Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics
Edited by Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi and Vida Samiian
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 351] 2020
► pp. 57–84

Chapter 4
The additive particle in Persian

A case of morphological homophony between syntax and pragmatics

This chapter discusses the syntactic and semantic properties of the additive marker -am in Persian. I show that -am exhibits positional variability, is polysemous in meaning, and does not always contribute meaning that affects the truth conditions of the sentence. On the basis of this I classify -am as a pragmatic particle. Noting that -am is homophonous with both the first person singular agreement suffix and the first person pronominal enclitic, I propose that it is precisely because additive -am is a pragmatic particle that it is distinguished from the inflectional morphemes it resembles in form. Thus the chapter argues for three levels at which morphemes can be classified: derivation, inflection, pragmatic, and suggests that cross-level homophony is not accidental. Rather, frequency of use at one level predisposes a particular form to be used at another level. This ultimately gives a language its morphological ‘flavour’.
Keywords: additive, inflection, derivation, discourse particles, homophony, Persian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Inflectional and derivational homophony in Persian
  • 3.Discourse markers and discourse particles
  • 4.The additive marker in conversational Persian
    • 4.1The syntactic distribution of the additive marker
    • 4.2The meaning of the additive marker
    • 4.3The form of the additive marker
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.351.04gho
References (46)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova. 2009. On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event nominalizations. Language 85. 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateni, Mohammad R. 2010. Application of ke, dige, akhe, ha . Bukhara Arts and Culture Journal 70. 38–51. Translated by Sharareh Esmaeili.Google Scholar
Berger, Frauke & Barbara Höhle. 2012. Restrictions on addition: Children’s interpretation of the focus particles auch (also) and nur (only) in German. Journal of Child Language 39. 383–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Darzi, Ali. 2008. On the vP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 103–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2017. Discourse-pragmatic variation in context: Eight hundred years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles, 19–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Kurt Rice (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kostinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know . Studier i Modernsprakvetenskap 10. 76–93.Google Scholar
Estaji, Azam. 2011 [1389]. A historical study of homophonous ke in Persian. Journal of Linguistics and Dialects of Khorasan 2:3. 1–13. Translated by Sharareh Esmaeili.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180. 69–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Vaughan, Jill. 2011. I can haz language play: The construction of language and identity in LOLspeak. In Maïa Ponsonnet, Loan Dao & Margit Bowler (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference, Canberra ACT, 2–4 December 2011, 97–122, ANU Research Repository. [URL] (12 June, 2017).
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The linguistic cycle. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghaniabadi, Saeed. 2009. The empty noun construction in Persian. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba dissertation.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Non-projecting nouns and the ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 729–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Control and Thematic Agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46. 9–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57. 47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of pragmaticalization. In Shan Luo (ed.), Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2013. Proceedings of the 2013 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. [URL] (19 November, 2013).
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard David. 1987. On the motivation for an evolutionary typology of sound-structural rules. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2000. On the derivationality of some inflectional affixes in Persian. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Conference , Chicago, January 2000.
. 2019. Word-internal modification: The case of Persian comparative marker. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 64. 138–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karvovskaya, Lena. 2013. ‘Also’ in Ishkashimi: Additive particle and sentence connector. In Felix Bildhauer & Mira Grubic (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 17, 75–97.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin, & John Whitman. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121. 1297–1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992 [1957]. A grammar of contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. (Translated from the original 1957 version entitled Grammaire du persan contemporain by Shirley A. Lyon.)Google Scholar
. 1989. Le persan. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 263–293. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67. 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, William & John Archibald. 2016. Contemporary linguistic analysis: An introduction, 8th edn. Toronto: Pearson Canada, Inc.Google Scholar
Oroji, Mohammad Reza & Amir Rezaei. 2013. Exploring ke as a focus particle in Persian from both form and function points of view. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33. 76–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, John R. 2007. Persian morphology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa, 975–1019. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 1999. A Formal Approach to ‘Grammaticalization’. Linguistics 37. 1011–1041. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On Korean Case stacking: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul . Linguistic Review 18. 193–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 1997. The so-called plural copy in Korean as a marker of distribution and focus. Journal of Pragmatics 27. 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stilo, Donald. 2004. Coordination in three Western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Persian and Gilaki. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions (Typological Studies in Language 58), 269–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25. 637–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure 1(2). 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. ‘I think’ and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49. 295–332.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1979. Persian grammar: History and state of its study. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Dashti, Seyed Mohammad Sadegh, Amid Khatibi Bardsiri & Mehdi Jafari Shahbazzadeh
2024. PERCORE: A Deep Learning-Based Framework for Persian Spelling Correction with Phonetic Analysis. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17:1 DOI logo
Okubo, Wataru & Hiroki Nomoto
2023. Chapter 9. A null stem analysis of Persian copular verbs. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.