Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 17:1 (2025) ► pp.34–64

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The lexicon-grammar continuum

What Persian complex predicates reveal

ORCiD logo with link | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
 | UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Published online: 24 March 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22029.sol
Abstract
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.
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
References (49)
References
Adli, A. (2010). Constraint cumulativity and gradience: Wh-scrambling in Persian. Lingua, 120(9), 2259–2294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anvari, H. (2003). Farhang-e Bozorg-e Soxan (Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary). Sokhan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bashiri, I. (1981). Persian syntax. Burgess Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2007). The grammar of words. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Mchombo, S. A. (1995). The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 181–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dehkhoda, A. (1998). Loghatnāmeh (Dictionary). University of Tehran Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folli, R., Harley, H., & Karimi, S. (2005). Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua, 115(10), 1365–1401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jorjani, A. (1991). Alta’rifāt (definitions). Naser Khosro.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimi, S. (1997). Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology, 31, 273–318.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Separability of light verb constructions in Persian. Studia Linguistica, 65(1), 70–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 107–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKoon, G., & Love, J. (2011). Verbs in the lexicon: Why is hitting easier than breaking? Language and Cognition, 3(2), 313–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, K. (2001). Event structure and complex predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 46(1–2), 97–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(1), 179–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2010). Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses. Journal of Linguistics, 46(3), 601–655. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riemer, N. (2005). The semantics of polysemy: Reading meaning in English and Walpiri. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadri Afshar, G., Hakami, N., & Hakami, N. (1998). Farhang-e Farsi-e Emrooz (Dictionary of Contemporary Persian). Kalameh.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue