Functional or Lexical: A Load-Continuum Analysis of Prepositions in Persian

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor of Research Center, SAMT

Abstract

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.

Keywords


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.
ابوالحسنی چیمه، زهرا (1381). بازشناسی حروف اضافه مرکب از گروه‌های حرف اضافه­ای، پایان نامه دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
اسلامی، محرم (1379). «شناخت نوای گفتار زبان فارسی و کاربرد آن دربازسازی و بازشناسی رایانه­ای گفتار»، پایان نامة دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
مشکور، محمدجواد (1346). دستورنامه در صرف و نحو زبان فارسی، تهران، مؤسسة مطبوعاتی شرق.
ناتل خانلری، پرویز (1351). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
 Adger, D. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach .New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Baker, M.C. 2003. Verbs, nouns and adjectives: Their universal grammar. No. 102 in Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
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.
Cadiot, P. 1997. Les parametres de la notion the preposition incolore. Faits de Langues, 9: 127-134.
Cannesson E. and P.Saint-Dizier 2002. Defining and representing preposition senses: A preliminary analysis, ACL WSD workshop, Philadelphia.
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In J. Roderick and P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English transformational grammar, 184-221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In N. Chomsky, The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 13-127.
Den Dikken, M. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional pharases. Ms. The graduate center of the City University of New York.
Emonds, J. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Friedman, R.B., 1995 Two types of phonological alexia. Cortex 31, 395-403.
Froud, K. 2001. Prepositions and the lexical/functional divide: Aphasic evidence, Lingua, 111: 1-28. Elsevier.
Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  
Hoekstra, T. 1995. The function of functional categories. Glot International 1(2) , 3-6.
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.
Jackendoff, R. .1977. X-Bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2014. Revisiting the Persian Ezafe construction: A roll-up movement analysis, Lingua, 150:1-24.
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.
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.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Littlefield, H. 2005. “Lexical and functional prepositions in acquisition: Evidence for a hybrid category.” Boston University Conference on Language Development 29, Online Proceedings Supplement.
Littlefield, H. 2006. Syntax and acquisition in the prepositional domain: Evidence from English for fine-grained syntactic categories. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
Lyons, C. 1986. The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics. 22: 123-143.
McMichael, A. 2006. The A’s and Be’s of English prepositions. In P. Saint-Dizier, (ed.) Syntax and semantics of prepositions Springer.
Ouhalla, J.1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge.
Ouhalla, J.1999. Introducing transformational grammar: From principles and parameters to minimalism: Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press and Arnold Press. 
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.
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.
Saint-Dizier, P. 2006. Syntax and semantics of prepositions, Springer.
Samiian, V. 1991. Prepositions in Persian and the neutralization hypothesis, California State University, Fresno.
Sinclair, J. (ed.). 1987 Collin COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: Collins.
Slobin, D. (ed.) 1985. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Theoretical issues. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Svenonius, P. 2004. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. Ms. University of Tromso; available at ling .auf .net.
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. New York: Plenum Press.
Tremblay, M. 1996. Lexical and non-lexical prepositions in French. In A. Di Sciullo (ed.) Configurations. Somerville, MA: Blackwell, 334-373.
Tungseth, M. E. 2006. Verbal prepositions in Norwegian: Paths, places and possession. Doctoral dissertation. Tromso University.
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional  phrases. Dordrecht: Foris (=dissertation)
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.
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of prepositions. Journal of comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2: 1-48.
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.
  • Receive Date: 26 October 2014
  • Revise Date: 05 February 2015
  • Accept Date: 03 December 2014
  • First Publish Date: 20 February 2015