Language Research

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Journal Metrics

Cooperation with the institution or association

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

Sample Persian work

English work sample

Publication cost

Guide for Authors

orcid_help

Registration guide in Pablones

referee

The original form of the work

Conflict of interest form

The Ranking and Interaction of Mollin’s Constraints in Persian Irreversible Binomials

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Candidate in linguistics, University of Isfahan , Isfahan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor in Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Associate Professor in Linguistics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

The term “binomials” in the literature refers to the sequence of two words pertaining to the same form-class, and ordinarily connected by some kind of lexical link. In this term, “nomi” (which means “name”) doesn’t refer to names only, but it is a cover term and can refer to names, adjectives, verbs, adverbs and conjunctions. One important point in binomials relates to the order of constituents. In this regard, there is a model called Constraints’ Model which was proposed by Mollin (2014). The Constraints’ Model has some constraints which determine the order of constituents in binomials. The constraints of this model are: semantic-pragmatic constraints, nonmetrical-phonological constraints, metrical-phonological constraints, and frequency and alphabetic order constraints. The constraints in the model compete with each other to determine the order of constituents in the binomials. In this model, there is the possibility that one constraint can determine the order of constituents in some binomials, but it is possible that it can’t determine the order of constituents in all binomials. The reason for separating these four constituents from each other is that they have differences from each other. In this model, the constituents interact with each other and they have often significant correlations with each other. The paper aims to analyze Persian binomials based on Constraints’ Model and to determine their interactions with each other and finally to rank the constraints. To do the research, the data, including 534 Persian binomials, were analyzed based on Constraints’ Model.  Then the model’ constraints were ranked according to Persian binomials, finally the competition and interaction of the constraints were determined in the Persian language. The results showed that non-metrical-phonological constraints can explain the most of Persian binomials, so they rank first, but semantic-pragmatic constraints can explain the least of Persian binomials, so they rank last.

Keywords

References
Abraham, R. D. 1950. Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. The Modern Language Journal 34(4): 276–287.
Anvari, H and Ahmadi Givi, H. 1995. Persian Syntax 2. Second Edition. Tehran: Fatemi, [In Persian].
Battistella, E. 1990. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Benor, S. B. & Levy, R. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2): 233–277.
Birdsong, D. 1982. Semantics of word order in co-ordination. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 21: 25–32.
Cardona, G. 1970. Pāņini. A Survey of Research. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Conley, K; Cooper, W.E. 1981. Conjoined Ordering of Color Terms by Children and Adults, Studies in language, 5:3, 305- 322.
Cooper, W. E. & Ross, J. R. 1975. World order. In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Robin E. Grossman, L. James San & Timothy J. Vance (eds), 63–111. ChicagoIL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Dabirsiyaghi, M. 1966. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Elmi, [In Persian].
Farshidvard, Kh. 2003. Today’s Comprehensive Syntax. Tehran: Sokhan, [In Persian].
Farzi, A. 1996. A Contrastive study of the rule- governability of English and Persian irreversible binomials. Unpublished M. A thesis, Allameh Tabataba'ee University.
Fenk-Oczlon, G. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27(1): 517–556.
Gharib, A; Bahar M; Homa’ee; Foroozanfar, B & Yasemi, R. 1992. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Ashrafi, [In Persian].
Golfam, A & Mohiyodin Ghomshe’I, Gh. 2011. “The Iconicity of Persian Reduplications: A Semantic Classification”. Comparative Literature Research. Vol. 3. No. 1 (Tome 9). Pp: 153-172, [In Persian].
Golfam, A; Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B; Karbalaei Sadegh, M. 2014. The Study of the Irreversible Binominals in Persian: A Cognitive Morphology Approach, Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 136, 159 – 163.
Gustafsson, M. 1974. The phonetic length of the members in Present-Day English binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75: 663–677.
HomayounFarrokh, A. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of Persian Language. Tehran: Elmi, [In Persian].
Jespersen, O. 1905. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: Teubner.
Khanlari, P. 2002. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Toos, [In Persian].
Khatibzadeh, P; Sameri, M. 2013. Translation of Binomials in Political Speeches and Reports; A Contrastive Study of English and Persian. Journal of Translation and Interpretation, vol. 6, no. 1.
Khayampour, A. 1996. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Ketabforooshi Tehran, [In Persian].
Levelt, C, and Willemijn S. 2004. De normen en waarden van ‘normen en waarden’. Paper presented at TIN-dag (The Linguistic Society of the Netherlands annual meeting), Utrecht, February 2004.
Lohmann, A. Takada, T. 2014. Order in NP conjuncts in spoken English and Japanese. Lingua 152: 48-64.
Malkiel, Y. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8, 113–160.
Mashkour, M. 1971. A Grammar of Persian Morphplogy and Syntax. Tehran: Moassese Matbo’ati Shargh, [In Persian].
Mayerthaler, W. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
McDonald, J.L, Bock, K & Kelly, M. H. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25(2): 188–230. DOI: 10. 1006/ cogp. 1993. 1005
Mogharabi, M. 1993. Compound in Persian Language. Tehran: Toos, [In Persian].
Mollin, S. 2012. Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16(1): 81–103.
Mollin, S. 2013. Pathways of change in the diachronic development of binomial reversibility in Late Modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 168–203.
Mollin, S. 2014. The (Ir)reversibility of English binomials: Corpus, constraints and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moshiri, M. 2000. A Dictionary of Reduplication and Redoubling in Persian Language. Tehran: Aghahan Ide, [In Persian].
Pinker, S & Birdsong, D. 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18(4): 497–508. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90273-1.
Same’i, H. 1996. Word Formation in Persian. Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation in linguistics. Tehran University, [In Persian].
Shafa’ee, A. 1985. Scientific Foundations of Persian Syntax. Tehran: Novin. [In Persian].
Shari’at, Mo. 1985. Persian Syntax. Tehran: Asatir, [In Persian].
Tabataba’ee, A. 2003. Compound Noun and Adjective in Persian Language. Tehran: Markaz Nashr Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
Tanaka, M. 2003. Conceptual accessibility and word-order in Japanese Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Wright, S. K. Hay, J. 2002. Fred and Wilma: A phonological conspiracy. Gender and linguistic practice, ed. by Sarah Benor, Mary Rose, Devyani Sharma, Julie Sweetland, and Qing Zhang, 175-191. Stanford: CSLI Press.
Wright, S. K. Hay, J & Bent, T. 2005. Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy. Linguistics 43(3): 531–561. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.531.
Yamashita, H., Chang, F. 2001. ‘‘Long before short’’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81, B45-B55.
Zakeri, M. 2002. Reduplication and Gingling Words in Persian. Tehran: Markaz Nashr Daneshgahi, [In Persian].
Zipf, G. K. 1936. The Psycho-Biology of Language. An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Language Research
Volume 11, Issue 1
October 2020
Pages 119-140
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 14 August 2018
  • Revise Date: 19 July 2020
  • Accept Date: 05 September 2020
Share
How to cite
Statistics