Content uploaded by Ava Imani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ava Imani on Nov 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
(Booij, 2010)
]
[X
Anvari, 2002
Keshani, 1993
(DOI :)10.22051/jlr.2018.19239.1506
a.imani@fgn.ui.ac.ir
a.rafiei@fgn.ui.ac.ir
/ 130
X
X
]
[X
Ralli, 2013; Booij, 2012 Bauer, 2008; Bisetto and Scalise, 2005
(Tabatabaee, 2003; 2007; 2014)
1 construction Morphology
2 hierarchycal
3 constructional schema
4 default Inheritance
5 morpheme-based approach
Rafiei, 2012
Booij, 2010Goldberg,
1995
Tabatabaee, 2014
131 /
Rafiei, 2012
Booij, 2010Goldberg,
1995
Tabatabaee, 2014
/ 132
.
Khanlari, 1972, p. 160-162
Kalbasi, 1992, p. 35
Gharib et al., 1994Natel
Khanlari, 1972
Kalbasi, 1992
Sadeghi, 2004
Tabatabaee, 2003
Anvari & Ahmadi Givi, 1999Lazard,
2005
Vahidian Kamyar & Emrani 2006Khorma’i,
2008
Shaghaghi, 2007, p. 91
Tabatabaee, 2003
Sabzevari, 2009; 2018
][X
Aronoff, 1994Inkelas and Zoll,
2005
Khorma’i, 2008
Hüning & Booij, 2014
Arcodia,
2012
1
headedness
133 /
Shaghaghi, 2007, p. 91
Tabatabaee, 2003
Sabzevari, 2009; 2018
][X
Aronoff, 1994Inkelas and Zoll,
2005
Khorma’i, 2008
Hüning & Booij, 2014
Arcodia,
2012
1 headedness
/ 134
Audring & Booij, 2007
Rafiei & Torabi, 2014
Torabi, 2014
Goldberg, 1995
Booij, 2010
:PHON
1 intermediate generalization
2 variation
3 constructional idioms
4 constructional licensing
5 configuration
:SYN:SEM
Booij, 2010, pp. 3-5
bakerdriversender
1. < [[x]vi er]Nj ↔ [agent/instrument of SEMi]j>
SEMi
Vi
jX
1
slot
2
instantiation
3
construct
135 /
:SYN:SEM
Booij, 2010, pp. 3-5
bakerdriversender
1. < [[x]vi er]Nj ↔ [agent/instrument of SEMi]j>
SEMi
Vi
jX
1 slot
2 instantiation
3 construct
/ 136
Booij, 2010, p. 27Booij, ibid, p. 80
[V-er]N
2. [V-er] ↔ [ V ]
[V-er]
1 node
Rezaei Bagh-bidi, 2011, p. 67
sarah/sāra
sar
Anvari, 2002
Heine et al., 1991
>>>>>
>>
137 /
Rezaei Bagh-bidi, 2011, p. 67
sarah/sāra
sar
Anvari, 2002
Heine et al., 1991
>>>>>
>>
/ 138
X
[Sar-V]A
[Sar-A/N]A
[sar-N]N
Khaghani, 1120-1190, p. 178; quoted from
Anvari, 2002, vol. 27, p. 379
Rainer, 2005
X
X
X
X
1
approximation
2
reanalysis
139 /
Rainer, 2005
X
X
X
X
1 approximation
2 reanalysis
/ 140
][
X
]–[
X][
Booij, 2012, p. 325
][
X][
X X
X]
[
][
X
4. [Sar [X]V]A↔[X ]
[sar-N]A
XX
[Sar-A]A
X
5. [Sar[X]N]A ↔ < [X X]
6.[Sar[X]A]A ↔ < [ X ]>
Dehkhoda, 1972
141 /
X X
X]
[
][
X
4. [Sar [X]V]A↔[X ]
[sar-N]A
XX
[Sar-A]A
X
5. [Sar[X]N]A ↔ < [X X]
6.[Sar[X]A]A ↔ < [ X ]>
Dehkhoda, 1972
/ 142
Booij, 2010, p. 41Rainer, 2005, 430-431
[Sar[X]A]A
][
1 Panini
2 specificity
] [
[N-N]
Rainer, 2005
X
X
7. [Sar[X]A/N/V]A ↔ X
Dehkhoda, 1972
2
entity
143 /
Booij, 2010, p. 41Rainer, 2005, 430-431
[Sar[X]A]A
][
1
Panini
2
specificity
] [
[N-N]
Rainer, 2005
X
X
7. [Sar[X]A/N/V]A ↔ X
Dehkhoda, 1972
2 entity
/ 144
[Sar-N]N
X
8. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
[Sar-N]N
X[Sar-N]N
9. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
[Sar-N]N
Anvari, 2002
X
10. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
X
Heine et al., 1991
11. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
12. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ XX X
[Sar-N]N
[N-N]N
145 /
X
10. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
X
Heine et al., 1991
11. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
12. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ XX X
[Sar-N]N
[N-N]N
/ 146
X
13. [Sar[X]N]N ↔ X
][X
][X
Booij, 2010, p. 76
Booij, 2010, pp. 78-79
] [X
[Sar-N]N
[Sar-V]A
[Sar-
A]A
[Sar-N]A
][X
1 monosemy
2 polysemy
3 constructional polysemy
4 logical polysemy
147 /
][X
Lieber, 1981, p. 125
Tabatabaee, 2003
Umbreit, 2010
1 DEFINING PROPERTY FOR CATEGORY
2 non-directional
/ 148
sar-xwēčsar-
snām
Gharib, 1995, p. 361sar-āmādag
Mackenzie, 1971
[Sar-X]
Booij, 2012, p. 325
] [X
X][X
XX
][X
[Sar-V]A
[Sar-A]A
[Sar-N]A
[Sar-N]N
][X
[Sar-V]A
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 420 p. 74; quoted from1020, –940Ferdowsi,
1190, p. 178; quoted from Anvari, 2002-1120Khaghani,
]–[
Farrukhi, 980-1037, p. 74; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 429
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 478 p. 1007; quoted from923, -839Tabari,
149 /
X][X
XX
][X
[Sar-V]A
[Sar-A]A
[Sar-N]A
[Sar-N]N
][X
[Sar-V]A
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 420 p. 74; quoted from1020, –940Ferdowsi,
1190, p. 178; quoted from Anvari, 2002-1120Khaghani,
]–[
Farrukhi, 980-1037, p. 74; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 429
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 478 p. 1007; quoted from923, -839Tabari,
/ 150
[Sar-N]A
120p. 236; quoted from Anvari, 2002, 41190, -1120Khaghani,
Moulavi, 1207-1273, p. 209; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 401
[Sar-N]N
[Sar-N]N
X
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 458 p. 74; quoted from1020, –940Ferdowsi,
Lamaei, 1033- 1184, p. 95; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 443
[Sar-N]N
X
Nezami, 1141-1209, p. 439; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 498
Nezami, 1141-1209; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 425
[sar-N]N
X
Nezami, 1141-1209, p. 439; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 452
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 414 p. 74; quoted from1020, –940Ferdowsi,
Nezami, 1141-1209; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 452
[Sar-N]N
X
Jamal Aldin Abourouh, 1210-n.d, p. 83; quoted from Anvari, 2002, 4120
Jamal Zadeh, 1982-1997, p. 229; quoted from Anvari, 2002, p. 4147
[Sar-N]N
XXX
; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 4811020–940 Ferdowsi,
Gorgani, 1041-1136, p. 596; quoted from Dehkhoda,
1972, vol. 27, p. 473
[Sar-N]N
[Sar-
V/A/N]A
151 /
X
Nezami, 1141-1209, p. 439; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 452
Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 414 p. 74; quoted from1020, –940Ferdowsi,
Nezami, 1141-1209; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 452
[Sar-N]N
X
Jamal Aldin Abourouh, 1210-n.d, p. 83; quoted from Anvari, 2002, 4120
Jamal Zadeh, 1982-1997, p. 229; quoted from Anvari, 2002, p. 4147
[Sar-N]N
XXX
; quoted from Dehkhoda, 1972, vol. 27, p. 4811020–940 Ferdowsi,
Gorgani, 1041-1136, p. 596; quoted from Dehkhoda,
1972, vol. 27, p. 473
[Sar-N]N
[Sar-
V/A/N]A
/ 152
XX
[Sar-N]N
[Sar-V/A/N]A
XX
X
][X
][X
]-[X
Booij,
2010
<
X><X>
][X
][XX
] [X
][X
][X
Booij,
2010
X
][X
153 /
Booij,
2010
<
X><X>
][X
][XX
] [X
][X
][X
Booij,
2010
X
][X
/ 154
][X
XX
X
عبانم تسرهف
:
.
References
Anvari, H. & Ahmadi Givi, H. (1999). The grammar of Persian (2). Tehran: Fatemi [In Per-
sian].
Anvari, H. (2002). Sokhan comprehensive dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
Arcodia, C. F. (2012). Construction and headedness in derivation and compounding. Mor-
phology. 22, 365-397.
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Linguistic Inquiry
Monograph 22). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Audring, J. & G. Booij (2007). Constructional licensing in morphology and syntax. In
G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.). On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Mor-
phology Meetings (MMM5), (pp. 15-18). Bologna: University of Bologna.
Bauer, L. (2008). Exocentric compounds. Morphology. 18, 51-74.
Bisetto, A., & Scalise, S. (2005). Classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio. 4(2),
319–332.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
155 /
:
.
References
Anvari, H. & Ahmadi Givi, H. (1999). The grammar of Persian (2). Tehran: Fatemi [In Per-
sian].
Anvari, H. (2002). Sokhan comprehensive dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan [In Persian].
Arcodia, C. F. (2012). Construction and headedness in derivation and compounding. Mor-
phology. 22, 365-397.
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Linguistic Inquiry
Monograph 22). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Audring, J. & G. Booij (2007). Constructional licensing in morphology and syntax. In
G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.). On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Mor-
phology Meetings (MMM5), (pp. 15-18). Bologna: University of Bologna.
Bauer, L. (2008). Exocentric compounds. Morphology. 18, 51-74.
Bisetto, A., & Scalise, S. (2005). Classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio. 4(2),
319–332.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
/ 156
Booij. G. (2012). Compounding and construction morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer
(eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Compounding )pp. 322-347). Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Dehkhoda, A. (1972). Loqatname Dehkhoda (Dehkhoda Dictionary). Tehran: University of
Tehran [In Persian].
Gharib, A. Homa’ei, J., Yasemi, R., Bahar, M., & Forouzanfar, B (1994). Dastur-e zaban-e
Farsi/Panj Ostad (The grammar of Persian language/ five professors). Tehran, Iran:
Jahan e Danesh [In Persian].
Gharib, B. (1995). Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian-Persian-English. Tehran: Farhangan [In
Persian].
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument struc-
ture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: a conceptual frame-
work. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hüning, M., & Booij, G. (2014). From compounding to derivation. the emergence of deriva-
tional affixes through constructionalization. Folia Linguistica. 42 (2), 579-604.
Inkelas, Sh., & Cheryl, Z (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Kalbasi, I. (1992). Sakht-e vazhe-ye eshteghaghi dar Farsi-e no (Derivative word formation
in New Persian). Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies [In Persian].
Kashani, Kh. (1993). Zansou Persian dictionary.Tehran: Markaze-e Nashr-e-Daneshgahi [In
Persian].
Khorma’i, A. (2008). Truncated compound agentive adjective: yes or no?. Language and
Linguistics, 4(7), 64-80 [In Persian].
Lazard, G. (2005). Dastur-e Farsi-e moaser (The grammar of contemporary Persian). Tehran:
Hermes [In Persian].
Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Lin-
guistics Club.
Mackenzie, D.N. (1971). A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Natel Khanlari, P. (1972). Persian Grammar. Tehran: Iranian Culture Foundation [In Persian].
Rafiei, A. & Torabi, S. (2014). Inheritance and motivation of form and meaning in lexicon:
instantiations of Persian word formation patterns. Language Science, 2(3), 49-64 [In
Persian].
Rafiei, A. (2012). Construction Morphology: Instantiations of Word Formation in Persian. In
Dabir Moghaddam, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Iranian Conference on Linguis-
tics, (327-336). Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran [In Persian].
Rainer, F. (2005). Typology, diachrony, and universals of semantic change in word for-
mation: a Romanist’s look at the polysemy of agent nouns. In G. Booij, et al. (eds.).
Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranen Morphology Meeting. Catania: University of
Catania, Faculty of Letters.
Ralli, A. (2013). Compounding in modern Greek. Studies in Morphology. 2, 181-199.
Rezaei Bagh-bidi, H. (2011). A thematic lexicon of ancient Iranian languages. Tehran: Acad-
emy of Persian Language and Literature [In Persian].
Sabzevari, M. (2009). Semantic compositionality in modern Persian compound nouns (PhD
dissertation). Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran [In Persian].
Sabzevari, M. (2018). A Study of meaning formation and inference and conceptual patterns of
the endocentric compound nouns of Farsi. Zabanpazhuhi, 10(27), 5-5. doi:
10.22051/JLR.2016.2446. [In Persian]
Sadeghi, A. (2004). Compound words made of verb stem. Nama-i farhangistan. 1(1), 5-12 [In
Persian].
Shaghaghi, V. (2007). An Introduction to morphology. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
Tabatabaee, A. (2003). Compound adjectives and nouns in Persian. Tehran: University Publi-
cation center [In Persian].
Tabatabaee, A. (2007). Compounding in Persian (1). Nama-i farhangistan, 9(3)/35, 186-196
[In Persian].
Tabatabaee, A. (2014). Compounding in Persian. Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and
Literature [In Persian].
Torabi, S. (2014). A construction morpholoy account of agentive derived nouns in Persian
(Master thesis). University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran [In Persian].
Umbreit, B. (2010). Does love come from to love or to love from love? why lexical motiva-
tion has to be regarded as bidirectional. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (eds.). Cognitive
Perspectives on Word-Formation (pp. 301-333). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vahidian Kamyar, T. & Emrani, G.R. (2006). Persian Grammar (1). Tehran: SAMT [In Per-
sian].
https://www.google.com
https://www.peykaregan.ir/
157 /
Tabatabaee, A. (2007). Compounding in Persian (1). Nama-i farhangistan, 9(3)/35, 186-196
[In Persian].
Tabatabaee, A. (2014). Compounding in Persian. Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and
Literature [In Persian].
Torabi, S. (2014). A construction morpholoy account of agentive derived nouns in Persian
(Master thesis). University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran [In Persian].
Umbreit, B. (2010). Does love come from to love or to love from love? why lexical motiva-
tion has to be regarded as bidirectional. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (eds.). Cognitive
Perspectives on Word-Formation (pp. 301-333). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vahidian Kamyar, T. & Emrani, G.R. (2006). Persian Grammar (1). Tehran: SAMT [In Per-
sian].
https://www.google.com
https://www.peykaregan.ir/
Scientic Journal of Language Research, Vol. 11, No. 33, Winter 2019-2020, http://jlr.alzahra.ac.ir / 158
A Constructional Study of the Compounds
of Body Part “Sar” (head) in Persian
Ava Imani1
Adel Rafiei*2
Received: 12/05/2018
Accepted: 04/09/2018
Abstract
This paper aims to examine the construction of the word-formation pattern [sar-X]
(compounds of the body part “head”) in Persian and investigate its semantic varia-
tions, the most general schema and subschemas both synchronically and diachroni-
cally employing the Construction Morphology approach (Booij, 2010). To this end,
firstly, a collection of 178 compound words consisting of “sar” as the first constitu-
ent were collected from Bijankhan Corpus, Comprehensive Sokhan Dictionary,
Dehkhoda and Zansoo Dictionaries and also from a Google search. Secondly, the
historical data were collected from a comprehensive search of Farhang-yar Corpus
consisting of the historical information about the words, their origins, meanings and
changes in time from the 4th century onwards in the library of Academy of Persian
Language and Literature. Then, all collected words were assigned to different cate-
gories based on their semantic variations and the specified categories were closely
studied as follows: 1-Feature consisting of a) agentive adjectives and in some cases,
object-oriented adjectives; b) Simple (descriptive) adjectives, 2-Entity consisting of
a) job names; and b) other names such as instruments and objects. It is worth men-
tioning that in addition to Booij’s Construction Morphology (2010) as the main the-
oretical framework of this research, we benefited from Rainer’s views (2005) on
semantic changes in word-formation patterns so that we can capture all the semantic
extensions and developments of the word-formation pattern [sar-X], and in line with
Rainer (2005) we divided all semantic change mechanisms involved in the construc-
tion [sar-X] into two main categories namely 1-Semantic/conceptual mechanisms
(cognitive factors) such as metaphor, metonymy, approximation, reanalysis, and
analogy, and 2-Non-semantic factors such as (historical) ellipsis, homonymisation,
borrowing and loan-translation.
The results reveal that two general constructional schemas and several subsche-
mas have command of this construction and the central meanings “an entity related
to SEM sar and X” and “distinctive feature of an entity related to SEM sar and X”
1 PhD Candidate of General Linguistics, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages,
University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran; a.imani@fgn.ui.ac.ir
2 Assistant Professor of General Linguistics, Linguistics Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages,
University of Isfahan (Corresponding Author); a.rafiei@fgn.ui.ac.ir
are the most abstract pairings of form-meaning inferred from the products of this
word-formation pattern and some of these subschemas refer to the meanings such as
“the above part of SEM X”, “head SEM X”, “main SEM X”, “the best in SEM X”,
“the start point or the end of X” and “distinctive feature of sth/sb whose head is X
(has got X). This implies that the [sar-X] pattern is basically a construction with
multiple functionality. Furthermore, it was revealed that the polysemy we deal with
here is not at the word level but it is at the construction level (a type of construction-
al polysemy with multi-levels of abstraction for the constructional idiom [sar-x]) and
the meaning contribution of the mentioned compounds lies within the construction
[sar-X] on the one hand, the meaning of the constituents, the operation of conceptual
metaphor (metonymy) and the encyclopedic knowledge on the other. This implies
that the constructional idiom [sar-X] is basically both an adjective-making and sim-
ultaneously a noun-making construction and the dual usage of some of its com-
pounds is through conversion activated by metonymy at the lexicon level. That is
why the conceptual metonymy and metaphor play a significant role in determining
the meaning of the mentioned words. Also, it was revealed that there is no need to
be a complete and one-to-one correspondence between a word and the word-
formation pattern from which the word is derived, as Rainer (2005; pp. 430-431)
points out, it is assumed that human communication, in order to be effective, does
not require a 100% match between model and copy, pattern and neologism (Gloning
1996; p. 152). In other words, an approximation, in many cases, will suffice if the
hearer is able to bridge by inference the distance between model and copy. This is
especially the case if model and copy are linked by metaphor or metonymy. That is
why, approximation will thus be defined as a process of word formation where the
relation between a pattern of word formation and a neologism formed according to it
is not one to one, but mediated by metaphor or metonymy. Among the products of
this construction also there are few words that have some exceptional properties,
although they are regular in most respects, and for these cases, we benefited from
the crucial notion of default inheritance which means “the specification of a word
for a particular property is inherited from the dominating node, unless the actual
lexical entry has another specification for that property” and thus, these few cases
were considered as some objective instantiations derived from the higher hierar-
chical and more general constructional schemas, such as [N-X]A, [N-N]N, or [N-V]A
to generate different kinds of compound words which take their constructional li-
censes from these abstract schemas rather than from the word-formation pattern [sar-
X].
Finally, postulating a paradigmatic nature of word-formation and positing the
concept of construction as a basis for argument, Construction Morphology can ac-
count for our data and necessitate reevaluation of the demarcation between deriva-
tion and compounding at least in compounds of the body part “head” in Persian.
Keywords:
Construction Morphology, Constructional Schema, Constructional Poly-
semy, compounding, body part
159 / Scientic Journal of Language Research, Vol. 11, No. 33, Winter 2019-2020, http://jlr.alzahra.ac.ir
are the most abstract pairings of form-meaning inferred from the products of this
word-formation pattern and some of these subschemas refer to the meanings such as
“the above part of SEM X”, “head SEM X”, “main SEM X”, “the best in SEM X”,
“the start point or the end of X” and “distinctive feature of sth/sb whose head is X
(has got X). This implies that the [sar-X] pattern is basically a construction with
multiple functionality. Furthermore, it was revealed that the polysemy we deal with
here is not at the word level but it is at the construction level (a type of construction-
al polysemy with multi-levels of abstraction for the constructional idiom [sar-x]) and
the meaning contribution of the mentioned compounds lies within the construction
[sar-X] on the one hand, the meaning of the constituents, the operation of conceptual
metaphor (metonymy) and the encyclopedic knowledge on the other. This implies
that the constructional idiom [sar-X] is basically both an adjective-making and sim-
ultaneously a noun-making construction and the dual usage of some of its com-
pounds is through conversion activated by metonymy at the lexicon level. That is
why the conceptual metonymy and metaphor play a significant role in determining
the meaning of the mentioned words. Also, it was revealed that there is no need to
be a complete and one-to-one correspondence between a word and the word-
formation pattern from which the word is derived, as Rainer (2005; pp. 430-431)
points out, it is assumed that human communication, in order to be effective, does
not require a 100% match between model and copy, pattern and neologism (Gloning
1996; p. 152). In other words, an approximation, in many cases, will suffice if the
hearer is able to bridge by inference the distance between model and copy. This is
especially the case if model and copy are linked by metaphor or metonymy. That is
why, approximation will thus be defined as a process of word formation where the
relation between a pattern of word formation and a neologism formed according to it
is not one to one, but mediated by metaphor or metonymy. Among the products of
this construction also there are few words that have some exceptional properties,
although they are regular in most respects, and for these cases, we benefited from
the crucial notion of default inheritance which means “the specification of a word
for a particular property is inherited from the dominating node, unless the actual
lexical entry has another specification for that property” and thus, these few cases
were considered as some objective instantiations derived from the higher hierar-
chical and more general constructional schemas, such as [N-X]A, [N-N]N, or [N-V]A
to generate different kinds of compound words which take their constructional li-
censes from these abstract schemas rather than from the word-formation pattern [sar-
X].
Finally, postulating a paradigmatic nature of word-formation and positing the
concept of construction as a basis for argument, Construction Morphology can ac-
count for our data and necessitate reevaluation of the demarcation between deriva-
tion and compounding at least in compounds of the body part “head” in Persian.
Keywords:
Construction Morphology, Constructional Schema, Constructional Poly-
semy, compounding, body part
