The Category of Verb from Prototypical Point of View on the Basis of Givon’s Semantic Criteria: Each Verb as a Category

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in Linguistics, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Prototype theory inspired by cognitive framework has offered a new definition of categories and their members. According to the prototype theory “prototypes” are the best examples of each category and are more central than the other members, while less prototypical and peripheral members show less features of the category. Givon, a functional linguist, has used prototype theory to define linguistic categories. 77 verbs have been classified into prototype, less prototype and peripheral verbs based on Givon’s semantic criteria. The verbs have been driven from “Persian core vocabulary based on Iranian children” and examples offered by Givon (2001: 52). Moreover, the authors of the present study have attempted to draw spatial images of verbs by means of giving numerical values to each criterion. This method gives a holistic picture of each verb based on semantic criteria. Thus, different prototypical verbs can be compared with each other in a more concrete way. Finally, various spatial drawings of verb “give” as a prototype verb in different contexts have been presented. The comparisons of spatial drawings of “give” showed that a verb cannot be called absolutely prototype, because the status of a verb in each criteria is determined by its participants. The consequence is that each verb is a category by itself with infinite members. The members are the contexts in which a verb appears and “participants” are the ones which in each criterion close a verb to prototype or not.
 

Keywords

References

رضایی، والی (1395). مصدر، اسم مصدر و حاصل مصدر از دیدگاه سرنمون رده‌شناختی. پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی، 8 (1)، 1-16.
ساسانی، فرهاد (1380). آیا مقولات واژگانی برچسب‌های ثابتی دارند؟ پیوستارنگری کیهانی. مجلّة زبان­شناسی، 16 (2)، 72-102.
کریمی، امین؛ والی رضایی و رضوان متولیان نائینی (1397). صفت­سازی و صفت­زدایی در زبان فارسی ازدیدگاه سرنمون رده­شناختی. مطالعات زبان­ها و گویش­های غرب ایران، 6 (20)، 91-107.
نعمت‌زاده، شهین؛ محمد دادرس؛ مهدی دستجردی کاظمی و محرم منصوری­زاده (1390). واژگان پایه فارسی از زبان کودکان ایرانی. تهران: مدرسه.
References
Berlin, B. & P. Kay (1969). Basic color terms: Their university and evolution. California UP.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian Linguistics: Chapter in the Historz of Rationalist Thought. Harper and Row.
Croft, W. (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In meanings and Prototypes. In: S.Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Studies in Linguistic Categorization, (pp. 48-73). London/ New York: Routledge.
Frege, G. (2004). "Discreteness". In: B. Aarts, D. Denison, E. Keizer & G. PopovaA (Eds.), Fuzzy Grammar: a reader. 33: New York: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T. (1986). “Prototypes: Between Plato and Wittgenstein”. In: Colette G. Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorizations )1), 77-102: John Benjamins Publishing Company
------------ (2001). Syntax: an introduction (Vol. 1): John Benjamins Publishing.
Hopper, P. J., & S. A. Thompson (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60 (4), 703-752.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of philosophical logic, 2 (4), 458-508.
------------- (1982). Categories and cognitive models: Cognitive Science Program. Institute of Cognitive Studies: University of California at Berkeley.
------------- (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: University of Chicago press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). “Nouns and verbs”. Language, 53-94.
-------------------- (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research). Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-------------------- (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Cognitive development and acquisition of language, 111-144: Elsevier.
---------------- (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104    (3), 192.
---------------- & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and categorization. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Russell, B. (1923). Vagueness. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 1 (2), 84-92.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford University Press.
-------------- (2004). grammatical categories. In: B. Aarts, D. Denison, E. Keizer & G. Popva (Eds.), Fuzzy Grammar: a reader, (pp. 293-308). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1990).Prototypes Save: On the Uses and Abuses of the Notion of Prototype. In:S.Tsohatzidis, Savas (Ed.). Studies in Linguistic Categorization, (pp. 403-437). London/ New York: Routledge.
Wittgenstein, L (1963). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by GEM Anscombe. [A Reprint of the English Translation Contained in the Polyglot Edition of 1958.]: Basil Blackwell.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics