Article In:
Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles

The lexicon-grammar continuum

What Persian complex predicates reveal

ORCID logo | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
 | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
We argue for the lexicon-grammar continuum by looking into the separability of Persian complex predicates, an open class of verb constructions for which it has been argued that the components are either separable or inseparable. We contend that separability is best described as a scalar rather than an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Our analysis of zadan ‘to hit’ within the framework of Construction Grammar yields a semantic description of zadan complex predicates as a radial category. We measure both the frequency of zadan complex predicates and their rate of separation based on corpus attestations. We explore the relationships between meaning, frequency, and separation rates and the implications of our findings for cognitive linguistics and construction grammar. We find that semantic compositionality and lower frequency are associated with a higher rate of separation. Overall, our data points towards separability as a continuum rather than a binary opposition.
Keywords: complex predicates, separability, frequency, compositionality, construction grammar, Persian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Persian complex predicates
  • 2.Meaning of zadan ‘hit’ as a simplex verb
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.The network of families of zadan-CPs
    • 4.1The HIT group
      • 4.1.1Strike
      • 4.1.2Cut
      • 4.1.3Insert
      • 4.1.4Communicate
      • 4.1.5Damage
      • 4.1.6Deceive
      • 4.1.7Interim summary
    • 4.2The CONTACT group
      • 4.2.1Touch
      • 4.2.2Employ
      • 4.2.3Apply
      • 4.2.4Wear
      • 4.2.5Attach
      • 4.2.6Build
      • 4.2.7Interim summary
    • 4.3The QUANTUM group
      • 4.3.1Semelfactive
      • 4.3.2Iterated
      • 4.3.3Unitized
      • 4.3.4Inchoative
      • 4.3.5Interim summary
  • 5.Frequency and separability
  • 6.Meaning and separability
  • 7.Discussion: Theoretical implications for the lexicon-grammar continuum
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (49)
References
Adli, A. (2010). Constraint cumulativity and gradience: Wh-scrambling in Persian. Lingua, 120 (9), 2259–2294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anvari, H. (2003). Farhang-e Bozorg-e Soxan (Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary). Sokhan.Google Scholar
Bashiri, I. (1981). Persian syntax. Burgess Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bonial, C. (2021). Précis of take a look at this! Form, function, and productivity of English light verb constructions. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 25 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2007). The grammar of words. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A. (1995). The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13 (2), 181–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, K. (1995). Compositionality in cognitive models: The real issue. Philosophical studies: An international journal for philosophy in the analytic tradition, 78 (2), 125–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 8 (4), 711–733. Retrieved from [URL]
(2007). Diachronic linguistics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 945–87). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2017). Two notions of modularity. In R. G. de Almeida, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 25–40). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehkhoda, A. (1998). Loghatnāmeh (Dictionary). University of Tehran Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Family, N. (2006). Explorations of semantic space: The case of light verb constructions in Persian. [Doctoral Dissertation]. École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Fleischhauer, J., & Neisani, M. (2020). Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 56 (1), 45–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, R., Harley, H., & Karimi, S. (2005). Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua, 115 (10), 1365–1401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Proceedings of the 22th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 132–146). Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Words by default: The Persian complex predicate construction. In E. Francis, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 83–112). CSLI.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jorjani, A. (1991). Alta’rifāt (definitions). Naser Khosro.Google Scholar
Karimi, S. (1997). Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology, 3 1, 273–318.Google Scholar
(2008). Opening remarks: Scholarship on complex predicates. International Conference on Complex Predicates. Paris: Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Karimi-Doostan, G. (1997). Light verb constructions in Persian. University of Essex.Google Scholar
(2011). Separability of light verb constructions in Persian. Studia Linguistica, 65 (1), 70–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (1), 107–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, M. (1999). Composite predicates in Middle English. In L. J. Brinton, & M. Akimoto (Eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the History of English (pp. 59–96). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKoon, G., & Love, J. (2011). Verbs in the lexicon: Why is hitting easier than breaking? Language and Cognition, 3 (2), 313–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Megerdoomian, K. (2001). Event structure and complex predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46 (1–2), 97–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
(2012). The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30 (1), 179–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2010). Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics, 46 (3), 601–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N. (2005). The semantics of polysemy: Reading meaning in English and Walpiri. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roohi Bygi, Z., & Karimi-Doostan, G. (2016). A cognitive study of light verb polysemy: The case of ZADAN . Language Related Research, 7 (3), 129–148.Google Scholar
Sadri Afshar, G., Hakami, N., & Hakami, N. (1998). Farhang-e Farsi-e Emrooz (Dictionary of Contemporary Persian). Kalameh.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (2017). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–35). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soltani, R. (2018). A cognitive approach to Persian light verb constructions [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Isfahan.
Steele, S. (1989). The relation of morphology to syntax. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18 (1), 157–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar