Coordination in Grammatical Phrases from Different Categories: Cognitive Grammar Perspective

Document Type : Research Paper


1 M.A in Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.


In this study we have investigated the coordination of constructions from different grammatical categories, with a Cognitive Grammar approach. Haspelmath (2007: 1) and Langacker (2009:349) have argued that common category membership in not the only criterion for coordination of two grammatical groups. They have both given some exaples where different grammatical categories have made well-formed coordinative constructions and they have considered meaning as the key factor for two grammatical categories to coordinate. There are also similar examples in Persian. The studies which have investigated coordinative constructions in Persian are mostly carried out in Generative Grammar framework and none of them are devoted to investigation of this specific problem. So, since Cognitive Grammar is a meaning-based theory and investigates the language with all aspects of it, adopting it can render new and different results. According to the researches done on English language, it was expected for Cognitive Grammar to manage to describe this type of coordinative constructions, using the meaning-based definitions for grammatical categories and the schemas offered for each of them. Investigating 200 coordinative constructions gathered from major Iranian newspapers, showed that that all the grammatical categories belonging to atemporal relations, and also having compatible trajectors can act as the coordinands of a coordinative construction. In conclusion, we can say that in Persian, propositional and adjective phrases, and also propositional and adverbial phrases, dispite belonging to different grammatical categories can appear as the coordinands of a coordinative construction.


Anvari, H., & Ahmadi-Givi, H. 2011. Persian Grammar 2. Tehran: Fatemi. [in Persian].
Azar, B. 2002. understanding and using English grammar. New York: pearson education.
Bahrami-Khorshid, S. 2020. Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Foundations, and Application in Persian. Tehran: Samt. [in Persian].
Eastwood, J. 2002. Oxford guide to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Evans, V., & Green, M .2006. cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ghaderi, S. 2016). Natural and Accidental Coordination in Persian. Comparative Linguistic Research, 19-33. [in Persian].
Gharib, A. 1987. Panj Ostad Persian Grammar. Tehran: Ashrafi. [in Persian]
Hartmann, K. 2000. Right node raising and gapping: interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Haspelmath, M. 2007. Coordination. In T. Shopen, Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Volume 2, Complex Constructions (pp. 1-51). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1986. Settings, Participants, and Grammatical Relations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistic Conference, 2, 1-31.
Langacker, R. W.  1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites ,Vol. 1, CA: stanford university press.
 Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application ,Vol. 2, CA: Stanford university press.
 Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2002. Concept,Iimage, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W.  2004. Grammar as Image: The Case of Voice. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk , & A. Kwiatkowska, Imagery in Language: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker (Lodz Studies in Language) (pp. 63-114). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Langacker, R. W. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive, Radical, and Less So. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , & M. Sandra Peña Cervel , Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 32) (pp. 101-159). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2009. The Conceptual Basis of Coordination. In R. W. Langacker, Investigations in cognitive grammar,pp. 341-374. Berlin / Newyork: Mouton de Gruyter.
 Langacker, R. W. 2012. Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 555-599.
Langacker, R. W. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. New York: oxford university press.
Meshkat Al-Dini, M. 1987. An Introduction to Persain Transformational Syntax. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University Press. [in Persian].
Naghzguy-Kohan, M., & Ahmadkhani, J. 2015. Conjunctive Coordination in Persian. Comparative Linguistic Research, 197-217. [in Persian]
Natel-Khanlari, P. 1973. Persian Grammar. Tehran: Bonyad Farhang Iran. [in Persian].
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
Rasekh-Mahand, M. 2011. A Functional Account of Ellipsis in Persian Co-ordinate Sentences. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 35-45. [in Persian].
Sha’bani , M., Kord Za'feranloo Kambozia, A., Agha Gholzadeh, F., & Golfam, A. 2010. Coordination and its Determination in Persian. Zaban Pazhuhi, 131-156.[in Persian].
Sha’bani, M. 2013. Right Node Raising in Persian. Adab Pazhouhi, 149-170. [in Persian].
Swan, M. 1996. Practical Englisg usage. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Vahid, A. 2019. The Analysis of Coordination Ellipsis in Persian In the Framework of the Parallel Architecture of Grammar. Phd Dissertation in General Linguistics: Alzahra University, Faculty of literature. [in Persian]
Zhang, N. n. 2009. Coordination in Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Volume 13, Issue 1 - Serial Number 24
November 2022
Pages 139-166
  • Receive Date: 22 September 2021
  • Revise Date: 20 June 2022
  • Accept Date: 21 August 2022
  • First Publish Date: 23 August 2022