Azita Abbasi
Abstract
In the conjugation of root morpheme, zero morpheme is a morpheme which has semantic load but no visual representation, not in written nor spoken form. As an example, the word رفت in Persian is a third-person, simple past, singular but there are no visual representations in this word to indicate person ...
Read More
In the conjugation of root morpheme, zero morpheme is a morpheme which has semantic load but no visual representation, not in written nor spoken form. As an example, the word رفت in Persian is a third-person, simple past, singular but there are no visual representations in this word to indicate person and number. A group of linguistics analyze this verb as [رفت-Ø]verb and relate the person and number indicators to the zero morpheme. But the zero morpheme, from the viewpoint of many researchers such as Aronov (1976, 1983), Lieber (1981), Bauer (1983, 1988), Schtechaur (1992) and Melchuk (1996), has been criticized for many reasons including multiplicity of grammatical categories and meanings. In the present paper, the nature of the zero morpheme will undergo detailed analysis, and the examples of this morpheme as well as the conditions for its existence determined by linguists will be explained. Then, after providing the reasons for accepting or rejecting the zero morpheme, it will be determined, by proposing linguistic evidence, that what is referred to as the zero morpheme in different references is actually a contextual vacuum in the syntagmatic axis which is filled by the speaker by using the available linguistic and non-linguistic context.
Rahele Gandomkar
Abstract
Format-based semantics was first proposed by Charles Fillmore after putting forward the notion of ‘format’ (1977a, 1977b, 1985, 1987) as a perspective in the framework of semantics. Fillmore, in this lexical approach, uses the term format as a method for semantically analyzing natural language. ...
Read More
Format-based semantics was first proposed by Charles Fillmore after putting forward the notion of ‘format’ (1977a, 1977b, 1985, 1987) as a perspective in the framework of semantics. Fillmore, in this lexical approach, uses the term format as a method for semantically analyzing natural language. The author of the present paper, using many examples of standard Persian, evaluates efficiency of this theory in Persianto determine its comprehensiveness with a language which has not been the subject of Fillmore’s research. The results from this evaluation show that Fillmore, contrary to the original claim of cognitive semantic scholars, has sought representative image formation in proposing his theory. Not only most Persian verbs have not been predicted in many of the instances of Fillmore’s formats, many formats have been merged. The lack of efficiency of this theory, at least in Persian , results from neglecting the fact that when we see something in the outside world, we enter it into Persian based on how we have understood it. Our understanding of the representations around us determine what sentences we bring into the language. It does not seem suitable nor correct to reach a specific format based on a few elements in a given image.