ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Functional or Lexical: A Load-Continuum Analysis of Prepositions in Persian
With the emphasis of Minimalist program on functional categories as having an equal or more prominent status than lexical ones, decision on the nature of the categories has attracted more investigations in recent studies. One of the basic categories the presence of which beside other lexical categories of verb, noun and adjective has been in question, is Preposition. It seems that the functional behavior of this category has cast doubt on its lexical nature. In this paper, using some criteria to diagnose the type of the category, it was found that, while prepositions in Persian are rich in both areas, their lexical nature cannot be ignored and they are correctly placed beside lexical categories. However, it is claimed, not all the items in this category behave in the same way: some have more functional and some more lexical load. In this regard, a continuumis proposed in which the short, old prepositions are placed at one end, and locative prepositions at the other end, still other prepositions in between. It is concluded that taking a fuzzy approach and leaving clear cut borders of functional or lexical categories, leads to the settlement of the debate.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54182_a8d80319b974e396e3c52ce3a1f93966.pdf
2015-02-20
1
20
10.22059/jolr.2015.54182
Preposition
Functional
lexical
continuum
load
Zahra
Abolhassani Chimeh
zahrachime@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor of Research Center, SAMT
AUTHOR
ابوالحسنی چیمه، زهرا (1382). عناصر مکان نما : تحلیلی بر رفتار دوگانه، در: گرایشهای نوین در زبانشناسی و آموزش زبان، ج 1، تهران، سمت و دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
1
ابوالحسنی چیمه، زهرا (1381). بازشناسی حروف اضافه مرکب از گروههای حرف اضافهای، پایان نامه دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
2
اسلامی، محرم (1379). «شناخت نوای گفتار زبان فارسی و کاربرد آن دربازسازی و بازشناسی رایانهای گفتار»، پایان نامة دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
3
مشکور، محمدجواد (1346). دستورنامه در صرف و نحو زبان فارسی، تهران، مؤسسة مطبوعاتی شرق.
4
ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1351). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
5
Adger, D. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach .New York: Oxford University Press.
6
Alexiadou,A., E. Anagnostopoulou & F. Schäfer. 2006. Properties of anticausatives cross-linguistically. In M. Fascarelli (ed.) Phases of interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 187-212.
7
Bayer, J. & M. Bader 2007. On the syntax of prepositional phrases. In Andreas Späth (ed.), Interfaces and interface conditions, pp. 157-179. Berlin: de Gruyter.
8
Baker, M.C. 2003. Verbs, nouns and adjectives: Their universal grammar. No. 102 in Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9
Brala, M. M. 2002 Understanding and translating (spatial) prepositions: an exercise in cognitive semantics for lexicograghic purposes, RCEAL, Vol.7:1-24, Cambridge University Press.
10
Cadiot, P. 1997. Les parametres de la notion the preposition incolore. Faits de Langues, 9: 127-134.
11
Cannesson E. and P.Saint-Dizier 2002. Defining and representing preposition senses: A preliminary analysis, ACL WSD workshop, Philadelphia.
12
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In J. Roderick and P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English transformational grammar, 184-221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
13
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In N. Chomsky, The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 13-127.
14
Den Dikken, M. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional pharases. Ms. The graduate center of the City University of New York.
15
Emonds, J. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
16
Friedman, R.B., 1995 Two types of phonological alexia. Cortex 31, 395-403.
17
Froud, K. 2001. Prepositions and the lexical/functional divide: Aphasic evidence, Lingua, 111: 1-28. Elsevier.
18
Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19
Hoekstra, T. 1995. The function of functional categories. Glot International 1(2) , 3-6.
20
Jackendoff, R. 1973 the base rules for prepositional phrases. In S.R. Anderson, & P. Kiparky, (eds.) A Festchrift for Morris Halle, Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc., 345-56.
21
Jackendoff, R. .1977. X-Bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2014. Revisiting the Persian Ezafe construction: A roll-up movement analysis, Lingua, 150:1-24.
24
Karimi, S, and M. Brame. 1986. A generalization concerning the Ezafe construction in Persian. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Western Conference of Linguistics, Canada.
25
Kayne, R. S. 2004. Prepositions as probes. In structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3, A. Belleti (ed), pp.192-212. Oxford, New York.
26
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27
Larson, R, and H. Yamakido. 2008. Ezafe and the deep position of nominal modifiers. In: L. McNally, and C. Kennedy, (eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics and discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 43--70.
28
Littlefield, H. 2005. “Lexical and functional prepositions in acquisition: Evidence for a hybrid category.” Boston University Conference on Language Development 29, Online Proceedings Supplement.
29
Littlefield, H. 2006. Syntax and acquisition in the prepositional domain: Evidence from English for fine-grained syntactic categories. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
30
Lyons, C. 1986. The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics. 22: 123-143.
31
McMichael, A. 2006. The A’s and Be’s of English prepositions. In P. Saint-Dizier, (ed.) Syntax and semantics of prepositions Springer.
32
Ouhalla, J.1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge.
33
Ouhalla, J.1999. Introducing transformational grammar: From principles and parameters to minimalism: Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press and Arnold Press.
34
Rauh, G. 1993. On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.). The Semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 99-150.
35
Rooryck, J. 1996. Prepositions and minimalist case marking. In H. Thrainsson, S. D. Epstein, & S. Peter (eds.). Studies in comparative Geramnic syntax, Vol. II. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer: 226-256.
36
Saint-Dizier, P. 2006. Syntax and semantics of prepositions, Springer.
37
Samiian, V. 1991. Prepositions in Persian and the neutralization hypothesis, California State University, Fresno.
38
Sinclair, J. (ed.). 1987 Collin COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Collins.
39
Slobin, D. (ed.) 1985. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Theoretical issues. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40
Svenonius, P. 2004. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. Ms. University of Tromso; available at ling .auf .net.
41
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. New York: Plenum Press.
42
Tremblay, M. 1996. Lexical and non-lexical prepositions in French. In A. Di Sciullo (ed.) Configurations. Somerville, MA: Blackwell, 334-373.
43
Tungseth, M. E. 2006. Verbal prepositions in Norwegian: Paths, places and possession. Doctoral dissertation. Tromso University.
44
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris (=dissertation)
45
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1990. Circumpositions. In H. Pinkster and I. Genee (eds.). Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon Dik on his 50th Birthday. Dordrecht: Foris, 229-241.
46
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of prepositions. Journal of comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2: 1-48.
47
Van Riemsdijk, H. & N. Corver. 2001. (ed.) Semi-Lexical Categories: The Content of Function Words and the Function of Content Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp i-vii + 1-554.
48
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis of Relative Clauses in Farsi
In this paper, we examine the treatment of Persian relative clauses in role and reference grammar. RRG is a structural-functional theory which has studied the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface in human language systems. The main objectives of this article, on the one hand, are to elucidate syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of Farsi relative clauses, and on the other hand, to assess this theory in analyzing Farsi relative clauses. Modern Farsi written sentences were selected for analysis. The results show that restrictive clauses in Farsi are peripheral i.e. modifiers of the nominal and occur at the nuclear level. On the other hand, non-restrictive clauses are adjuncts at the NP rather than the nuclearN level. Like adjectives, relative clauses express attributes of the head noun and accordingly the semantic representation of the relative clause is represented as filling the same slot in an attributive predication that an adjective does. In terms of focus structure, relative clauses could be considered as an information unit. Hence, they can occur in actual focus domain. Moreover, relative clauses could be a presupposed element while they can present contrasts and focus to the interlocutor.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54183_836e57bfd9c5b8cf047c5c2b0ad555e6.pdf
2015-02-20
21
41
10.22059/jolr.2015.54183
: role and reference grammar
relative clause
syntactic projection
semantic projection
operator projection
focus structure
linking
Farideh
Haghbin
1
Associate Professor of Linguistics department Alzahra University
AUTHOR
Homa
Asadi
h.asadi@alzahra.ac.ir
2
Ph.D. Candidate of Linguistics, Alzahra University
AUTHOR
ابوالقاسمی، محسن (1387). دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، تهران، سمت.
1
ارژنگ، غلامرضا (1374). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، نشر قطره.
2
غلامعلیزاده، خسرو (1374). ساخت زبان فارسی، تهران، انتشارات احیاء کتاب.
3
فرشیدورد، خسرو (1384). دستور مفصل امروز، تهران، سخن.
4
ماهوتیان، شهرزاد (1387). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه ردهشناختی ترجمه سید مهدی سمایی، تهران، نشر مرکز.
5
مشکوةالدینی، مهدی (1384). دستور زبان فارسی: واژگان و پیوندهای ساختی، تهران، سمت.
6
Andrews, A.D. 2007. Relative clauses, In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: vol2. (206-236) , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7
Celce- Murcia, M. and D. Larsen-Freeman .1999. The grammar book, Boston, Heinle & Heinle.
8
Comrie, B. 1996. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
9
Givon, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol.2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
10
Kroeger, R. P. 2005. Analyzing grammar : An introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
11
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
12
Richards, J.C. and R. Schmidt .2002. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics, London, Longman.
13
VanValin, R. 1993. Advances in role and reference grammar, New York, John Benjamin.
14
VanValin, R. 2001. A brief overview of role and reference grammar, Available on RRG website.
15
VanValin, R, and R, LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
16
VanValin, R. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
17
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Analysis of Azari-Turkish Wh-Words in Minimalism
The present study investigates Azari-Turkish wh-words within the framework of minimalism. The analysis of wh-in-situ data shows that [+Q] &ki/kïparticle are syntactically in complementary distribution in Azari-Turkish. When a wh-word is bound by [+Q] in C-position, it is interpreted as interrogative element. If, on the other hand, the wh-word is bound by ki/kïparticle which appears in C-position, it is assigned only non-interrogative reading. The non-subject wh-words are scrambled to clause initial position in Azari-Turkish. They are scrambled to [Spec, Foc P] & [Spec, Top P] to satisfy focus and topic features. The scrambling is A’-movement, because it is a movement to non-argument position. The findings of the present study are in contrast to those of previous studies which assume C-position for null Q-operator & [Spec, TP] for scrambled wh-words.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54184_c4bc08d0d78a05a98275ac66d0ba0ed6.pdf
2015-02-20
41
56
10.22059/jolr.2015.54184
wh-in-situ
scrambled wh-word
Minimalism
Azari-Turkish
Abdolhosein
Heidari
a_heidari53@yahoo.com
1
Invited Professor Department of Linguistics, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
AUTHOR
Saeed Mohammad
Razinejad
2
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
AUTHOR
انوشه، مزدک (1389). رویکردی مشخصهبنیاد به فرایندهای مبتداسازی و تأکید در زبان فارسی. پژوهشهای زبانی، دورۀ 1، شمارهی 1، 1- 28.
1
حیدری، عبدالحسین و افسر روحی (1393). قلبنحوی در زبانترکیآذری براساس مدل کاوشگر- هدف برنامۀ کمینهگرایی. جستارهای زبانی، دورۀ 5، شماره 1، 27-44.
2
راسخمهند، محمد (1379). جملات پرسشی در زبان فارسی. مجموعه مقالات پنجمین کنفرانس زبانشناسی، 331-334. تهران، دانشکدۀادبیات و زبانهای خارجی دانشگاه علّامه طباطبایی.
3
غلامعلیزاده، خسرو (1372). فرایندهای حرکتی در زبانفارسی،پایاننامۀ دکترا،دانشگاه تهران.
4
متولیان نائینی، رضوان و شهبازی، سمیه (1392). بررسی مقابلهای حرکت پرسشواژهدر زبان فارسی و ترکی.مجموعه مقالات اوّلین کنفرانس ملی آموزش زبان انگلیسی، ادبیات و مترجمی. شیراز، دانشگاهشیراز.
5
واعظی، هنگامه (1392). ساختهای پرسشواژهای در زبان فارسی (رویکرد کمینهگرا). زبان پژوهی، دورۀ 5 ، شمارهی 901، ویژهنامۀ زمستان، 199-221.
6
Akar, D. 1990. Wh-Questions in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bogaziçi University.
7
Aoun, J, and Y.A, Li. 1993a. Wh-Elements In-Situ: Syntax or LF?, LI 24-2: 199-238.
8
Arslan, C. 1999.Approaches to Wh-Structures in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bogaziçi University.
9
Aygen, G. 1999. Q-Particle in Turkish, Japanese and Sinhala, Proceedings of the International Conference Havana: Cuba.
10
Cheng, L. 1997.On the typology of Wh-Questions. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series, New York: Garland Publishing.
11
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures, The Hague, Mouton.
12
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
13
Chomsky, N. 1999.“Derivation by Phase”, In M.I.T. Occasional Papers in Linguistics. N. 18. Also Published in M. Kenstowicz(ed.), Ken Hale 2001. A Life in Language (1-52), Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
14
Chomsky, N. 2001. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, Unpublished Manuscript, M.I.T. A Published Version Appeared in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures (104-131), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15
Chomsky, N. 2005. On Phases. Unpublished Paper to Appear in R. Freidin, C. P. Oteroand M. L. Zubizaretta (ed.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
16
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching U.G. from Below, In Sauerland, Uli/Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion= Language?:Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax Semantics (1-29), New York: Mouton de Gruuuyter.
17
Gorgulu, E. 2006. Variable Wh-words in Turkish. Unpublished M.A.Thesis, Bogaziçi University.
18
Haegeman, L., & Guéron, J. 1999. English grammar: A generativeperspective, Oxford, Blackwell.
19
Huang, C-T. 1982.Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
20
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2001. On Wh-Questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46 (1-2): 41-61.
21
Karimi, S. and Azita T. 2007. Wh-Movement, Interpretation, andOptionality in Persian, In S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. Wilkins(eds.), Clausal and Phrasal Architecture:Syntactic Derivatio and Interpretation (167-187), John Benjamin Publishing.
22
Miyagawa, S. 2001.The Epp, scrambling, and wh-in-situ, In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
23
Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
24
Radford, A. 2009. Analyzing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
25
Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery, InL. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar (281-337), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26
Rizzi, L. 2001. On the Position Int (Errogative) in the LeftPeriphery of the Clause, In G.Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Issue in Italian Syntax (287-296), Elsevier: Amesterdam.
27
Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and Left Periphery, In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structure (223-251), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax.Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, MIT.
29
Özsoy, A. S. 2005. Crossing and Nesting Paths in Movement in Turkish. Ms, Bogaziçi University.
30
Watanabe, A. 2001. Wh-in-Situ Languages, In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (ed.), The Hand Book of Contemporary SyntacticTheory (203-225),Oxford: Blackwell .
31
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Phrase Accent in Persian Intonational Phonology
This article addresses the phonetic and phonological representation of H- phrase accent in the tonal structure of Persian pre-nuclear accents. In an experimental study, three groups of pre-nuclear accentual phrases, namely, phrases with antepenultimate, penultimate and final stress pattern, were selected for tonal examination. Materials were designed so as to yield under-pressure and pressure free prosodic environments. The sentences were then read by four speakers of standard Persian. Results revealed some evidence for the presence of phrase accent as a part of the tonal structure of all groups, except for oxytones in which there is not sufficient segmental space for the realization of the H- phrase tone. Thus, we may transcribe pre-nuclear accents in Persia as a sequence of an L+H* pitch accent and a H- phrase accent: L+H*H, whereby L+H* is associated with the stressed syllable and the H- is spread as a plateau from the accented syllable to the end of the accentual phrase. The observations further revealed that the H- plateau is realized in different ways depending on the stress pattern of the accentual phrase. The H- plateau can best be explained using the tone copy analysis which assumes that a plateau results from copying a phrase accent from the boundary to units which do not bear tones such as final syllables.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54185_f3471381023bffcedcc4a13565e325c6.pdf
2015-02-20
57
76
10.22059/jolr.2015.54185
tonal structure
boundary tone
plateau
pitch accent
tone copy
Vahid
Sadeghi
va_sadeghi2000@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Imam Khomeini International University
AUTHOR
اسلامی، محرم (1384). واجشناسی: تحلیل نظام آهنگ زبان فارسی، تهران، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.
1
Arvaniti, A, & M. Baltazani .2000. Greek ToBI: a system for the annotation of Greek speech corpora, In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000) , Athens: 555-562.
2
Arvaniti, A, D. R. Ladd & I. Mennen .1998. Stability of tonal alignment: the case of Greek prenuclear accents, Journal of Phonetics, 26: 3-25.
3
Beckman, M. E, & J. B. Pierrehumbert (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese, Phonology Yearbook, 3: 255-310.
4
Bolinger, D. 1970. Relative height, In P. Leon, G. Faure & A. Rigault (eds.), Prosodic feature analysis. Montreal: Didier, 109-125.
5
D'Imperio, M. 1991. Tonal structure and pitch targets in Italian focus constituents, In J. Ohala et al. (1999) , 1757-1760.
6
Fery, C. 1993. German intonational patterns, Tubingen: Niemeyer.
7
Frota, S. 2000. Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: phonological phrasing and Intonation, New York: Garland.
8
Grice, M. 1995. The intonation of Palermo Italian: implications for intonation theory, Ubingen: Niemeyer.
9
Grice, M, & R. Benzmuller. 1998. Tonal affiliation in German falls and fall rises, Poster presented at the 6th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, York.
10
Grice, M, & M. Savino. 1997. Can pitch accent type convey information status in yes-no questions?, In Proceedings of the ACL 97 Workshop on Concept to Speech Generation Systems, Madrid, 29-38.
11
Grice, M, D. R. Ladd & A. Arvaniti .2000. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology, Phonology, 17: 143-185.
12
Gussenhoven, C. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents, Dordrecht, Foris.
13
Gussenhoven, C. 1993. The Dutch foot and the chanted call, Journal of Linguistics, 29: 37-63.
14
Ladd, D. R. 1978. Stylized intonation, Language, 54: 517-540.
15
Ladd, D. R. 1983. Phonological features of intonational peaks, Language, 59: 721-759.
16
Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational phonology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17
Ladd, D. R, & A. Schepman. 2003. Sagging transitions between high pitch accents in English: experimental evidence, Journal of Phonetics, 31: 81-112.
18
Mahjani, B. 2003. An Instrumental Study of Prosodic Features and Intonation in Modern Farsi, MA dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
19
Pierrehumbert, J. B. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation, Doctral dissertation, MIT.
20
Pierrehumbert, J. B, & M. E. Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
21
Prieto, P. 2005. Stability effects in tonal clash contexts in Catalan, Journal of Phonetics, 33: 215-242
22
Prieto, P, & F. Torreira. 2007. The segmental anchoring hypothesis revisited: Syllable duration and speech rate effects on peak timing in Spanish, Journal of Phonetics, 35: 473-500.
23
Reyelt, M, M. Grice, R. Benzmuller, J. Mayer & A. Batliner. 1996. Prosodische Etikettierung des Deutschen mit ToBI, In D. Gibbon (ed.), Natural language and speech technology, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 144-155.
24
Sadat-Tehrani, N. 2007. The Intonational Grammar of Persian, PhD dissertation, University of Manitoba.
25
Sadat-Tehrani, N. 2009. The alignment of L + H* pitch accents in Persian intonation, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 39: 205-230.
26
Trager, G. L, & H. L. Smith. 1951. An outline of English structure, Norman: Battenburg Press.
27
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Metaphor; A Survey on the Factors Related to Semantic Comprehension; their Effectiveness and Psychological Reliability
The present study is a randomized pilot project that intends to test the Graded Salience Hypothesis (Giora, 1997), to investigate the major factors contributing to understanding meaning. According to Graded Salience Hypothesis, more salient meanings–coded meanings foremost on our mind due to conventionality, frequency, familiarity, or prototypicality–are accessed faster than and reach sufficient levels of activation before less salient ones. Even rich and supportive contexts which are biased in favor of less salient meanings do not inhibit activation of salient meanings. This research addressed predictions derived from this model by examining the salience of metaphor in Persian language. The primary dependent measure was RTs, and the design of this experiment was a combination of 2 Contexts (figurative, literal), 2 Types of Statements (familiar vs. unfamiliar vs. less familiar) and RTs (long, short, equal). Two types of contexts (figurative inviting and literal inviting contexts) were prepared. The software used in this experiment was designed for self-paced reading experiments. Reading latencies could be recorded with millisecond accuracy via this software. Results did not lend support to the Graded Salience Hypothesis entirely. This result shows that main hypothesis isn't approved. These results show that contrary to the Graded Salience Hypothesis, context and salience do not run in parallel, but sometimes context obstructs access to salient information and a semi serial process is expected. Also the results indicated that the salient meaning in both familiar and less familiar figurative expressions is mostly figurative meaning. Also salient meaning in unfamiliar metaphors is first figurative meaning, but after the passage of time, literal meaning is activated.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54186_823432800b28eec763af6cd4c18a4e8e.pdf
2015-02-20
77
96
10.22059/jolr.2015.54186
Cognitive linguistics
figurative language
Graded Salience Hypothesis
Metaphor
Leila
Erfaniyan Qonsoli
leilaerfaniyan@yahoo.com
1
Linguistics PH.D, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad & Faculty Member, Binaloud Institute of Higher Education
AUTHOR
Shahla
Sharifi
sh-sharifi@um.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor in Ferdowsi University of Mashad
AUTHOR
پهلواننژاد، محمدرضا و لیلا عرفانیان قونسولی (1389). بررسی رابطه بین نحو و معناشناسی، در: زهرا بهرامیان (ویراستار)، پرنیان سخن، مقالات پنجمین همایش پژوهشهای زبان و ادبیات فارسی (583-566)، سبزوار: موسسه چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت معلم سبزوار.
1
عرفانیان قونسولی، لیلا، شهلا شریفی و مهدی مشکوةالدینی (1393). چگونگی درک کنایه بر اساس فرضیه شناختبنیاد برجستگی تدریجی، در: شهلا رقیب دوست و فرشته مؤمنی (ویراستار)، مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش ملی عصب-روانشناسی زبان (125-107)، تهران: نشر نویسه پارسی.
2
گندمکار، راحله (1391). نگاهی تازه به چگونگی درک استعاره در زبان فارسی. ادب پژوهی، 19، 151-167.
3
Armstrong, S. , L. Gleitman, and H. Gleitman. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263–308.
4
Bates, E. and B. MacWhinney. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of language processing, (pp.3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5
Bates, E. 1999. On the nature and Nurture of Language. In E. Bizzi, P. Calissano and V.Volterra (Eds.), Frontiers of biology: the brain of homo sapiens, (pp.241–265). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Trecanni.
6
Blasko, G. D. and C. Connine. 1993.Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,19, 295–308.
7
Chambers, C. D. and M. Brown. 2003. Timing accuracy under microsoft windows revealed through external chronometry. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Computers, 35 (1) , 96-108.
8
Coulson, S. and M. Kutas. 1998. Frame-shifting and sentential integration, technical report. CogSci, 98.03.
9
Dascal, M. 1987. Defining literal meaning. Cognitive Science, 11, 259–281.
10
Dascal, M. 1989. On the role of context and literal meaning in understanding. Cognitive Science, 13, 253–257.
11
Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., S. Sharifi and M.Meshkatod Dini. 2013. A survey on optimal innovation and salience hypothesis inthe Persian advertisement. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,3(12) , 342-353.
12
Fodor, J. 1983. The modularity of mind, Cambridge: MIT Press.
13
Forster, K.I. 1976. Accessing the mental lexicon. In R.J. Wales and E.C.T. Walker(Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms(257-287). Amsterdam: North Holland.
14
Forster, K.I. 1979, «Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor», In: W.E. Cooper, E.C.T. Walker(Eds.), Sentence processing: psycholinguistic studies presented to merrill garrett, 27-85, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc: Hillsdale,NJ.
15
Gentner, D. and P. Wolff. 1997. Alignment in the processing of metaphor. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 331–355.
16
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1984. Resolving twenty years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281.
17
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory and Cognition, 8, 449–456.
18
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1982. A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse. Text, 2, 9–27.
19
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1983. Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 524–533.
20
Giora, R. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3) , 183-206.
21
Giora, R. 1998. When is relevance? on the role of salience in utterance interpretation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11, 85–94.
22
Giora, R. 1999. On the priority of salient meanings: studies of literal and figurative language. Journal of pragmatics, 31, 919-929.
23
Giora, R. and O. Fein. 1999. On understanding familiar and less familiar figurative language. Journal of pragmatics, 31, 1601-1618.
24
Giora, R. 2003. On our mind: salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press.
25
Giora, R., O. Fein, D. Laadan, J. Wolfson, M. Zeituny, R. Kidron, R. Kaufman and R. Shaham. 2007a. Expecting irony: context versus salience-based effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (2) , 119–146.
26
Giora, R., E. Livnat, O. Fein, A. Barnea, R. Zeiman and I. Berger. 2013. Negation generates nonliteral interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28: 89–115.
27
Hintzman, D. L. and T. Curran. 1994. Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgements: evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1–18.
28
Hogaboam, T. W. and C.A. Perfetti. 1975. Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 265–274.
29
Ivanko, S. and P.M. Pexman. 2001. Understanding irony: on-line processing of figurative and literal meaning. Poster presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. University of California: Santa Barbara.
30
Keysar, B., Y. Shen, S. Glucksberg and W.S. Horton. 2000. Conventional language: how metaphorical is it?. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576–593.
31
Liu, H., E. Bates, T. Powell and B. Wulfeck. 1997. Single-word shadowing and the study of lexical access. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 157–180.
32
MacWhinney, B. 1987. The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition(249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33
McKinney, C. J., E.R. MacCormac and K.A. Welsh-Bohmer. 1999. Hardware and software for tachistoscopy: how to make accurate measurements on any PC utilizing the microsoft windows operating system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 129-136.
34
Neill, W. T., D.V. Hilliard and E. Cooper. 1988. The detection of lexical ambiguity: evidence for context-sensitive parallel access.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 279–287.
35
Ortony, A., R.J. Vondruska, M.A. Fossand L.E. Jones. 1985. Salience, similes, and asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594.
36
Peleg, O., R. Gioraand O. Fein. 2001. Salience and context effects: two are better than one. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 173–192.
37
Peleg, O., R.Giora and O.Fein. 2004. Contextual strength: the whens and hows of context effects. In I. Noveck and D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics(172–186). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
38
Peleg, O., R.Giora and O. Fein. 2008. Resisting contextual information:you can't put a salient meaning down. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4.1, Special Issue on Humour: 13-44.
39
Pexman P. M., T. Ferretti and A. Katz. 2000. Discourse factors that influence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222.
40
Rosch, E. H. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (111–144). New York: Academic Press.
41
Rosch, E.H. and C.B.Mervis. 1975. Family resemblance: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.
42
Schwoebel, J., S. Dews, E.Winner and K.Srinivas. 2000. Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 47–61.
43
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44
Wiley, J. and K.Rayner. 2000. Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1011–1021.
45
Zajonc, R. B. 2000. Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: the role of affect in social cognition(31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
On the Syntactic Analysis of Persian Modals: Šâyad ‘Perhaps’ and Bâyad ‘Must’
The present paper sets out to investigate the syntactic category of Persian modals, šâyad ‘perhaps’ and bâyad ‘must’. The syntactic category of the two modal elements has been viewed differently by different scholars. A number of scholars argue that both šâyad and bâyad are modal auxiliaries, while others claim that they both are modal adverbs. We propose that šâyad is a modal adverb and bâyad is a modal auxiliary. This distinction is shown to follow the adverbial treatment along the lines of Cinque (1999, 2004). Under his approach, we propose that šâyad is located in the specifier position of ModPepistemic and bâyad is located in the head position of ModProot.
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54187_020f520ff44cc2b52da193e5ed2c656b.pdf
2015-02-20
97
112
10.22059/jolr.2015.54187
bâyad
Modals
ModPepistemic
ModProot
šâyad
Specifier
Zahra
Labbafan Khosh
labbafan@ut.ac.ir
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Linguistics, Tehran University
AUTHOR
Ali
darzi
adarzi12@yahoo.com
2
Professor of Linguistics Department Tehran University
AUTHOR
انوشه، مزدک (1387). ساخت جمله و فرافکنهای نقشنمای آن در زبان فارسی. رسالة دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
1
عموزاده، محمد و حدائق رضایی (1389). ابعاد معناشناختی «باید» در زبان فارسی. مجلة پژوهشهای زبانی، سال اول، شمارۀ اول، پاییز و زمستان، 57-78.
2
نقیزاده، محمود، منوچهر توانگر و محمد عموزاده (1390). بررسی مفهوم ذهنیت در افعال وجهی در زبان فارسی. مجلة پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، سال سوم، شمارۀ چهارم، بهار و تابستان، 1-20.
3
Abraham, W. 2002. Modal verbs: Epistemics in German and English, In S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. Wurff (eds.), Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System (19–50) , Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4
Alexiadou, A. 1997. Adverb Placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5
Austin, J. R., S. Engelberg, G. Rauh 2004. Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context and syntactic structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
6
Barbiers, S. 2002. Modality and its interaction with the verbal system, In S. Barbiers, F. Beukema and W. Wurff (eds.), Modality and its interaction with the verbal system (133–163) , Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
7
Butler, J. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality, Lingua, 113: 967–996.
8
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Cinque, G. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax, Lingua, 114: 683-710.
10
Costa, J. 2004. A multifactorial approach to adverb placement: assumptions, factand problems, Lingua, 114: 711-753.
11
Darzi, A. 2008. Subjunctive-negation interaction in Persian, Proceeding of the 18th International Congress of Linguists, Korea University: Seoul, Korea.
12
Ernst, T. 2004. Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause, Lingua,114: 755- 777.
13
Haider, H. 2004. Pre- and post-verbal adverbials in OV and VO, Lingua, 114: 779-807.
14
Hasselgard, H. 2010. Adjunct adverbials in English, New York: Cambridge University Press.
15
Karimi, S. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian,New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
16
Laenzlinger, C. 1998. Comparative studies in word order variation: Adverbs, pronouns and clause structure in Romance and Germanic, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17
Sueur, J.P. 1978. Adverbes de modalite et verbes modaux epistemiques, Recherches Linguistiques, 5/6: 235-272.
18
Taleghani, A. 2008. Modality, aspect and negation in Persian, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19
Tavangar, M. and M.Amouzadeh 2009. Subjective modality and tense in Persian, Language Sciences, 31: 853-873.
20
Travis, L. 1988. The syntax of adverbs, In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax (280-310) , Department of Linguistics, McGill University.
21
Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
22
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Marked Ergative Constructions in Hawrami:
The Opposition of Two Minimalist Approaches
The present paper seeks to present a minimalist account for the derivational process of marked ergative constructions in Hawrami in terms of Phase Theory (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004; Radford 2009; Citko2014). This phase-based approach is compared to the former feature-based approach advocated by Karimi Doustan and Naghshbandi (2011). It is argued that using Phase Theory and its related mechanisms and conditions like Phase Impenetrability Condition on the one hand and ignoring Split Cp Hypothesis (Haegeman and Gueron 1999) and the related Focus and Topic projections on the other hand would end up in a more optimal and economic explanation. From a macro theoretical viewpoint the results of this paper lend more empirical support to effects of Phase Theory on generating more optimal explanations in the framework of Minimalist Program
https://jolr.ut.ac.ir/article_54188_c5d34e988da8af14d116c4930ad37164.pdf
2015-02-20
113
132
10.22059/jolr.2015.54188
Hawrami
Marked Ergative constructions
Split Cp Hypothesis
Phase Theory
Phase Impenetrability Condition
Zaniar
Naghshbandi
zaniar.naghshbandi@gmail.com
1
Ph.D. Candidate of General Linguistics, Bu-Ali University
AUTHOR
انوشه، مزدک (1389).رویکردی مشخصه بنیاد به فرایندهای تأکید و مبتداسازی در زبان فارسی، مجلهی پژوهشهای زبانی، دورهی اول، شمارۀ اول، 1-28.
1
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1392). ردهشناسی زبانهای ایرانی، تهران، سمت.
2
درزی، علی و راضیه مهدی بیرقدار (1389). بررسی جایگاه مبتدا در زبان فارسی بر پایه برنامه کمینهگرا، مجلهی پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، سال دوم شمارۀ اول، 1 تا 18.
3
کریمی، یادگار (1388). ساخت کنایی:منشأ و ماهیت آن. پایاننامهی دکتری، گروه زبانشناسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران.
4
کریمی، یادگار. (1391). تحلیل نحوی ساخت کنایی بر پایهی شواهدی از زبان کردی، مجله زبانپژوهی، سال چهارم، شمارۀ 7، 177-209.
5
کریمی دوستان، غلامحسین و زانیار نقشبندی (1390). ساخت کنایی در گویش هورامی، مجله پژوهشهای زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، دوره دوم، شمارۀ 6، 19-44.
6
منشیزاده، مجتبی و یادگار کریمی (1390). پیرامون خاستگاه ساخت کنایی، مجله زبانشناسی، سال بیست و سوم، شمارۀ 2، 9-39.
7
نقشبندی، زانیار (1390). ساختهای ارگتیو در گویش هورامی. پایان نامهی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه زبانشناسی دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج.
8
نقشبندی، شهرام (1375). نظام آوایی گویش هورامی (گونهی شهر پاوه) از دیدگاه واجشناسی زایشی و واجشناسی جزمستقل، پایاننامهی کارشناسی ارشد. گروه زبانشناسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران.
9
Beneveniste, E. 1966. La Construction Passive du Parfait Transitif, In Emile Benevenist (ed.), Problemes de Linguistique Generale ( 176-186) , Paris: Gallimard.
10
Bynon, Th. 2005. Evidential, Raised Possessor, and the Historical Source of the Ergative Construction in Indo-Iranian, Transactions of the philological society,103:1-72.
11
Collins, C. 2001. Economy Conditions in Syntax, In M. Baltin and Ch. Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory ( 45–61) , Oxford: Blackwell.
12
Chomsky, N.2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, In R. E. A. Martin (ed.), Step By Step Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (89–155) , Cambridge:MIT Press.
13
Chomsky, N.2001. Derivation by Phase, In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language ( 1–52) , Cambridge: MIT Press.
14
Chomsky, N.2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3 (104–31) , Oxford University Press.
15
Chomsky, N.2006. On phases, In Freidin, R., Otero, C. Zubizaretta, M. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
16
Citko, B. 2014. Phase Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press.
17
Dixon, R.M.W. 1994. Ergativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18
Haegeman L, and J, Gueron. 1999. English Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
19
Haig,G.2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach, New Yok: Mouton de Gruyter.
20
Holmberg, A and David Odden. 2004.Ergativity and Role-Marking in Hawrami, In Syntax of the World’s Languages, Leipzig, Germany.
21
Hornstein, N. J. Nunes, and K.Grohmann.2005.UnderstandingMinimalism,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
22
Karimi, S. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling: Evidence from Persian, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
23
Karimi, Y. 2010. Unaccusative transitives and the person-case constraint effects in Kurdish,Lingua,120: 693-716.
24
Legate, J. 2012. Under-Inheritance, Handout of a paper presented at NELS 42, University of Toronto.
25
Mackenzie,D.N. 1966. The Dialect of Awraman, Kobenhavn.
26
Pesetsky, D, Torrego, E. 2004. Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories, In Gue´ron, J., Lecarme, J. (eds.),The Syntax of Time (495–537). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27
Radford, A. 2009. An Introduction to English Sentence Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28
Woolford, E. 2006.Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure, Linguistic Inquiry, 37:111-130.
29