Ezafe Constructions in Persian Language from Goldberg’s Construction Grammar Perspective

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Semnan

2 M.A. Student of the Linguistics University of Semnan

3 Assistant Professor of General Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.


Goldberg’s Construction Grammar is a cognitive linguistics approach which has considered ‘Constructions’ as the basic units of language. The present study aimed to study Ezafe Constructions in Persian language from Goldberg’s Construction Grammar perspective. Therefore, this approach is regarded as the analysis framework of the study. A corpus of 3000 Ezafe constructions collected from 10 Jam-e-Jam magazines, have been selected to be analyzed. According to the results, Ezafe constructions are classified into three general classes namely possessive (including possession, addition and attribution), descriptive and relative. “Relation” is considered as the basic sense of Ezafe Constructions. Furthermore, it has been shown that the possessive constructions are the most frequent Ezafe constructions, and descriptive and relative constructions are respectively less frequent.


احمدی گیوی، حسن و انوری، حسن، (1374). دستور زبان فارسی، تهران، فاطمی.
عموزاده، م.، اسفندیاری، ن. (1391). بررسی مقایسه­ای ساخت اضافه در زبان فارسی بر اساس الگوی­های شناختی و غیرشناختی، پژوهش­های تطبیقی زبان­شناسی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان, صص59-91.
Bernardez, E., 1999, Some Reflections on the Origins of Cognitive Linguistics. Journal of English Studies, 1, 9-27.
Chmosky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Evans, V., 2007, A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982, Frame semantics, In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co., 111-137.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O'connor, M. C., 1988, Regularity and Idiomacity in Grammatical Constructions: the Case of "Let Alone". Language, 64, 501-538.
Fried, M., & Ostman, J.-O., 2004, Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldberg, A. E., 1995, Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2002. Surface Generalizations: an Alternative to Alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 56-327.
Goldberg, A. E. 2006a. Constructions at Work: the Narure of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2014. Revisiting the Persian Ezafe Construction: A Roll-Up Movement Analysis. Lingua 150, 1-24.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. 1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: "the What's X Doing Y? Construction". Language, 75, 1-34.
Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. CLS, 13, 236-287.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lambrecht, K. 1987. Sentence Focus, Information Structure and the Thetic-Categorial Distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 82-366.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. In Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Concept Image and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaelis, L. A. 2006. Construction Grammar. In K. Brown, The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 73-84). Oxford: Elsevier.
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. 1996. Toward a Construction-Based Model of Language Function: the Case of Nominal Extraposition. Language, 72, 57-215.
Talmy, L. 2000, Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring systems, i-viii, 1-565. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wu, X. 1999. A Corpus-based Construction Grammar Analysis of the Mandarian BA Constructions. UMI Company.
Volume 7, Issue 2
January 2017
Pages 39-57
  • Receive Date: 11 October 2016
  • Revise Date: 10 November 2016
  • Accept Date: 21 November 2016
  • First Publish Date: 21 November 2016