A Study of Polysemy in Four Negative Non-Verbal Prefixes in Persian Based on Principled Polysemy: A Corpus-Based Approach

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Alireza Khormaee 1
Amirsaeid Moloodi 2
Elham Kaviyani Fardzadeh 3
1 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
3 Ph.D. Student of linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
Abstract
This article explores the polysemy of four negative non-verbal prefixes in Persian language (zedd ‎‎'against, opposite of', bi 'without', nā 'not' and qejr 'not, non-') based on Principled Polysemy ‎framework (Tyler and Evans 2001, 2003). First, the primary sense of each prefix is determined ‎and then it is explained how non-primary senses are derived from the primary one, hence ‎demonstrating the semantic network of each prefix as a radial category. In this research, using ‎AntConc software (Anthony, 2014), first all the occurrences of the four prefixes were extracted ‎from the Hamshahri Corpus Version 2 (AleAhmad, Amiri, Darrudi, Rahgozar & Oroumchian, ‎‎2009) and then in order to analyze research data, some of them were randomly selected. The ‎findings of the study indicate that only in three of the four prefixes under study, polysemy is ‎observed, and that the frequency of use, ease of derivation and predominance in the semantic ‎network are the best criteria for determining the primary sense. The conceptual phenomenon ‎involved in the polysemy of these prefixes is metonymy. Data analysis shows that metonymical ‎shift occurs at two levels: at the level of morpheme/prefix sense and at the level of word-‎formation, and that the former leads to more straightforward relations within the semantic ‎network. This is due to the fact that the latter requires a more complex line of imagination which ‎automatically translates into a corresponding complexity of relations in the semantic network and ‎significant reduction in the type frequency of non-primary senses as a whole.‎

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Afrashi, A., Koushki, F., (2018). Semantic analysis of pish prefix in Persian Language: cognitive linguistics approach. Language Research, 9(25), 137-166.
[2] AleAhmad, A., Amiri, H., Darrudi, E., Rahgozar, M., & Oroumchian, F., (2009). Hamshahri: A standard Persian text collection. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22(5), 382-387.
[3] Amouzadeh, M., Karimi-Doostan, G., Sharif, B., (2016). The Semantic Network of “Gereftan” in Persian Based on Principled Polysemy Model. Language Research, 7(1), 117-136.
[4] Anthony, L., (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4. 3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
[5] Anvari, H., (2002). Sokhan Grand Persian Dictionary. Tehran:sokhan publications.
[6] Bamshadi, P., (2014). The Analysis of Prepositions in Gurani Kurdish in a Cognitive Semantics Framework (master’s thesis). Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.
[7] Bamshadi, P. & Ansarian, Sh., (2014). The Polysemy of Preposition tā within the Framework of Cognitive Semantics. 1st conference on semantics and syntax of Iranian Languages. University of Tehran. Iran, 75-92.
[8] Brugman, C., (1981).The Story of ‘over’: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley (published New York: Garland, 1988).
[9] Daneshvar Kashkool, M., Amouzadeh, M. & Rezaee, H., (2016). The semantic aspects of Persian spatial term “zir” based on the Principled polysemy model. Language Related Research, 7(6), 415-442.
[10] Dehghan M., (2018). Polysemic Analysis of the Preposition /læ/ , /wæ/, /wægærd / and /wæpi/ in Kalhori Kurdish within Principled Polysemy Approach. Language Related Research, 9 (2), 1-33.
[11] Evans, V., (2003). The Structure of Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[12] Evans, V., (2004). The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[13] Evans, V., (2005). The Meaning of Time: Polysemy, the Lexicon and Conceptual Structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.
[14] Evans, V., & Tyler, A., (2004a). Rethinking English ‘Prepositions of Movement’: The Case of to and through. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18(1), 247-270.
[15] Evans, V., & Tyler, A., (2004b). Spatial Experience, Lexical Structure and Motivation: The Case of in. Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 157-192.
[16] Evans, V. & Green, M., (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[17] Givón, T., (1984). Syntax: A functional typological introduction. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[18] Givón, T., (1993). English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Two Volumes. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[19] Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D., (2009). Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 57-75.
[20] Heine, B., (1997). Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Karimi-Doostan, Gh., (2008). Predicative Nouns and Adjectives. Dastoor, (3), pp. 187-202.
[22] Koch, P., (2012). Location, Existence, and Possession: A Constructional-typological Exploration. Linguistics, 50(3), 533–603.
[23] Kreitzer, A., (1997). Multiple Levels of Schematization: A Study in the Conceptualization of Space. Cognitive Linguistics (Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 8(4), 291-326.
[24] Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W., (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
[25] Lakoff, G., (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[26] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[27] Langacker, R. W., (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[28] Langacker, R. W., (1995). Possession and possessive constructions. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (pp. 51–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
[29] Langacker, R. W., (2003). Strategies of Clausal Possession. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 1-24
[30] Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[31] Löbner, S., (2002). Understanding Semantics. Arnold Publishing.
[32] Locker, E., (1954). Etre et Avoir: Leur Expressions dans les Langues. Anthropos 49, 481-510.
[33] Radden, G. & Kovecses, Z., (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Ed.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17-59.
[34] Rasekh-Mahand, M. & Ranjbar Zarrabi, N., (2013). The Semantic Networks of Two Prepositions; Dar and Sar. Comparative Linguistic Researches, 3(5), 95-111.
[35] Razavian, H., Khanzade, M., (2015). Polysemy of the Preposition “be” in Persian Based on Cognitive Semantics. Journal of Language and Western Iranian Dialects, 2(7), 57-79.
[36] Sandra, D., & Rice, S., (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language users? Cognitive Linguistics (Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 6(1), 89-130.
[37] Shaghaghi, V., (2002). Negative Prefix on Persian. Name-ye Farhangestan, 20, 85-96.
[38] Tyler, A. & Evans, V., (2001). Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: the Case of Over. Language, 77(4), 724- 765.
[39] Tyler, A. & Evans, V., (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[40] Zahedi, K. & Mohammadi Ziyarati, A., (2011). Semantic Network of a Modern Persian Preposition: "Az" in a Cognitive Semantic Framework. Advances in Cognitive Science, 13(1), 67-80.
The International Journal of Humanities
Volume 26, Issue 2
Summer 2019
Pages 29-49