The Derivational Suffixes ‘-in’ and ‘-ine’ within the Framework of Construction Morphology

The purpose of the present research is to analyze two Persian suffixes ‘-in’ and ‘-ine’ in regards to their various formal and semantic aspects. The study adopts a construction-based approach and uses the framework of Construction Morphology theory (Booij, 2010, 2018) which tries to explain the word formation patterns using the notions of “constructional schemas” and the hierarchical relations among them. Construction Morphology is a word-based and sign-based theory which adopts a cognitive and usage-based approach to word formation. The data include 71 derivative words with the suffix ‘-in’ and 59 derivative words with the suffix ‘-ine’ adapted from the authors’ own morphological corpus (including more than 10000 Persian compound and affixed words), in addition to Farhang-e Zānsoo (Reverse Dictionary, Keshani 1993). The findings show that both suffixes have a remarkable semantic diversity and this polysemy is not explainable at the level of concrete words but at the level of abstract constructional schemas, therefore, is called “constructional polysemy”. The suffix ‘-in’ appears in 7 constructional subschemas to form new adjectives, while the suffix ‘-ine’ appears in 9 constructional subschemas to make new nouns or adjectives.
 
 Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Affixation is a major word-formation process in Persian so that this language has many suffixes that can be added to existing words to produce new words. The purpose of the present research is to analyze two Persian suffixes ‘-in’ and ‘-ine’ and to examine their various formal and semantic aspects. The study adopts a construction-based approach and uses the framework of Construction Morphology theory (Booij, 2010, 2018) which tries to explain the word formation patterns using the notions of “constructional schemas” and the hierarchical relations among them. The main questions of the research are as follows: (1) How can the various meanings of ‘-in’ and ‘-ine’ be analyzed in terms of constructional schemas and subschemas? (2) How can the polysemy of morphological patterns associated with these two suffixes be explained?
 
2. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of the research is Construction Morphology (Booij, 2010, 2018), a word-based and sign-based theory which adopts a cognitive and usage-based approach to word-formation. In Construction Morphology, word-formation patterns are considered as abstract schemas that generalize over sets of existing complex words with a systematic correlation between form and meaning. These abstract schemas are known as ‘constructional schemas’. For example, word formation pattern associated with suffix ‘-in’ can be represented as follows:
[[a]_Xi –in]_Yj « [Relating to SEM_i]_j
In this representation, ‘a’ is a variable standing for the base word and its lexical category is unspecified (X) and SEM_i points to the meaning of the base word. The representation of word formation patterns by means of schemas makes it possible to express generalizations about subsets of the complex words involved, by means of subschemas, in between the most general schemas and the individual words. Therefore, the lexicon can be seen as a hierarchy in which morphological schemas, subschemas and concrete complex words are at different levels of schematicity (abstractness).
 
3. Methodology
This research uses a descriptive-analytical method. The data include 71 derivative words with the suffix ‘-in’ and 59 derivative words with the suffix ‘-ine’ which are adapted from author’s own morphological corpus (including more than 12000 Persian compound and affixed words) and Farhang-e Zānsoo (Reverse Dictionary, Keshani 1993).
 
4. Results & Discussion
The findings of the research show that both suffixes ‘-in’ and –ine’ have a remarkable semantic diversity and this polysemy is not explainable at the level of concrete words but at the level of abstract constructional schemas, and therefore is called “constructional polysemy”. The suffix ‘-in’ can appear in 7 constructional subschemas to form new adjectives, while the suffix ‘-ine’ can appear in 9 constructional subschemas to make new nouns or adjectives. The lowest-level subschemas for the suffix ‘-in’ are as follows:
1) [[a]_(N-thing)i –in]_Aj  ↔ [made from SEM_i]_j
2) [[a]_(N-thing)i –in]_Aj  ↔ [smeared with SEM_i]_j
3) [[a]_(N-thing)i –in]_Aj  ↔ [similar to SEMi]_j
4) [[a]_{(N-abstract)i} –in]_Aj  ↔ [accompanied by SEM_i]_j
5) [[a]_(N-loc)i –in]_Aj  ↔ [located at SEM_i]_j
6) [[a]_(N-time)i –in]_Aj  ↔ [relating to the time SEM_i]_j
7) [[a]_(Num)i –in]_Aj ↔ [located at the position SEM_i]_j
The lowest-level subschemas for the suffix ‘-ine’ are as follows:
1) [[a]_(N-thing)i -ine]_(A/N)j ↔ [made from SEM_i]_j
2) [[a]_(N-thing)i -ine]_(A/N)j ↔ [similar to SEMi]_j
3) [[a]_(N-color)i -ine]_A/Nj ↔ [of the color SEMi]_j
4) [[a]_(N-thing)i -ine]_Nj ↔ [something relating to SEM_i]_j
5) [[a]_(N-time)i –ine]_Aj ↔ [relating to the time SEM_i]_j
6) [[a]_{(N-abstract)i} –ine]_(A/N)j ↔ [of the nature SEM_i]_j
7) [[a]_(N-sex)i -ine]_Aj ↔ [of the sex SEM_i]_j
8) [[a]_Ai –ine]_Aj ↔ [having SEM_i-est extent/amount/rank]_j
9) [[a]_(Vpres)i -ine]_Nj ↔ [the instrument by which the action SEM_i is done]_j
In the above representations, the lexical category or subcategory of the variable ‘a’ (the base word) is indicated by such labels as N-thing (concrete noun), N-abstract (abstract noun), N-time (noun indicating time), N-color (noun indicating color), N-sex (noun indicating sex), N-loc (locative noun), Num (number), A (adjective) and Vpres (present stem of verb).
 
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
The results reveal that if we conceive of word-formation patterns as constructional schemas that express the common properties of sets of complex words, we can successfully explain the phenomenon of polysemy in morphological structures. In this respect, the idea of a hierarchical lexicon lets us to see distinct meanings as different subschemas that are at different levels of abstraction.