Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 57–84

Chapter 4
The additive particle in Persian

A case of morphological homophony between syntax and pragmatics

This chapter discusses the syntactic and semantic properties of the additive marker -am in Persian. I show that -am exhibits positional variability, is polysemous in meaning, and does not always contribute meaning that affects the truth conditions of the sentence. On the basis of this I classify -am as a pragmatic particle. Noting that -am is homophonous with both the first person singular agreement suffix and the first person pronominal enclitic, I propose that it is precisely because additive -am is a pragmatic particle that it is distinguished from the inflectional morphemes it resembles in form. Thus the chapter argues for three levels at which morphemes can be classified: derivation, inflection, pragmatic, and suggests that cross-level homophony is not accidental. Rather, frequency of use at one level predisposes a particular form to be used at another level. This ultimately gives a language its morphological ‘flavour’.

Keywords: additive, inflection, derivation, discourse particles, homophony, Persian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Inflectional and derivational homophony in Persian
  • 3.Discourse markers and discourse particles
  • 4.The additive marker in conversational Persian
    • 4.1The syntactic distribution of the additive marker
    • 4.2The meaning of the additive marker
    • 4.3The form of the additive marker
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.04gho
References
Aijmer, Karin
1997  I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova
2009 On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85. 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateni, Mohammad R.
2010 Application of ke, dige, akhe, ha . Bukhara Arts and Culture Journal 70. 38–51. Translated by Sharareh Esmaeili.Google Scholar
Berger, Frauke & Barbara Höhle
2012 Restrictions on addition: Children’s interpretation of the focus particles auch (also) and nur (only) in German. Journal of Child Language 39. 383–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Darzi, Ali
2008 On the vP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 103–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2017 Discourse-pragmatic variation in context: Eight hundred years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2013 “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles, 19–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer
2007 Distributed morphology and the syntax morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Kurt Rice (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kostinas
1993 Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know . Studier i Modernsprakvetenskap 10. 76–93.Google Scholar
Estaji, Azam
2011 [1389] A historical study of homophonous ke in Persian. Journal of Linguistics and Dialects of Khorasan 2:3. 1–13. Translated by Sharareh Esmaeili.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2016 Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Vaughan, Jill
2011 I can haz language play: The construction of language and identity in LOLspeak. In Maïa Ponsonnet, Loan Dao & Margit Bowler (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference, Canberra ACT, 2–4 December 2011, 97–122, ANU Research Repository. [URL] (12 June 2017).
van Gelderen, Elly
2004 Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The linguistic cycle. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghaniabadi, Saeed
2009 The empty noun construction in Persian. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba dissertation.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila
1997 Non-projecting nouns and the ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 729–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Control and Thematic Agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46. 9–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57. 47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 The syntax of pragmaticalization. In Shan Luo (ed.), Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2013. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. [URL] (19 November 2013).
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1991 On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard David
1987 On the motivation for an evolutionary typology of sound-structural rules. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan
2000 On the derivationality of some inflectional affixes in Persian. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Conference , Chicago, January 2000.
2019 Word-internal modification: The case of Persian comparative marker. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 64. 138–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karvovskaya, Lena
2013 ‘Also’ in Ishkashimi: Additive particle and sentence connector. In Felix Bildhauer & Mira Grubic (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 17, 75–97.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin, & John Whitman
2011 Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121. 1297–1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1992 [1957] A grammar of contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. (Translated from the original 1957 version entitled Grammaire du persan contemporain by Shirley A. Lyon.)Google Scholar
1989 Le persan. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 263–293. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
1991 Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67. 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William & John Archibald
2016 Contemporary linguistic analysis: An introduction, 8th edn. Toronto: Pearson Canada, Inc.Google Scholar
Oroji, Mohammad Reza & Amir Rezaei
2013 Exploring ke as a focus particle in Persian from both form and function points of view. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33. 76–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, John R.
2007 Persian morphology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa, 975–1019. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
1999 A Formal Approach to ‘Grammaticalization’. Linguistics 37. 1011–1041. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2001 On Korean Case stacking: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul . Linguistic Review 18. 193–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
1997 The so-called plural copy in Korean as a marker of distribution and focus. Journal of Pragmatics 27. 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stilo, Donald
2004 Coordination in three Western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Persian and Gilaki. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions (Typological Studies in Language 58), 269–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2003 Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25. 637–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2007 Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2008 A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure 1(2). 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie
2011 ‘I think’ and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49. 295–332.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot L.
1979 Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Okubo, Wataru & Hiroki Nomoto
2023. Chapter 9. A null stem analysis of Persian copular verbs. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.