پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 932 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,654 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,496,847 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,887,390 |
تحلیل و اژه سازی زبان فارسی بر اساس نظریه صرف ساخت بنیاد: شواهدی از کلمات مرکب | ||
| زبان پژوهی | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 12، شماره 36، آذر 1399، صفحه 165-186 اصل مقاله (603.84 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jlr.2019.24205.1645 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| علی صفری* 1؛ لیلا نیک نسب2 | ||
| 1دکترای تخصصی زبان‌شناسی، استادیار گروه مترجمی زبان انگلیسی، هیأت علمی دانشگاه حضرت معصومه (س) قم | ||
| 2کارشناس ارشد مترجمی زبان انگلیسی، مربی دانشگاه حضرت معصومه (س) قم | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مقاله حاضر بر آن است تا دلایل و شواهدی، در پیوند با تحلیلِ فرآیندهای واژهسازی در زبان فارسی بر پایة صرفِ ساختبنیاد (Booij, 2010b) ارائه دهد. در ابتدا، مفاهیمِ ساخت، واژگانِ سلسله‌مراتبی و الگوی واژهسازی معرفی خواهند شد. بر اساس این رویکرد، به جای قواعد واژهسازی از الگوهای واژهسازی استفاده میشود. سپس، نشان داده میشود که ویژگیهای کلی برخی واژه‌های مرکب- از جمله واژه‌های مرکب برونمرکز، شاهدی برای تحلیل این گونه واژه‌ها، به عنوان ساخت و الگوهای واژهسازی هستند. شاهد بعدی، مربوط به زایایی درونهگیری‌شده و رخ‌داد همزمان دو یا بیشتر از دو الگوی واژهسازی است. در هر دو مورد زایایی یک فرایند واژهسازی وابسته به درونهگیری آن در یک فرایند دیگر است. در این موارد، واژه‌ها با بهره‌گیری از تلفیق الگوهای واژهسازی تولید میشوند. یافته‌ها نشان میدهد رویکرد ساختبنیاد در تحلیل فرایندهای واژهسازی زبان فارسی کارآمد بوده‌است. این شواهد، میتواند از تحلیل فرایندهای واژهسازی در زبان فارسی بر پایة صرف ساخت بنیاد پشتیبانی کند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| ساخت؛ صرفِ ساخت بنیاد؛ الگوی واژهسازی؛ واژگان سلسله‌مراتبی؛ زبان فارسی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Constructional Account of Word Formation in Persian: Evidence from Compounding | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ali Safari1؛ Leila Niknasab2 | ||
| 1PhD in Linguistics, Assistant Professor, Department of English Translation, Faculty of Hazrat Masoumeh University, Qom | ||
| 2Master of English Translation, Instructor of Hazrat Masoumeh University of Qom | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This paper is aimed at describing compound nouns and word formation in Persian from the standpoint of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 1991) and Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010). To this end, authors deny the existence of word formation rules as concatenation of morphemes and describe compound nouns from Langacker’s usage-based model (Langacker, 2000), which includes word formation templates and hierarchical lexicon. Our aim in this study is to present arguments in favor of construction morphology approach to word formation in Persian. Based on this analysis, compounds including exocentric and endocentric compounds are dominated by the following schemas in Persian lexicon. The schema in (1) is the schema for endocentric compounds like 'češm pezešk' (oculist). Exocentric compounds like naxon xošk (scrooge), are not compositional so they are represented as specific constructions with a fixed meaning as (2). The schemas in (1) and (2) pair a form with a specific meaning in the form of a morphological construction. (1) [[X]X [Y]Y]Z ‘Y with relation R to X’ (2) [[X]X [Y]Y]Z 'FIXED MEANING' It will be shown that a constructional approach to word formation and compounding in Persian leads to express more explicit generalizations on Persian word formation. The concept of construction as a traditional notion used in linguistic analyses and books is defined as a pairing of form and meaning. A construction is a syntactic pattern in which particular formal properties are associated with specific semantics that is not completely compositional, but yet predictable. For example, in linguistics we speak of the passive construction because sentences with passive meaning have a specific syntactic form that correlates with a specific passive meaning. In Goldberg (1995), it is argued that an entirely lexically-based, or bottom-up, approach fails to account for the full range of data in languages. Particular semantic structures together with their associated formal expression must be recognized as constructions independent of the lexical items which instantiate them. According to Construction Grammar, a distinct construction is defined to exist if one or more of its properties are not strictly predictable from knowledge of other constructions existing in the grammar. In a constructional approach to word formation, we may dispense with the notion of rule, which is an operation on a base, but rather focus on the output of word formation processes or schemas. These schemas are general patterns which are dominating all existing complex words and are sources of new words. These new words/output of morphological operations are instantiations of morphological schemas and inherit all predictable properties of schemas. The main property of CM is based on the paradigmatic relationships between morphological schemas; in other words, the morphological structure of complex words is identified based on their paradigmatic relationships with other complex words. These schemas form part of a hierarchical lexicon in which schemas dominate individual complex words. By default, complex words inherit the information specified in schemas, but a particular piece of information may be overruled by an individual lexical item that instantiates a specific schema (Booij, 2010). In hierarchical lexicon, there are intermediate levels of generalizations. These are intermediate schemas between the individual words and the most abstract word formation schemas, expressing generalizations about subsets of complex words of a certain type (Booij, 2005). Lexicon has a hierarchical organization containing all levels of constructions, the most abstract schemas, intermediate constructions and finally concrete lexical items. The following schemas in (3) and (4) show the construction associated with agentive compounds in Persian such as "rahzan" and diagram (5) shows the hierarchy of schemas. (3)[[Xi]N [Yj]V ]N‘AGENT of ACTIONj on SEMi’ (4) [[Xi]N [Yj]V ]A‘AGENT of ACTIONj on SEMi’ [[Xi]N [Yj]V ]N [[Xi]N [Yj]V ]N [[Xi]N [Yj]V ]A [[rah]N[zan]V]N [[qodrat]N[talab]V]A (5) hierarchy of schemas Synthetic compounds in (6) are formed in two steps. First, ‘xod’ (self) is attached to the verbal stem to form a non-existing word and then –i is added to the bound verbal stem. (6) xodkoši (suicide) xodsuzi (self-burning) xodzani (self-mutilation) xodsazi (foppishness) The shared feature of these words is that all of them are formed by adding the suffix -i to a bound compound verbal stem as their base which forms a 'morphological construct' itself and takes the main role in larger construction in deriving synthetic compounds. From the constructionist standpoint, the following pattern in (7) forms a verbal construction which is the base of many derivations in Persian. We assume such morphological entity as a schema in the hierarchical lexicon and the output of such schema is a possible but non-existing word. (7) [xod- [present stem]V]V A compound stem/base in terms of CM hierarchical lexicon forms an intermediate stage in the formation of an even more complex word. This non-existing possible word is a bound compound verbal stem. In the next step, this schema plays the role of the base in deriving a new and more complex word with suffix -i. The schema is shown in (8): (8) [[bound verbal stem]A- i]A In the formation of these nouns an intermediate adjective like xodsuz or xodkoš is certainly a possible noun. Yet, we should not require the existence of this noun as a necessary intermediate step in the coining of these words. Based on CM, these two word formation templates are conflated with each other and by unification of these templates, compounding and derivation can occur at the same time. That is, we assume a unified template of the following form for such nouns: (9)[xod [present stem]V-i]N In sum, by representing word formation processes as constructional schemas that can be unified, it is possible to express that a multiply complex word can be derived in one step from a base word that is two degrees less complex. In this paper, it is shown that a constructional account of compounding in Persian leads to expressing more explicit generalizations on Persian word formation. A number of arguments were presented to support the constructional analysis of word formation in Persian. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Construction, Construction Morphology, Word Formation Templates, Hierarchical Lexicon, Persian | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
ارکان، فائزه و علی صفری (1396). «تحلیل کلمات مرکب فارسی به عنوان ساخت». مطالعات کاربردی زبان. دورة 9. شمارة 1. صص 33-58 ایمانی، آوا و عادل رفیعی (1398). «تحلیلی ساخت‌محور از ترکیبات نام‌اندام «سر» در زبان فارسی». زبان پژوهی. سال 11. شمارة 33. صص 129-159. بامشادی، پارسا، شادی انصاریان و نگار داوری اردکانی (1397). «چندمعنایی پسوند «- انه» فارسی: رویکرد ساخت‌واژۀ ساختی».مطالعاتزبان‌هاوگویش‌هایغربایران. دورة 6. شمارة 22. صص 21-39 شقاقی، ویدا (1386). مبانی صرف. تهران: سمت. طباطبایی، علاءالدین (1386). «ترکیب در زبان فارسی». نامه فرهنگستان. شماره ۳۵. صص 186-213 عباسی، زهرا (1396). «واژه های غیربسیط فارسی در صرف واژگانی و صرف ساختی». جستارهای زبانی. دورة ۸. شمارة ۳. صص ۶۷-۹۳ عظیم دخت، ذلیخا، عادل رفیعی و حدائق رضائی. (1397). «تنوعات معنایی واژه‌های مرکب مختوم به ستاک حال «یاب» در زبان فارسی: رویکرد صرف ساختی». پژوهشهای زبان شناسی. دورة 10. شمارة 2. صص 83-102 قادری سلیمان و عادل رفیعی. (1396). «پدیدۀ اجبار و رویکرد نظری دستور ساخت‌محور نسبت به آن». جستارهای زبانی. دورة 8. شمارة 7. صص 183-208. کلباسی، ایران (1371). ساخت اشتقاقی واژه در فارسی امروز. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی. References
Abbasi, Z. (2017). Analyzing complex words in Persian in construction morphology and lexical morphology/phonology. Language Related Research, 8 (3), 67-93 [In Persian].
Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to modern English word formation. London: Longman.
Arcodia, G. F. (2012). Constructions and headedness in derivation and compounding, Morphology, 22, 365–397.
Arkan, F. & Safari, A. (2017). An analysis of Persian compound nouns as constructions. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9 (1), 33-58 [In Persian].
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press.
Aronoff, M. & K. Fudeman (2005). What is morphology? USA: Blackwell.
Azimdokht, Z., Rafiee, A., & Rezaei, H. (2018). Semantic variations of Persian compound words Ending in the present stem -Yɑ̃B: construction morphology approach. Linguistic Researches, 10 (2), 83-102 [In Persian].
Bamshadi, P., Ansarian, Sh. & Davari Ardakani, N. (2018). Polysemy of suffix ‘-ane’ in Persian: construction morphology approach. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 6(22), 21-39 [In Persian].
Bauer, L. (2009). Exocentric compounds. Springer Sceince+Business Media B.V, 51-74.
Booij, G. (1977). Dutch morphology. a study of word formation in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Booij, G. (2005). Compounding and derivation: evidence for construction morphology. In W.U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky & F. Rainer (Eds.), Demarcation in Morphology (pp. 109-132). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Booij, G. (2009). Construction morphology and compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer, The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 201-216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, G. (2010a). Compound construction: schemas or analogy? In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 93-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Booij, G. (2010b). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, G. (2014). Word formation in construction grammar. In P. O. Muller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word Formation: An International handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 188-202). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2002). An introduction to English morphology: words and their structure. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dressler, W. U. (2005). Morphology and its demarcations: selected papers from the 11th morphology meeting. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
Fabb, N. (1998). Compounding. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp. 66-83). Blackwell: Oxford.
Ghaderi S, Rafiei A. (2017) Coercion and construction grammar. Language Related Research. 8 (7), 183-208 [In Persian].
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, H. & Noyer, R. (1999), State-of-the-article: distributed morphology. GLOT International, 4 (4), 3–9.
Imani, A. & Rafiei, A. (2019). A constructional study of the compounds of body part “Sar” (head) in Persian. Zabanpazhuhi, 11 (33), 129-159 [In Persian].
Johnston, M., & Busa, F. (1996). Qualia structure and the compositional interpretation of compounds. Proceedings of the ACL SIGLEX Workshop on Breadthand Depth of Semantic Lexicons (pp. 77-88). Kluwer: Dordrech.
Katamba, F., & Stonham, J. T. (2006). Morphology (2nd ed.). Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalbasi, I. (1992). Derivational structure of word in Modern Persian. Tehran: Humanities and cultural studies research institute [In Persian].
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: descriptive application (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.) Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1-63). Stanford: CSLIPublications.
Langacker, R.W. (2005). Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Iinterdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 101-159). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 251-285.
Lieber, R. (1989). On percolation. In G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (pp. 95–138). Dordrecht: Foris.
Matthews, P.H. (1991). Morphology. (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. (2009). Linguistics: an introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schultnik, H. (1962). De Morphologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern Netherlands. Den Haag: Van Goor Zonen.
Shaqaqi, V. (2007) Introduction to morphology. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Stekauer, P. & Lieber, R. (2005). Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Tabatabayi, A (2007). Compounding in Persian, Nameye Farhangestan, 35, 186-213 [In Persian].
Van, M. J. (1985). On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,180 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 493 |
||
