Comparative Analysis of Shūshtari Expressional Constructions in Goldberg’s and Filmore’s Grammatical Models

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph. D. student of Linguistics at Shahid Beheshti University

2 assistant professor of linguistics at Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

Studying Iranian languages and dialects is an undeniable necessity as they are among the most valuable intangible heritage of the country. Besides, the application of recent linguistic theories within theoretical frameworks, which have been less employed as the basis for dialect research is essential since it updates research on dialect and renews the scientific look at languages and dialects. In response to these needs, the present study is an attempt to analyze and compare expressional constructions in Shūshtari dialect based on Goldberg's construction grammar (1995 and 2006) and Fillmore’s et al. (1988) formal-substantive constructions. This research seeks to find out the constructions (fixed or semi-fixed) in Goldberg's classification that correspond to the constructions (formal/substantive) in the Fillmore’s classification. Goldberg's grouping is expected to correspond to Fillmore's division, but the observed mismatch has become the basis for the formation of this study. The data were collected using field and library methods; linguistic data were collected from native speakers of Shūshtari dialect and Glossary of Shūshtari Dialect (Niwand, 1977 and Dictionary of Shūshtari Dialect (Fazeli: 2004). In this research, the expressional constructions of Shūshtari dialect are described and analyzed based on Goldberg’s classification (1995 and 2006) and Fillmore’s et al. (1988) formal-substantive constructions. In the following, an analytical comparison of Goldberg's constructions (fixed or semi-fixed) with Fillmore's (formal/substantive) is presented to correspond between construction groupings to aggregate the categories and achieve a new grouping. The examination of Shūshtari expressions has shown that it is not necessarily possible to correspond the above-mentioned items because, in some cases, semi-fixed constructions correspond to the substantive ones. These observations will be argued in the present study, and ultimately Shūshtar expressional constructions will be regrouped according to Goldberg and Fillmore's divisions. The results of this study can be used in compiling the grammar of Iranian languages and also in teaching them, as well as writing bilingual dictionaries for dialects and also compiling modern Shūshtari dictionary of expressions.

Keywords

References

  • Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. John Benjamins.
  • Boas, H. C. (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 113-144.
  • Bolinger, D. L. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2, 119-127.
  • Brugman, C. M. (1988). The syntax and semantics of 'have' and its complements (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
  • Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
  • Croft, W. (2007). Construction grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuykens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 463-509). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • DeLancy, S. (1991). Event construal and case role assignment. BLS, 17, 338-353.
  • Dowty, D. (1972). Studies in the logic of verb aspect and time reference in English studies in linguistics. Department of Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin.
  • Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Fazeli. (2004). Shushtari dictionary. Tehran: Pazineh. (In Persian).
  • Fazeli. (2006). Shushtari grammar. Tehran: Pazineh. (In Persian).
  • Filip, H. (1993). Aspect, situation type and nominal reference (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1985b). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. BLS, 11, 73-86.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1987). Lectures held at the Stanford Summer Linguistics Institute. Stanford University.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of "construction grammar”. BLS, 14, 35-55.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1990). Construction grammar. Course reader for Linguistics, I20A. University of California, Berkeley.
  • Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, K. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538.
  • Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction grammar. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
  • Foley, W., & Van Valin, R. Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Givon, T. (1979a). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
  • Givon, T. (1979b). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Goldberg, A. (2010). Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (pp. 39-58). Oxford University Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8(3), 369-390.
  • Goldberg, A. E., & Perek, F. (2019). Ellipsis in construction grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (pp. 188-204).
  • Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hamedi Shirvan, Z., Sharifi, SH., & Elyasi, M. (2016). Word order in Persian dialects of Khuzestan from a typological view. Culture and Folk Literature, 4(11), 1-32. (In Persian).
  • Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Structural priming: purely syntactic? In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208-211). Psychology Press.
  • Jackendoff, R. (2008). Construction after construction and its theoretical challenge. Language, 84, 8-28.
  • Kadkhodai Tarrahi, M., & Veysi, A. (2020). Comparative and corpus-based of phonological changes of “vav ma’doule” in Persian and Shushtari. In Literature and Local Languages of Iran, 10(4), 93-116. (In Persian).
  • Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(1), 59-112.
  • Keenan, E. L. (1972). On semantically based grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(3), 413-462.
  • Koenig, J.-P. (1993). linking constructions vs. linking rules: Evidence from French. BLS, 19, 217-231.
  • Lakoff, G. (1965). On the nature of syntactic irregularity (Ph.D. dissertation). Indiana University. Published as Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
  • Lakoff, G. (1970a). Adverbs and opacity: A reply to Stalnaker. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
  • Lakoff, G. (1970b). Global rules. Language, 46, 627-639.
  • Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 232-296). London: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. (1972). Linguistics and natural logic. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 545-665). Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Lakoff, G. (1976). Towards generative semantics. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground (pp. 43-62). New York: Academic Press. First circulated in 1963.
  • Lakoff, G. (1984). There-constructions: A case study in grammatical construction theory and prototype theory. Cognitive Science Technical Report 18. University of California, Berkeley. Revised version published as "Case Study" in Lakoff 1987.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lambrecht, K. (1990). ‘What me worry?’ Mad magazine sentences revisited. BIS, 16, 215-228.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1969). Pronominalization and the chain of command. In D. Reibel & S. Schane (Eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987a). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Maleki, S., & Rasekh Mahand, M. (2021). Formal and substantive expressions in Persian; Case study of If-Constructions. In Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 9(34), 109-126. (In Persian).
  • Mostafavi, P. (2015). Distinguishing grammatical relations in Shushtari dialect. In Language Related Research, 6(7), 207-218. (In Persian).
  • Michaelis, L. (1993). Toward a grammar of aspect: The case of the English perfect construction (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
  • Mirzayi, M., & Davari Ardakani, N. (2017). Linguistic analysis of taboo words in Shushtar. In *Sociolingu
  • Niroumand, M. B. (1977). Dictionary of Shushtari Dialect. Tehran: Language Academy of Iran. (In Persian).
  • Ramonda, K. (2014). Goldberg’s construction grammar. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 60-71).
  • Razaviyan, H., Kavousi Tajkouh, S., & Bahrami Khorshid, S. (2016). Ezafe construction in Persian from Goldberg’s Construction Grammar perspective. Language Related Research, 7, 39-57. (In Persian).
  • Sepanta, S. (2006). An anthropological view on Shushtari dialect (phonological processes). Scientific-Research-Based Magazine of Azad Eslami University of Shushtar, 1(1), 1-12. (In Persian).
  • Soghrat, S. S., & Sha’bani, M. (2023). Representation of women in South Taleshi proverbs, idioms and expressions (Siyahmazgi variety). Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies, 14(32), 135-164. (In Persian).
  • Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Vaezi, H. (2014). Ditransitive verbs in Persian: Interaction between syntax and discourse. Language Related Research, 5(5), 1-24. (In Persian).
  • Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Zakeri, F., Rostampour, M., & Behjat, F. (2021). Argument structure of the sense verb “didan” in Persian: Goldberg’s Construction Grammar perspective. Research in Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 9(35), 25-49. (In Persian).
  • Zakeri, F., Rostampour, M., & Behjat, F. (2022). Argument structure of the sense verbs of hearing in Persian: Goldberg’s Construction Grammar perspective. Language Studies, 13(1), 163-190. (In Persian).
The Journal Of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies
Volume 15, Issue 37
November 2024
Pages 327-360

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics