Meaning Construction in Persian Nominal Compounds as Conceptual Blends

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of linguistics, Faculty of foreign languages, University of Isfahan, Iran

2 Assistant professor of Linguistic Department, University of Isfahan

Abstract

Considering that compounds configure a semantic whole that is not necessarily equal to the sum of the meaning of its constituents, the study aims to verify the process of meaning construction in endocentric, exocentric, cooperative and appositive Persian nominal compounds within Conceptual Blending Theory (2002). To this end, noun-noun nominal compounds were extracted from Sokhan (2003) and 100 compounds were analyzed randomly. The results reveals that non-metaphorical and non-metonymical endocentrics and endocentrics with metaphorical or metonymical modifier activate, respectively, simplex and single-scope network. By contrast, exocentric compounds activate single-scope, double-scope, or multiple blends. Exocentrics with metaphorical or metonymical head trigger single-scope network, exocentrics with two metaphorical and/or metonymical components activate double-scope network, and exocentrics where the compounds as a whole is metaphorical or metonymical prompt multiple blends. Cooperative and appositive compounds trigger mirror networks in the same way; nonetheless, the emergent meaning in their blend space varies to some extent.

Keywords

References

-  امیرارجمندی، سیده نازنین و مصطفی عاصی (۱۳۹۲). «زایایی فرایند ترکیب در زبان فارسی»، زبان‌شناخت، شماره ۱: ۱-۱۴.
-  انوری، حسن (۱۳۸۱). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن، تهران: سخن.
-  دهخدا، علی‌اکبر (۱۳۷۷).  لغت‌نامه دهخدا، زیر نظر محمد معین و سیدجعفر شهیدی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
-  دیانتی، معصومه؛ رضائی، حدائق و رفیعی، عادل (1399). «واژه‌های مرکب درون‌مرکز زبان فارسی: ساخت‌های مفهومی ساده یا پیچیده؟»، جستارهای زبانی، دوره ۱۱، شماره ۶: ۶۸-۳۵.
-  سبزواری، مهدی (۱۳۹۲). «شفافیت و تیرگی معنایی اسامی مرکب زبان فارسی از دیدگاه شناختی»، جستارهای زبانی، دوره ۴، شماره ۳: ۵۵-۷۳.
-  شقاقی، ویدا (۱۳۸۶). مبانی صرف، تهران: سمت.
-  صفا، ذبیح‌اله (۱۳۴۶). آیین شاهنشاهی ایران، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، (به نقل از هوشنگ اعلم و سهیلا شیرجی (۱۳۹۳)، «تاج (۱)»، دانشنامه جهان اسلام، جلد شش، زیرنظر سیدمصطفی میرسلیم، تهران: بنیاد دایرة‌المعارف بزرگ اسلامی)
-  طباطبایی، علاءالدین (۱۳۹۳). ترکیب در زبان فارسی (بررسی ساختاری واژه‌های مرکب)، تهران: فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی.
-  عمید، حسن (۱۳۸۹). فرهنگ فارسی عمید، ویراستار عزیزاله علیزاده، تهران: راه ‌رشد.
-  قطره، فریبا و قندهاری، مینا (۱۳۹۵). «بررسی اسم‌های دارای ساختار «اسم۱ (و) اسم۲» در زبان فارسی براساس نظریه آمیزش مفهومی»، مجموعه مقالات چهارمین همایش ملی صرف (۱۷۱-۱۹۰)، تهران: نشر نویسه پارسی.
-  معین، محمد (۱۳۷۱). فرهنگ فارسی معین، تهران: امیرکبیر.
-  Bauer, Laurie (1979). “On the need for pragmatics in the study of nominal compounding”, Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 45–50.
-  Benczes, Reka (2006a). “Analyzing metonymical noun–noun compounds: The case of freedom fries”. In Benczes, Reka & Szilvia Csábi (eds.), The Metaphors of Sixty: Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th birthday of Zoltán Kövecses, 46–54. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.
-  Benczes, Reka (2006b). Creative compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun–Noun Combinations, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-  Benczes, Reka (2009). “What motivates the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds?”, In M. Brdar, M. Ozmazić, & V. Pavičić Takač (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to English: Fundamental, methodological, interdisciplinary and applied issues, 45-62. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
-  Benczes, Reka (2010). “Setting limits on creativity in the production and use of metaphorical and metonymical compounds”. In S. Michel & A. Onysko (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to word formation, 221-245. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Benczes, Reka (2013). “On the non-viability of the endocentric–exocentric distinction: Evidence from linguistic creativity”, Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1): 3–18.
-  Booij, Geert (2005). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Broccias, Cristiano (2004). “Review of Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think. New York: Basic Books”, Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (4): 575-594.
-  Bundgaard, Peer F.; Svend Ostergaard and Frederik Stjernfelt (2006). “Waterproof fire stations? Conceptual schemata and cognitive operations involved in compound construction”, Semiotica, 161(1:4): 363–393.
-  Coulson, Seana (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction, New York: Cambridge University Press.
-  Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
-  Evans, Vyvyan; Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken (2007). “The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview”. In Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken (eds.), the cognitive linguistics reader, 2-36, London/ Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
-  Fabb, Nigel (1998). “Compounding”. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), the handbook of morphology, 66-84, Oxford: Blackwell.
-  Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (1998). “Conceptual integration networks”, Cognitive Science, 22 (2): 133– 187.
-  Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities, New York: Basic Books.
-  Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2003). “Conceptual blending: form and meaning”, Recherches en Communication, 19: 57–86.
-  Jackendoff, Ray (1997). The architecture of the language faculty, Cambridge/ Massachusetts: MIT Press.
-  Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Lees, Robert B. (1970). “Problems in the grammatical analysis of English nominal compounds”. In Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph, Progress in linguistics, 174-186, The Hague: Mouton.
-  Li, Meng and Yueqin Gao (2011). “An analysis of internet catchwords from the perspective of conceptual blending theory”, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6): 635-643.
-  Libben, Gary (2006). “Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues”. In Gary Libben and Gonia Jarema (eds.), the representation and processing of compound words, 1-22, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Lieber, Rochelle (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Mierzwińska-Hajnos, Agnieszka (2015). “More than blends and compounds: Conceptual integration theory behind plant related linguistic expressions in Polish and English”, Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 39/2: 65-89.
-  Okoye, Adaobi Ngozi (2016). “Blending in Etulo compound words”, Journal of African Studies, 5 (2): 32-47.
-  Plag, Ingo (2003). Word-formation in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-  Radden, Günter; Klaus-Michael Köpcke; Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund (2007). “The construction of meaning in language”. In Günter Radden et al. (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction, 1-15, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-  Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2005). Englische morphologie und wortbildung: Eine einfuhrung, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
-  Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2011). “Conceptual blending, relevance and novel N+N-compounds”. In Sandra Handl and Hans-Jörg Schmid (eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending, 219-246, Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Shasha, Wang (2016). “Online meaning construction of Chinese net words from Japanese: On the basis of conceptual blending theory”, Studies in Literature and Language, 12 (5): 68-72.
-  Shibasaki, Reijirou (2007). “Two levels of blending with homophonic compounds in Japanese, Culture”, Language and Representation, 5: 221-239.
-  Tarasova, Elizaveta (2013). Some new insights into the semantics of English N+N compounds, Ph.D. thesis, Wellington: Victoria University.
-  Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Tribushinina, Elena (2011). “Reference points in adjective-noun conceptual integration networks”, In Sandra Handl and Hans-Jörg Schmid (eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending, 269-290, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-  Turner, Mark and Gilles Fauconnier (1995). “Conceptual integration and formal expression”, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3): 183-203.
-  Ungerer, Friedrich (2007). “Word-formation”. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 650-675, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-  Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-Jörg Schmid (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd ed, London/New York: Routledge.
-  Vorobeva, Yulia (2016). “cognitive-pragmatic approach to the meaning of new compound nouns in English”, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6 (4): 117-124.
-  Zibin, Aseel and Abdel Rahman Mitib Salim Altakhaineh (2018). “An analysis of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds: A cognitive linguistic approach”, Metaphor and the Social World, 8(1): 100–133.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics