
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992782 [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler, K.
    (1995) Compositionality in cognitive models: The real issue. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, (), –. 10.1007/BF00989678
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989678 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J.
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, (), –. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4490266
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007) Diachronic linguistics. InD. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.–). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, N.
    (2017) Two notions of modularity. InR. G. de Almeida, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190464783.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190464783.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2004) Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474466011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474466011 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dehkhoda, A.
    (1998) Loghatnāmeh (Dictionary). University of Tehran Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dik, S. C.
    (1997) The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Family, N.
    (2006) Explorations of semantic space: The case of light verb constructions in Persian [Doctoral Dissertation]. École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fleischhauer, J., & Neisani, M.
    (2020) Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions. Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0022226718000646
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000646 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fodor, J. A.
    (1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Folli, R., Harley, H., & Karimi, S.
    (2005) Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (1996) Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Proceedings of the 22th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.–). Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v22i1.1360
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v22i1.1360 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2003) Words by default: The Persian complex predicate construction. InE. Francis, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp.–). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jorjani, A.
    (1991) Alta’rifāt (definitions). Naser Khosro.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Karimi, S.
    (1997) Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2008) Opening remarks: Scholarship on complex predicates. International Conference on Complex Predicates. Paris: Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Karimi-Doostan, G.
    (1997) Light verb constructions in Persian. University of Essex.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2011) Separability of light verb constructions in Persian. Studia Linguistica, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2011.01178.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2011.01178.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.–). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2006) On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/COG.2006.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Matsumoto, M.
    (1999) Composite predicates in Middle English. InL. J. Brinton, & M. Akimoto (Eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the History of English (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.47.24mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.47.24mat [Google Scholar]
  37. McKoon, G., & Love, J.
    (2011) Verbs in the lexicon: Why is hitting easier than breaking?Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  38. Megerdoomian, K.
    (2001) Event structure and complex predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0008413100017953
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100017953 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2002) Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. University of Southern California.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2012) The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9146‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9146-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Müller, S.
    (2010) Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0022226709990284
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990284 [Google Scholar]
  42. Riemer, N.
    (2005) The semantics of polysemy: Reading meaning in English and Walpiri. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197556
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197556 [Google Scholar]
  43. Roohi Bygi, Z., & Karimi-Doostan, G.
    (2016) A cognitive study of light verb polysemy: The case of ZADAN. Language Related Research, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sadri Afshar, G., Hakami, N., & Hakami, N.
    (1998) Farhang-e Farsi-e Emrooz (Dictionary of Contemporary Persian). Kalameh.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Schmid, H.
    (2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. InH. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith, C. S.
    (1991) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7911‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7 [Google Scholar]
  47. Soltani, R.
    (2018) A cognitive approach to Persian light verb constructions [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Isfahan.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Steele, S.
    (1989) The relation of morphology to syntax. Annual Review of Anthropology, (), –. 10.1146/annurev.an.18.100189.001105
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.18.100189.001105 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Valin, R. D.
    (2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
Loading
The lexicon-grammar continuum
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: complex predicates ; compositionality ; Persian ; separability ; construction grammar ; frequency

Most Cited

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