On the Homonymy and Different Functions of Bound Morpheme “-æ” in Malekshahi Kurdish

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Linguistics, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran

2 Department of linguistics, Islamic Azad University

3 Tehran university

Abstract

Homonymy is a phenomenon in which different linguistic categories have the same phonological and orthographic form. This study aims to investigate different functions of “-æ “in Malekshahi Kurdish. The data is collected from native speakers of Malekshahi Kurdish. Hopper (1996) and Heine and et. al.  (1991) as theoretical frameworks are used to examine the reasons for different functions of morpheme “-æ “and also the reasons for the homonymy of morpheme “-æ”. The findings show that different linguistic categories are represented by the bound morpheme “-æ “. It may be used in various contexts as a proclitic, inflectional or derivational affix. As an inflectional affix, it is suffixed to nouns and noun phrases to signal definiteness in Malekshahi Kurdish. As a proclitic, “-æ” is suffixed to verbs to function as an auxiliary or linking verb to represent perfect aspect. It is also used as an applicative form of two prepositions “to” and “in” which are attached to some given verbs. “-æ” is, also, used to represent two derivational affixes to make onomatopoeias and some nouns. Each manifestation of “-æ” has undergone some phonological, morphological, and syntactic changes due to grammaticalization which is the underlying reason for this homonymy.

Keywords

References

 Akhmedova, M. & A. Garayeva. (2015). General issues of homonymy in the persian language. Journal of Sustainable Development. 8(4), pp. 126-131.
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic meaning. vol. 1. London: Routeledge.
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Booij, G. (2007). The grammar of words.  2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Routledge.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1992). An encyclopedic dictionary of language and languages. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Edmonds, C. J. (1955). Prepositions and personal affixes in southern Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriented and African Studies, 17(3), pp. 490-502.
Fattah, I. K. (2000). Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: étude linguistique et dialectologique. Acta Iranica, 37, Leuven: Peeters.
Fromkin, V., R. Radman, and N. Hyams, (2003). An introduction to language. 7th ed. USA: Heine, a part of Tomson Corporation.
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartmann, R. and F. C. Stork (1976). Dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Applied Science Publishers Limited.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.
Hopper, P. (1996). Some resent trends in grammaticalization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. (25), pp. 217-236.
Hopper, P J. & E. C. Traugott. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Kroeger, Paul R. (2005). Analyzing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Izadi, M. (1992). The Kurds: a concise handbook. Washington, DC: Talor & Francis.
Ladefoged, P. (2006). A Course in phonetics. USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Lehmann, C. (1982). Thoughts on grammaticalization: a programmatic Sketch. Vol. Ι. Arbetiten des kölner Universalien-Projekts, (48). Köln: Universtät Köln.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. (2 vols). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1982). Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacKenzie, D. N. (1961) Kurdish dialect studies, vol.1, London: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, A. (1993). Implication of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar. Edited by Sam A. Mchombo. pp. 113-150. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Meillet, A. (1958). L’évolution des forms grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista diScienza) 12 (26), pp. 130–148.
Nebez, J. E. (1976). Towards a unified Kurdish language. National-union of the Kurdish students in Europe.
Palmer, F. R. (1976). Semantics: A new outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1984). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pylkkänen, L., R. Llinás, & G. L. Murphy (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (1), pp. 1-13.
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Essex: Pearson education Limited.
Rodd, J. M., M. G. Gaskell, & W. D. Marslen-Wilson. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of memory and language, (46), pp. 245-266.
Salim, J. (2013). Homonymy in Jordanian colloquial Arabic: A semantic investigation. English language and literature studies, 3 (3). pp. 69-67.
Watkins, F. C., W. B. Dillingham, and J. Hiers. (2001). Practical English handbook. 11th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Wegener, Ph. (1885). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens. Halle: Niemeyer.
Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. 3th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zwicky, A. M. and G. Pullum. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, (59), pp. 502-513.
Journal of Iranian Dialects & Linguistics
Volume 5, Issue 2
April 2021
Pages 269-293

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 March 2020
  • Revise Date: 30 June 2020
  • Accept Date: 17 August 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics