---

The present research explores the “wæl”, “tɑ” and “ærɑ” prepositions in Gurani Kurdish within the framework of cognitive semantics. One of the recent models in semantic analysis of prepositions is Principled polysemy model (Tyler & Evans, 2001, 2003; Evans & Tyler, 2004a, 2004b; Evans, 2004, 2005, 2006) that suggests explicit and applicable criteria for determining the distinct senses as well as the primary sense of prepositions. We aim to analyze the semantics of three mentioned prepositions, to determine their distinct senses and primary sense, and to represent their semantic networks. The results suggest that the primary sense of “wæl” is “companionship” and its semantic network contains 9 distinct senses and 2 clusters of senses. The primary sense of “tɑ” is “ending” and its semantic network contains 4 distinct senses and 1 cluster of senses. The primary sense of “ærɑ” is “for and sake” and its semantic network contains 4 distinct senses and 1 cluster of senses.

---

The purpose of the present research is to analyze one of the most frequently used derivational suffixes in Persian, namely “-i“, and to examine its various structural and semantic/functional aspects. The study adopts a construction-based approach and, using a descriptive-analytical method, tries to explain the word formation patterns using the notions of “construction” and “constructional schemas” within the framework of Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2015). It then represents the hierarchical and network relationships among constructional schemas and subschemas in a systematic way. The data under study are extracted from the authors own morphological corpus which includes more than 8000 derivational and compound words as well as Farhang-e Bozorg-e Sokhan (The Great Sokhan Dictionary) (Anvari, 2002). The findings of the research show that “-i” has 38 different meanings/functions and thus we can consider this affix an extremely polysemous one which is always susceptible to new meanings/functions. This polysemy is not explainable at the level of words but at the level of abstract schemas, and therefore is called “constructional polysemy”. In other words, Construction Morphology theory brings us to a new conception of polysemy: a hierarchical and multi-level polysemy at the level of abstract constructions of language.

---

The purpose of the present study is to apply the concept of ‘second order schemas’ within the framework of Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2018) for analyzing some morphological structures in Persian in order to explain how these structures are formed. Second order schemas, which are defined as sets of two or more paradigmatically related constructional schemas, are employed in the present research as an analytical tool for explaining three morphological patterns that predominantly are related to scientific disciplines, branches and technologies. These patterns include: (1) nouns with the structure [N-ʃenɑs-i] and their corresponding relational adjectives; (2) nouns with the structure [N-negɑr-i] and their corresponding relational adjectives; (3) nouns with the structure [N-kɑv-i] and their corresponding relational adjectives.
In the first derivative structure, a noun is combined with the present stem of ‘ʃenɑs’ (‘know’) and the suffix ‘i’. The output of this schema is a noun denoting a scientific discipline or branch, as represented below:
[[x]_Ni -ʃenɑs]_N –i]_Nj ó [a scientific discipline/branch for studying SEM_i]_j
The above schema has two corresponding relational adjectives, as illustrated below:
Noun                                               Relational adjective 1               Relational adjective 2
zabɑn-ʃenɑs-i (‘linguistics’)            zabɑn-ʃenɑxt-i (‘linguistic’)       zabɑn-ʃenɑs-ɑne (‘linguistic’)
ravɑn-ʃenɑs-i (‘psychology’)          ravɑn-ʃenɑxt-i (‘psychologyical’)           ravɑn-ʃenɑs-ɑne (‘psychologyical’)
These two patterns can be accounted for by the following second order schemas in which
there is a paradigmatic relationship between the verb stems or the affixes in the two constructional schemas.
<[[x]_Ni -ʃenɑs-i]_Nj ó SEM_j> ≈ <[[x]_Ni -ʃenɑxt-i]_Ak ó [Related to/based on SEM_j]_k>
<[[x]_Ni -ʃenɑs-i]_Nj ó SEM_j> ≈ <[[x]_Ni -ʃenɑs-ɑne]_Ak ó [Related to/based on SEM_j]_k>
In the second derivative structure, a noun is combined with the verb stem ‘negɑr’ (‘graph’) and the suffix ‘i’ to form a noun denoting a scientific method or technology.
<[[x]_Ni -negɑr-i]_Nj ó [a scientific method/technology for studying/analyzing SEM_i]_j>
The paradigmatic relationship between this schema and its two adjectival schemas can be expressed by the following second order schemas:
<[[x]_Ni -negɑr-i]_Nj ó SEM_j> ≈ <[[x]_Ni -negɑʃt-i]_Ak ó [Related to/based on SEM_j]_k>
<[[x]_Ni -negɑr-i]_Nj ó SEM_j> ≈ <[[x]_Ni -negɑr-ɑne]_Ak ó [Related to/based on SEM_j]_k>
Here is an example of the above two second order schemas:
Noun                                               Relational adjective 1             Relational adjective 2
qowm-negɑr-i (‘ethnography’)        qowm-negʃt-i (‘ethnographic’)            qowm-negɑr-ɑne (‘ethnographic’)
In the third derivative structure, a noun is combined with the verb stem ‘kɑv’ (‘analyze’) and the suffix ‘i’ to form a noun denoting a scientific discipline, approach or method.
<[[x]_Ni -kɑv-i]_Nj ó [a scientific discipline/approach/method for studying/analyzing SEM_i]_j>
An example of this schema and its two relational adjectives is as follow:
Noun                                                 Relational adjective 1                         Relational adjective 2
ravɑn-kɑv-i (‘psychoanalysis’)         ravɑn-kɑft-i (‘Psychoanalytic’)            ravɑn-kav-ɑne (‘Psychoanalytic’)
The following second order schemas show the morphological patterns of the corresponding relational adjective:
<[[x]_Ni -kɑv-i]_Nj ó SEM_j> ≈ <[[x]_Ni -kɑv-ane]_Ak ó [Related to/based on SEM_j]_j>
<[[x]_N –kɑv-i]_Ni ó SEM_i> ≈ <[[x]_N –kɑft-i]_Aj ó [Related to/based on SEM_i]_j>
The results show that ‘second order schemas’ are useful analytical tools for explaining the way in which the aforementioned structures are formed. These results also suggest that the constructional approach, unlike the derivational approach, can promisingly explain the way in which such problematic structures are formed.
 

 

---

Introduction
Affixation is one of the two main word-formation processes in Persian. The suffix ‘-ɑr’ is a nominal (or adjectival) suffix in Persian which is believed by most researchers to express the subject/agent (like xæridɑr ‘buyer’), object/patient (like gereftɑr ‘captive’) or infinitive (like ræftar ‘behavior’) meaning. In Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 2008, 2009) and Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2016) word-formation patterns are considered to be constructional schemas, i.e. schematic representations of morphological constructions. Constructions are pairings of form and meaning. The form pole of a construction includes morpho−syntactic and phonological properties. The meaning pole of a construction comprises semantic properties (conceptual structure), pragmatic properties and discourse properties. Cognitive Grammar posits that an expression invokes a set of cognitive domains as the basis for its meaning, i.e. as the content to be construed. Therefore, the meaning of a linguistic expression depends on two key notions of ‘cognitive domain’ and ‘construal’. A cognitive domain is a coherent area of conceptualization which provides the conceptual base for the meaning of a linguistic expression. The term construal refers to human manifest ability to conceive and express the same situation or event in alternate ways.
 
Purpose: The present research aims to explore the suffix ‘-ɑr’ within the framework of Cognitive Grammar and Construction Morphology and tries to identify its various constructional schemas and subschemas. Furthermore, it attempts to investigate cognitive domains that underlie the meaning of each subschemas and to analyze the role of construal in formation of each subschemas.
 
Study questions: the study questions are: (1) what are constructional schemas and subschemas of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ and how is hierarchical relationships among them?
(2) What cognitive domain(s) underlie the meaning of each subschema?
(3) Which cognitive processes do play determinant role in formation of these (sub) schemas?
 
Methodology: Empirically, the paper adopts corpus-based method and theoretically, it adopts cognitive and construction-based approach. The data include a corpus of 38 derivational words having the suffix ‘-ɑr’ extracted from the authors own morphological corpus (including more than 10000 complex words) and Farhang-e Zansoo (Keshani, 1993).
 
Analysis: Analysis of research data showed that derivatives of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ belong to different constructional schemas. The schematic-constructional network of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ is represented in Figure 1. As is shown in the figure, ‘-ɑr’ appears in six different subschemas, in five of which the base of derivation is past stem of a verb while in the other the base is a noun. The conceptual base of the five subschemas that have a verb stem as their base is the cognitive domain of ‘processes. The difference among these subschemas is that each subschema profiles a different aspect of the conceptual base. In other words, the difference among them is due to the key notion of ‘profiling’. In the subschema with a noun as the base of derivation, the conceptual base is the cognitive domain of ‘relation’.

Figure 1: The schematic-constructional network of the suffix ‘-ɑr’ in Persian
 
Conclusion: Results of the study show that the suffix ‘-ɑr’, which is added to past stems of verbs or nouns, can appear in six different constructional subschemas to indicate the cognitive domains of process, agenthood, aspect and relation. These subschemas are:
1) <[[x]_(Vpast)i -ɑr]_Nj ↔ [The human agent who perform the process of SEM_i]_j>
2) <[[x]_(Vpast)i -ɑr]_Nj ↔ [The non-human agent (or instrument) which perform the process of SEM_i]_j>
3) <[[x]_(Vpast)i -ɑr]_Nj ↔ [The act of doing the process of SEM_i]_j>
4) <[[x]_(Vpast)i -ɑr]_Nj ↔ [The result of the process of SEM_i]_j>
5) <[[x]_(Vpast)i -ɑr]_Aj ↔ [The property of being affected by the process of SEM_i]_j>
6) <[[x]_Ni -ɑr]_Nj ↔ [The thing closely related to SEM_i]_j>
 
The findings reveal that the cognitive process of ‘construal’ and especially its two aspects of ‘profiling’ and ‘specification’ have a determinant role in the formation of these constructional subschemas.