No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Survey of Two Types of Alternating Agentive Nominals in Persian
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
Two alternating agentive nominals in Persian are distinguished by two different agentive, derivational suffixes/forms, i.e. the simple derived de-verbal nouns and synthetic compounds formed with the suffix -ande, as in gu-y-ande “reporter/speaker,” xân-ande “singer,” pâk-kon-ande “cleaner” versus the zero-derived synthetic compounds as in soxan-gu-Ø “speaker,” “âvâz-xân-Ø “song-singer,” barf-pâk-kon-Ø “windshield wiper.” It is discussed that the alternation, and lack of alternation, between the two is totally predictable and productive. While the simple derived and synthetic nominals with -ande are eventive, denoting an underlying action performed by an agent external argument, their equivalent alternating synthetic compounds with the zero-suffix are non-eventive, denoting a result nominal with an instrumental or agentive denotation. The analysis is cast in the framework of Distributed Morphology.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Iranian Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 5: On Persian Language and Linguistics , December 2010 , pp. 699 - 731
- Copyright
- Copyright © The International Society for Iranian Studies 2010
References
1 Despite the high productivity of these non-verb -Ø-suffix words, they are not the only types of -Ø-suffix words formed with non-verb stems. There are also productive -Ø-suffix words formed with savâr “on board, riding” as in docharxe- savâr “bike-rider,” asb- savâr “horse-rider,” with mehver “axis, center” like xod-mehvar “self-centered, autonomous,” with parvâz “flight” (N) like bolnad- parvâz “ambitious person,” with zabân “tongue, language” like fârsi-zabân “Farsi speaker,” farânse-zabân “French speaker,” etc.
2 Levin, Beth and Rappaport, Malka H., “Nonevent -er Nominals: a Probe into Argument Structure,” Linguistics, 26 (1988): 1067–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rappaport, Malk H. and Levin, Beth, “-ER Nominals: Implications for the Theory of Argument Structure,” in Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon, ed. by Stowell, T. and Wehrli, E. (New York, 1992), 127–153.Google Scholar
3 Lieber, Rochelle, Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, No. 104 (Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar; Ackema, Peter and Neeleman, Ad, Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation (Oxford, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Grimshaw, Jane, Argument Structure (Cambridge, 1990).Google Scholar
4 Recent formations are pitzâ-paz- Ø (pizza-cook.prs- Ø) “pizza-cook,” a cook who specializes in cooking pizza, shirini-paz- Ø (pastry-cook.prs- Ø) “pastry-cook,” dir-paz- Ø (late-cook.prs. Ø) (A) modifies “kind of chicken, beans that take long to cook.” That is, dir-paz- Ø is an adjective modifying, or referring to, chicken or beans that normally take a long time to bake.
5 See Rappaport and Levin, “-ER Nominals.”
6 See Rappaport and Levin, “-ER Nominals”; Grimshaw, Argument Structure.
7 Barker, Chris, “Episodic -ee in English: a Thematic Role Constraint on New Word Formation,” Language, 74 (1998): 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Recall that all -Ø-suffixed words count as synthetic compounds and are formed on a compound verb stem in Persian, the equivalent of English truck-driver where the -er suffix is missing and replaced by a -Ø suffix.
9 See Rappaport and Levin, “-ER Nominals.”
10 Halle, Moris and Marantz, Alec, “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection,” in The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvian Brumberger, ed. by Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 111–176Google Scholar; Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec, “Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology,” in Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi with Bures, Tony (eds.), Papers in Phonology and Morphorogy, MITWPL 21 (Cambridge, MA, 1994), 275–288.Google Scholar
11 See Rappaport and Levin, “-ER Nominals,” 145.
12 Rappaport and Levin, “-ER Nominals.”
13 Barker, “Episodic -ee in English.”
16 Cf. Barker “Episodic -ee in English.”
14 Barker, “Episodic -ee in English.”
15 Marantz, Alec (“Words” (manuscript, 2000); “No Escape from Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon,” in Proceedings of the 21st Annual Linguistics Colloquium, ed. by Dimitriadis, A. and Siegel, L. (Philadelphia, 1997))Google Scholar and Rochelle Lieber (Morphology and Lexical Semantics, 43) note that not every aspect of semantic interpretation of compounds can be determined by morphological and syntactic rules and relationships which determine the argument structure and hierarchical structure of compounds. Morpho-syntax is expected to determine the headedness and the semantic referential properties. Even these depend a lot on culture, context and encyclopedic, real world knowledge. Lieber (Morphology and Lexical Semantics, 53) also claims with respect to English compounds that: “lexical semantic fixes only so much of the interpretation of a newly-coined compound, namely that the second stem determines the overall headedness of the compound, and that the compound as a whole has only a single referent. The rest is free.”
17 Roeper, Thomas and Siegel, M., “A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds,” Linguistic Inquiry, 9 (1978): 197–260.Google Scholar
18 Lieber, Rochelle “Argument Linking and Compounds in English,” Linguistic Inquiry, 14 (1983): 251–286Google Scholar; Lieber, Morphology and Lexical Semantics.
19 Halle and Marantz, “Distributed Morphology”; Halle and Marantz, “Some Key Features”; Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Ralf, “State-of-the Article: Distributed Morphology,” GLOT, 4, no. 4 (April 1999): 3–9Google Scholar; Marantz, “Words”; Marantz, “No Escape from Syntax”; Harley, Heidi, “Compounding in Distributed Morphology”, in The Oxford Book of Compounding, ed. by Lieber, R. and Stekauer, P. (Oxford, 2005), 129–144.Google Scholar
20 Harley, “Compounding in Distributed Morphology,” 3.
21 Kratzer, Angelika, “Severing the External Argument from its Verb,” in Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (Dordrecht, 1996), 109–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Grammatical Relations,” in The View from Building 20; Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvian Brumberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 35–109Google Scholar; Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure (Cambridge, MA, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Kratzer, “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.”
23 Chomsky, Noam, The Minimalist Program (Cambridge, MA, 1995)Google Scholar; Hale and Keyser, “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Grammatical Relations.”
24 Bower, John, “The Syntax of Predication,” Linguistic Inquiry, 24 (1993): 591–656Google Scholar.
25 Marantz, “No Escape from Syntax,” 10.
26 Marantz, “No Escape from Syntax,” 9.
27 Harley, “Compounding in Distributed Morphology.”
28 Burzio, L., Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach (Dordrecht, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Hale and Keyser, “On Argument Structure”; Chomsky, The Minimalist Program; Larsoa, R., “On the Double Object Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (1988): 353–391.Google Scholar
30 Chomsky, The Minimalist Program; Halle and Marantz, “Distributed Morphology.”