A corpus-based analysis of locative alternation in Persian based on Croft's causal approach

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 shiraz university

2 Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics- School of Literature and Humanities-Shiraz University- Shiraz- Iran

Abstract

This article aims to analyze Locative Alternation (LA) in Persian based on Croft's (2012) causal approach, Givón's (2001) methodology to calculate topicality and Hamshahri Corpus 2 (AleAhmad et. al., 2009). Croft explains argument realization based on verb's event structure, and that structure is represented through causal chain which, itself, reflects force dynamic relations. The data includes 1112 cases of LA constructions in their natural linguistic context. The relevant results are as follows: the factor involved in LA, that is, choosing between locatum-as object construction and location-as-object construction, is determining the affected element and not the holistic/partitive reading; the affected element is identified with regard to the concept of topicality; topicality is linked to objective construal as opposed to subjective construal.

Keywords

References

-  روشن، بلقیس (1377). معنی­شناسی واژگانی: طبقه­بندی فعل­های فارسی، پایان نامه دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
-  صفری، علی (1395). «تناوب مکانی در زبان فارسی: رویکردی ساخت‌مدار»، نشریه پژوهش­های زبان­شناسی تطبیقی. ش11.
-  صفری، علی (1397). «تظاهر چندگانة موضوعات در زبان فارسی: بررسی نقش «را» و خوانش کلی در تناوب مکانی»، فصلنامة مطالعات زبان‌ها و گویش‌های غرب ایران، س 6، ش 20: 67-89.
-  قانع، زهرا و رضایی، والی (1396). «تناوب مکانی در افعال گذاشتنی زبان فارسی: رویکردی نقشگرا»، مجلة زبان‌شناسی و گویش‌های خراسان، ش 17: 1-19.
-  کریمی­دوستان، غلامحسین و صفری، علی (1390). «اثر کلی/ جزئی در تناوب مکانی زبان فارسی»، پژوهش­های زبانی، س 3، ش 1: 77-100.
-  Anderson, Stephen R (1971). “On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation”. Foundations of Language 7: 387–96.
-  Boas, Hans C (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
-  Boas, Hans C (2006). A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In Contrastive studies and valency: studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, ed. Petra C. Steiner, Hans C. Boas, and Stefan J. Schierholz, 119–49. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
-  Croft, William (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-  Croft, William (1998c). The structure of events and the structure of language. In The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. Michael Tomasello, 67–92. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-  Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Croft, William (2003b). Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In Motivation in language: studies in honour of Gu ¨nter Radden, ed. Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene ´ Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49–68.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-  Croft, William (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structue. Oxford University Press, New York.
-  Croft, William. Chiaki Taoka, and Esther J. Wood (2001). “Argument linking and the commercial Transaction Frame in English, Russian and Japanese” Languages Sciences 23, 570-602.
-  Dang, Trang Hoa, Karen Kipper, Martha Palmer, and Joseph Rosenzweig (1998). Investigating regular sense extensions based on intersective Levin classes. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING_ACL), Vol. 1, 293–99. Morristown: Association for Computational Linguistics.
-  Dowty, David (2000). The garden swarms with bees and the fallacy of argument alternation. In Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches, ed. 111–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Fillmore, Charles J (1968). The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–90. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
-  Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Abby Wright (2003). “FrameNet in action: the case of attaching”. International Journal of Lexicography, 16: 297–332.
-  Givo´n, Talmy (2001). Syntax: an introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goldberg.
-  Goldberg, Adele E (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-  Goldberg, Adele E (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Iwata, Seizi (2005a). “Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning”. Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 355- 407.
-  Iwata, Seizi (2005b). The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In Grammatical constructions: back to the roots, ed. Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 101–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-  Iwata, Seizi (2008). Locative alternation: a lexical-constructional approach. (Constructional Approaches to Language, 6.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-  Jackendoff, Ray (1997). “Twisting the night away”. Language, 73: 534-59.
-  Kay, Paul (1999). “Argument structure constructions and argument - adjunct distinction.” First international conference on Construction Grammar, University of California, Berkley.
-  Langacker, Ronald (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-  Langacker, Ronald (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-  Langaker, Ronald (2002). Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Levin, Beth (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago, CA.
-  Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2005). Argument Realization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Perek, F (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-  Pinker, Steven (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-  Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin (1998). Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors, ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
-  Schwartz Norman, l (1976). “The grammar of content and container”. Journal of Linguistics, 12: 279-287. 
-  Talmy, Leonard (1972). Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.
-  Talmy, Leonard (1976). Semantic causative types in The grammar of causative constructions. (Syntax and Semantics, 6.), ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, 43–116. New York: Academic Press.
-  Talmy, Leonard (1988/2000). “Force dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science 12:49–100. Revised and expanded version published in Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems, ed. Leonard Talmy, 409–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-  Talmy, Leonard (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-  Tognini Bonlli, E (2001): Corpus Linguistics at Work, (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics