Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp.297–322

Conceptual blending in entrenched Persian noun-noun nominal compounds

The case of āb-noun compounds

ORCID logo | University of Isfahan
ORCID logo | University of Isfahan
ORCID logo | University of Isfahan
The current paper offers an analysis of a set of 27 entrenched endocentric, exocentric, and copulative āb (water)-noun nominal compounds in Persian with both right- and left-headed compounds, based on the network model of conceptual blending theory. Given that an emergent meaning is involved in endocentric and copulative compounds, the same as in exocentric compounds, the paper argues that all types of compounds can be insightfully defined as conceptual blends. However, the conceptual blending network model fails to show the distinct role of head and modifier in the overall meaning of compounds, on the one hand, and the qualifying difference in the extent of emergent meaning among various types of compound words, on the other hand. Our study also lends support to a correspondence between the continuum of integration networks and the continuum of figurativity in compounds.
Keywords: conceptual blending theory, integration networks, meaning construction, Persian, nominal compounds
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual blending theory
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
    • 4.1Simplex network
    • 4.2Mirror network
    • 4.3Single-scope network
    • 4.4Double-scope network
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.20001.diy
References (55)
References
Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to modern English word formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Anvari, H. (2003). farhang-e bozorg-e Sokhan [Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary]. Tehran: Sokhan.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2008). The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in meaning and form of bahuvrihi compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1), 208–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R. (2005). Creative noun-noun compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3 (1), 250–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Compounding and construction morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 201–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, P. F., Ostergaard, S., & Stjernfelt, F. (2006). Waterproof fire stations? Conceptual schemata and cognitive operations involved in compound constructions. Semiotica, 161 1, 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3–4), 175–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estaji, A., & Ghanun, M. (2010). barresi-e naqš-e este’areh dar sakhte-važe zaban-e Farsi [The role of metaphor in Persian word-formation]. Maǰmu’e Maghɑlɑte Panǰomin Hamɑyeš-e Zabɑn va Adabijɑt-e Fɑrsi. University of Sabzevar. 668–684.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2003). Conceptual blending: form and meaning. Recherches en Communication, 19 1, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handl, S., & Schmid, H. J. (2011). Introduction. In S. Handl & H. J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 1–20). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1960). An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds. Word, 16 (3), 356–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopple, P. M. (2011). The structure of nominalization in Burmese. SIL International.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1954). A modern English grammar on historical principles. vol. VI1: Morphology. London: Bradford and Dickens.Google Scholar
Kalbassi, I. (1997). sakht-e ešteqaqi-ye važe dar zaban-e Farsi emrooz [The derivational structure of word in modern Persian]. Tehran: Pažuhešgahe Olume Ensani va Motaleate Farhangi.Google Scholar
Karimi-Doustan, Gh., & Vahid, A. (2013). tahlil-e ma’naei-ye kalamat-e morakkab dar zaban-e Farsi [A Semantic analysis of noun-noun compounds in Persian]. Paĵuhešhaye Zabanšenasi, 5 (8), 65–82.Google Scholar
Khabbaz, M. (2007). Ĵaygah-e haste dar kalamat-e morakkab-e qeyre-fe? li-e Farsi [The place of head in Persian non-verbal compounds]. Dastour, 3 1, 53–66.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1968). The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Leong, W. X. (2015). The meaning construction of Chinese compounds: A cognitive semantic perspective. Master’s thesis, Malaysia: University of Malaya.
Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Libben, G. (2006). Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Bom Yoon, Y., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84 (1), 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.
Marchand, H. (1960). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: a synchronic diachronic approach. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Mierzwińska-Hajnos, A. (2015). More than blends and compounds: conceptual integration theory behind plant-related linguistic expressions in Polish and English. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 39 (2), 65–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T., & Sokolova, S. (2019). Compounds and culture: Conceptual blending in Norwegian and Russian. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (1), 257–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okoye, A. N. (2016). Blending in Etulo compound words. Mgbakoigba, Journal of African Studies, 5 (2), 32–47.Google Scholar
Onysko, A. (2010). Casting the conceptual spotlight: hybrid compounding in German as an example of head-frame internal specifier selection. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (pp. 243–300). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Figurative processes in meaning interpretation: A case study of novel English compounds. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2 (1), 69–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Enhanced creativity in bilinguals? Evidence from meaning interpretations of novel compounds. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20 (3), 315–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. (2002). The constituent order of nominal compounds in Zazaki and other Iranian languages. Language Typology and Universals, 55 (1), 64–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun–noun compounds. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sabzevari, M. (2013). Šaffɑfiat va tiregi-e ma’nɑi-e asɑmi-e morakkab-e zabɑn-e Fɑrsi az didgɑh-e šenɑxti [The semantic transparency and opacity in Persian noun compound nouns with a cognitive approach]. ǰostɑr-hɑ-je zabɑni, 4 (3), 55–73.Google Scholar
Samei, H. (2016). Važe-sazi dar zaban-e Farsi: yek engareh-ye nazari [Word-formation in Persian: A theoretical approach]. Tehran: Bahar.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2011). Conceptual blending, relevance and novel N+N-compounds. In S. Handl & H. J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 219–246). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaghaghi, V. (2007). Mabani-ye sarf [An introduction to morphology]. Tehran: Samt.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of pragmatics, 39 (4), 639–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabatabaei, A. (2003). Esm va sefat-e morakkab dar zaban-e Farsi [Compound nouns and adjectives in Persian]. Tehran: Markaze Nashre Daneshgahi.Google Scholar
(2014). Tarkib dar zaban-e Farsi [Compounding in Persian]. Tehran: Farhangestane Zaban va Adabe Farsi.Google Scholar
Tarasova, E. (2013). Some new insights into the semantics of English N+N compounds. Doctoral dissertation, Wellington: Victoria University.
Torabian, A. (2013). Barresi-e este’ɑre dar esm-hɑ-je morakkab-e esm-esm-e zabɑn-e Fɑrsi dar čɑrčub-e zabɑnšenɑsi-e šenɑxti [Metaphor in Persian noun-noun nominal compounds in cognitive linguistics]. Master’s thesis, Shiraz: University of Shiraz.
Tuggy, D. (2005). Cognitive approach to word-formation. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word formation (pp. 233–66). Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (3), 183–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zibin, A., & Altakhaineh, A. R. M. S. (2018). An analysis of Arabic metaphorical and/or metonymical compounds: A cognitive linguistic approach. Metaphor and the Social World, 8 (1), 100–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar