A Corpus-based Study of Productivity of Derivational Prefixes in the Written Variety of Contemporary Persian

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shiraz University

Abstract

One of the significant issues in morphology, generally and in word-formation processes, especially is productivity. Most researchers consider productivity as a gradient concept and define it in a continuum. The present research is about to answer three questions below: 1. what are the rankings of the studied prefixes in terms of productivity? 2. Which of the prefixes is category-preserving and which one is category-changing? 3. What is the prototypical input of each prefix? In order to answer the questions, first, 19 derivational prefixes of Persian were selected based on the works in which Persian derivational prefixes had been presented. Then, the data of the research were extracted from the 150 million words corpus of Hamshahri 2 by the AntConc software and after that they were transferred to Excel program to be tagged and analyzed based on Baayen's (2009) global productivity measure and Rosch's (1975, 1977, 1978) prototype theory. The results showed that /Gejr/ is the most and /bol/ is the least productive prefixes of Persian language. For answering the second and third questions, each prefix was studied independently by the chi-square statistical test in SPSS software and the category-changing or category-preserving features of each prefix were specified. Also, the prototypical lexical category of each prefix input were identified.

Keywords

References

Al, B.P.F. and Booij, G. E. (1981). De productiviteit van woordvormingsregels. Forum der Letteren, 22, 26–38.
AleAhmad, A., Amiri, H., Darrudi, E., Rahgozar, M., and Oroumchian, F. (2009). Hamshahri: A standard Persian text collection. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22 (5), 382-387.
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from      http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Baayen, R. H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In: Geert E. Booij and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 109-149.
Baayen, R. H. (1993). On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In: Geert E. Booij and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 181-208.
Baayen, R. H. (1994). Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 1, pp. 16-34.
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In: Anke Luedeling and Merjä Kyto (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. pp. 900-919.
Baayen, R. H. and Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72, pp. 69-96.
Baayen, R. H. & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A Corpus based study. Linguistics, 29, pp. 801-843.
Bauer, L. (1992). Scalar productivity and -lilyadverbs. In: Geert E. Booij and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 185–191.
Bauer, L. (1996). Is morphological productivity non-linguistic?. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 43, pp. 19–31.
Bauer, L. (2004). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Booij, G. E. (2007). The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cannon, G. (1988). Historical Change and English Word-formation. New York: Peter Lang.
Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hay, J. B. (2003). Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York: Routledge.
Lieber, R. (1981). On the Organization of the Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Liu, W. and Shen, H. (2012). A corpus-based analysis of English suffix –esque. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), pp. 767-772.
 Löbner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. New York: Routledge.
Merriam, G. and Merriam, C. (1961). Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language.Massachusetts:Merriam Webster Inc.
O'keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104 (3), pp. 192-233.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human Categorization. In: Nail Warren (Eds.), Studies in Cross-Linguistic Psychology. London: Academic Press. pp. 1-49.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In: B. Lloyd & E. Rosch (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 27–48.
Wittgenstein, L.  (1958). Philosophical Investigations: The German Text, with a Revised English Translation. Translated by GEM Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Journal of Iranian Dialects & Linguistics
Volume 4, Issue 2
February 2020
Pages 243-265

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 October 2019
  • Revise Date: 23 February 2020
  • Accept Date: 17 August 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics