Medio-passive in Moroccan Arabic

This research aims to describe the form and meaning of verb reduplication in Devayan language of Simeulue Aceh. One of the regional languages in Aceh Indonesia. The research uses descriptive qualitative research method. The data source is done by written and oral data. The data is written from the folklore (Nafi-Nafi), the words of advice in Nandong, and devayan dictionary. While the oral data source from the original speaker with the collection technique Data used listen and talk method and then analyze the data with the method of Padan(distributional method) and Agih(Identity method) continued with the technique of reading the script. The result of the research finds that the form of the verb reduplication in devayan language of Simeulue Aceh are : 1)Basic verb reduplication (2). Affixed verb reduplication. The affixed verb reduplication consist of: (1) Verb reduplication prefixed (Ma-, Mampa-, Mansi,and ni-) and (2) Infixed Reduplication(-um). The meaning of contained in verb reduplication Devayan language of Simeulue aceh are: (1) Repetition meaning 2) Mutual or reciprocal meaning (3). Meaning of done without purpose. 4). meaning about thing (5) Meaning of similarity in time (6) Meaning of done carelessly 7) Meaning of intensity, (8) Meaning of issuing and producing and (9) meaning of doing and giving.

In many languages, reciprocal meanings are expressed either by grammatical means or by using lexical predicates. The grammatical strategy is productive and may involve derivational affixes (Swahili -an) or pronouns (English each other) with transitive forms, whereas lexical reciprocity is expressed by a restricted class of intransitive predicates like English kiss or meet. The situation is more complex in Romance languages, where reciprocal verbal constructions often require a se clitic without a clear separation between transitive and intransitive forms. Addressing this puzzle, we propose that Romance languages involve a grammatical/lexical distinction as in other languages. We show that numerous Romance constructions systematically allow se omission with certain reciprocals, exhibiting parallel properties to those of lexical intransitives in other languages. A similar observation is made in relation to the distinction between grammatical reflexivity (e.g., English oneself) and lexical reflexives (wash, shave). Furthermore, we show that the se requirement may also be relaxed with transitive verbs, when reciprocity or reflexivity is conveyed by an overt reciprocal/reflexive item (e.g., Spanish mutuamente ‘mutually’). The emerging theoretical picture supports an analysis of se as a head projection that licenses arity-reduction, though language-specific conditions allow se omission when arity reduction is achieved by a lexical reciprocal item or by another overt reciprocal element.

The article focuses on the choice of verbal stem (perfective vs. imperfective) for prefixation. Although some tendencies have been described in existing work (for instance, the fact that lexical prefixes very often choose the perfective stem, while this is not true for supralexical prefixes), I show that many cases of stem choice cannot be explained by the opposition of lexical vs. supralexical prefixes. For instance, the verb prygat’ / prygnut’ ‘jump’ behaves differently with different lexical prefixes: with s-, only the perfective stem is possible (sprygat’ / *sprygnut’ ‘jump down from’), while with do-, either stem can be chosen (doprygat’ / doprygnut’ ‘reach something jumping’). In some pairs of verbs with similar meaning and similar stem relation, two lexemes behave not identically (cf. rastolkát’ ‘push to different directions’ vs. *razdvígat’ ‘move in different directions’). Many lexical prohibitions on one or another stem do not have an obvious explanation (here belongs the verb brosit’ / brosat’ ‘throw’, which can combine with the prefix vy- only in the perfective form, cf. výbrosit’ ‘throw out’ vs. *výbrosat’ ‘throw out’). I conclude that several parameters are responsible for the choice of the stem, such as 1) formal correlation of the basic verb stems; 2) meaning of the prefix; 3) meaning of the base and derived verbs.

Languages come in different forms but have shared meanings to convey. Some meanings are expressed by sentence structure and morphologic inflections rather than content words, such as indicating time frame using tense. This fMRI study investigates whether there is cross-language common representation of grammatical meanings that can be identified from neural signatures in the bilingual human brain. Based on the representations in intersentence neural similarity space, identifying grammatical construction of a sentence in one language by models trained on the other language resulted in reliable accuracy. By contrast, cross-language identification of grammatical construction by spatially matched activation patterns was only marginally accurate. Brain locations representing grammatical meaning in the two languages were interleaved in common regions bilaterally. The locations of voxels representing grammatical features in the second language were more varied across individuals than voxels representing the first language. These findings suggest grammatical meaning is represented by language-specific activation patterns, which is different from lexical semantics. Commonality of grammatical meaning is neurally reflected only in the interstimulus similarity space.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Whether human brain encodes sentence-level meanings beyond content words in different languages similarly has been a long-standing question. We characterize the neural representations of similar grammatical meanings in different languages. Using complementary analytic approaches on fMRI data, we show that the same grammatical meaning is neurally represented as the common pattern of neural distances between sentences. The results suggest the possibility of identifying specific grammatical meaning expressed by different morphologic and syntactic implementations of different languages. The neural realization of grammatical meanings is constrained by the specific language being used, but the relationships between the neural representations of sentences are preserved across languages. These findings have some theoretical implications on a distinction between grammar and lexical meanings.

The comprehension of admirativeness as an independent category took place relatively recently – at the end of the 20th century. Until now, some scholars have not recognized an independent character of admirative. However, in recent years there has been an increasingly noticeable tendency to recognize the separate role of admirativeness and to indicate that the expression of surprise evoked by unexpected information cannot be combined with similar meanings. At the same time, the ways and degree of expression of admirativeness in different language systems vary significantly. The introduction of such grammatical category as admirativeness and the term “admirative” refers to the second half of the 19th century. In 1879, O. Dozon coined the term in his works on the Albanian language. The choice of this name (Fr. admiratif comes from the verb “to admire”) is determined by the fact that the linguist interpreted the concept as a certain sense of admiration or surprise, often having an ironic character. Further the development of this direction showed that admirative had the meaning of surprise rather than admiration. In this connection, in 1997, S. de Lancey first singled out this concept into a separate grammatical category. The scholar substantiates it by the fact that in a number of languages, such as Korean, Turkish, Tibetan, Dardic, Sanvar, etc., admirative has a separate grammatical expression. The identification of admirativeness as a separate linguistic phenomenon with a number of specific features has been still the subject of controversy among the researchers. Characteristics and distinctive features of admirativeness, allowing for the separation it from other similar categories will be considered later in the paper (Davletbaeva et al., 2013). In his writings, S. de Lancey uses the term “mirative”, thereby excluding its correlation with admiration introduced by O. Dozon from the meaning of the concept, and indicating that its primary function is to convey the subject’s astonishment. To date, the term “mirative” is widely used in English-language grammar. V.A. Plugnyan notes that the use of this term is more grounded from a typological point of view, however, the use of the concept “admirative” is often retained in domestic works (Smagina, 1996).

Reviewed by: The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language useby Holger Diessel Natalia Levshina The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. By H olgerD iessel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Pp. xviii, 290. ISBN 9781108671040. $110 (Hb). The network is one of the key concepts that describe our life experience. We communicate via social networks and use the World Wide Web. The masses of big data we produce, consciously or not, are analyzed by neural network algorithms. It is not surprising that networks are a popular concept in linguistics as well. Well-known examples are the construction in construction grammar, radial polysemy networks in cognitive semantics, and semantic maps in typology. The grammar networkby Holger Diessel takes the network approach to a new level, integrating different strands of usage-based linguistics and discussing a multitude of different phenomena of grammar and lexicon, from lexical polysemy to word order, and from parts of speech to morphological productivity. The aim of his book is to elaborate on and integrate two main ideas of usage-based linguistics: first, all aspects of linguistic structure are emergent and fluid, being shaped by domain-general processes in language use; second, the grammatical system is organized as a network. The book consists of eleven chapters. The introductory chapter describes the aims of the book and summarizes the general principles of usage-based linguistics. It questions the usefulness of such distinctions as competence vs. performance, synchrony vs. diachrony, and words vs. rules. Usage-based linguistics sees grammar as an emergent system, which has evolved for the purposes of communication and processing on the basis of general cognitive principles. From this follows an important methodological conclusion: 'we cannot approach the study of grammar with a predefined set of primitive categories. On the contrary, what we need to explain is how linguistic categories evolve, stabilize and change' (6). In the first part of the book D introduces the basic assumptions and concepts, describing the architecture of the grammar network (Ch. 2) and the domain-general principles of language use (Ch. 3). The most important elements of a grammar network are signs (constructions and lexemes). The links (edges) in a network can be symbolic (connecting form and meaning), sequential (connecting elements in sequences, similar to syntagmatic relationships), and taxonomic (connecting patterns at different levels of abstraction). Analogous to activation strength in neural networks, the links have different weights, which depend on different factors, such as frequency of occurrence in linguistic input and output, conceptualization, and pragmatic inference. A grammar network is nested, which means that nodes of a network can themselves be analyzed as networks. Different from Goldberg's (1995) construction grammar, D makes a distinction between constructions and lexemes. Lexemes are monomorphemic words and other morphemes, which tap directly into world knowledge. In contrast, constructions are meaningful templates with slots for other linguistic expressions, which provide instructions for integration of lexical expressions into a coherent semantic representation. Based on this distinction, three further types of links are proposed: lexical (connecting lexemes with similar or contrastive forms and meanings), constructional (connecting constructions at the same level of abstraction), and filler-slot relationships (connecting particular lexemes or phrases with particular slots of constructional schemas). The grammar network is shaped by domain-general cognitive processes (Ch. 3). The most important ones are social cognition, conceptualization, and memory, which compete in determining linguistic decisions—that is, the choice between different ways of conveying one's communicative intention for the speaker and between different interpretations for the hearer. There is evidence, for instance, that 'speaker-oriented processes', such as memory retrieval, priming, and automatization, can dominate 'hearer-oriented processes' of common ground and audience design. The domain-general processes leave long-term effects on language structure in diachronic change, and on individual language development in ontogeny. At the same time, D emphasizes that L1 acquisition [End Page 825]and diachronic change differ substantially. In particular, children extract novel schemas from the input, while diachronic change involves the modification of already existing ones. In the second part of the book, D focuses on the interpretation of signs as networks, beginning with taxonomic links between representations at...

Picture an overzealous gardener who broadcasts onion seed at the rate of a dozen per square inch, lets the plants grow to a tangled mass, and extracts one to describe. Its central stalk is more or less intact but its roots are torn and the resulting description, while grossly true, will forever stand in need of repair because of those missing tendrils. Lexicography is an unnatural occupation. It consists in tearing words from their mother context and setting them in rows – carrots and onions and beetroot and salsify next to one another – with roots shorn like those of celery to make them fit side by side, in an order determined not by nature but by some obscure Phoenician sailors who traded with Greeks in the long ago.1 Half of the lexicographer’s labor is spent repairing this damage to an infinitude of natural connections that every word in any language contracts with every other word, in a complex neural web knit densely at the center but ever more diffusely as it spreads outward. A bit of context, a synonym, a grammatical category, an etymology for remembrance’s sake, and a cross-reference or two – these are the additives that accomplish the repair. But the fact that it is a repair always shows, and explains why no two dictionaries agree in their patchwork, unless they copy each other. Undamaged definition is impossible because we know our words not as individual bits but as parts of what Pawley and Syder (1983) call lexicalized sentence stems, hundreds of thousands of them, conveniently memorized to repeat – and adapt – as the occasion arises. And also as part of an associative network involving words of similar and opposite meaning, words of similar sound, similar spelling, similar register, and similar affect. A speaker who does not command this array, as Pawley and Syder point out, does not know the language, and there is little that a dictionary can do to promote fluency beyond offering a few hints.

Aspect is one of the important concepts of grammatical category, and it is the way of observing the events in the course of time. The expression of aspect category may vary greatly in different languages or dialects. Common forms of expression are affix, clitic, aspect auxiliaries, and aspectual marks. Yue dialect is one of the important types of Chinese dialects, and Shunde dialect is an important branch of Yue dialect. From the perspective of comparison with Putonghua and Yue dialects, this article explores the aspectual meaning of the aspect auxiliary EI in Shunde dialect. The six kinds of aspect are summarized: Perfect aspect; Perfective aspect; Realization aspect; Completive aspect; Partial Performance aspect; Continuous aspect. Then, this paper analyzes its aspectual usage according to its syntactic environment, pragmatic function, and level of grammaticalization. On the one hand, the obvious commonality is that with regard to the usage and meaning of the first six aspectual categories, the aspect auxiliary EI in Shunde dialect can roughly correspond to ZUO in Guangzhou dialect. Moreover, the two dialects can roughly correspond to the aspect auxiliary LE in Mandarin in terms of usage and meaning of the first six aspectual categories. On the other hand, the significant difference is that the expression of continuous aspect in Shunde dialect is much more complicated than Guangzhou dialect and Mandarin. Specifically, in the Shunde dialect, the continuous aspect auxiliary EI must appear when expressing static continuance, but the continuous aspect auxiliary ZHU does not necessarily appear; in Guangzhou dialect, ZHU can only be used; in Mandarin, the continuous aspect auxiliary ZHE must be used. The complexity of the dialects and Mandarin in term of aspectual system illustrates the complex relationship between grammatical categories, grammatical means, and forms of expression: these three are not simple one-to-one relationships. That is, that a grammatical category uses a grammatical means and form to express is almost non-existent. Since there is no morphological change in Chinese in the strict sense, Chinese tends to express a grammatical category with more than one lexical item or construction, or a lexical item or construction expresses more than one grammatical category. The similarities and differences between aspect auxiliary EI in Shunde dialect, ZUO in Mandarin and Le in Mandarin represent the diversity of means and ways of expressing aspect in Chinese. This study demonstrates the identity between the difference and commonality of the grammatical system of Chinese dialects.

In the history of linguistics, the problem of word change and word formation is always closely intertwined. Vocabulary in Kazakh linguistics began in the 1990s. In general, the problem of vocabulary is directly related to the function of language. The issue here is grammatical regularities. On the basis of verbal facts related to morphology, the concepts of linguistics "word-change", "word-formation", "personality" were born. Word formation, like other language systems, is a set of linguistic approaches, which are mainly used to create a new phoneme, to create a new meaning from an existing meaning in a lexical unit. Vocabulary is used not as a word-former, but as a set of language techniques to create new words. Auxiliaries are persons and words whose lexical meaning is weakened or lost, who do not have independence, but are pronounced only with the main words and serve as auxiliary. In the system of word change and word formation in new word formation or word change, there must be structural units that are compatible with their lexical or grammatical meanings. Such units are grammatical entities and categories. Scientific abstractions in the language system, such as "word-formation category", "word-formation" person, "grammatical category", "grammatical person" corre-spond.It is known that there are two main methods of expression, one is a synthetic approach, the other is an analytical approach. The synthetic approach includes simple vocabularies created with the help of various lexical applications. The analytical approach includes auxiliary words formed by various auxiliary mor- phemes. And the problem of vocabulary is considered mainly from the morphological point of view, that is, from the point of view of the peculiarities of vocabulary. The article considers word change and word formation as a set of morphemes of the language mechanism, as a system of grammatical indicators, i.e at the level of units that enrich the vocabulary, not at the structural level of morphology, vocabulary as a set of language techniques is used to create new words

Aspect is one of the important concepts of grammatical category, and it is the way of observing the events in the course of time. The expression of aspect category may vary greatly in different languages or dialects. Common forms of expression are affix, clitic, aspect auxiliaries, and aspectual marks. Yue dialect is one of the important types of Chinese dialects, and Shunde dialect is an important branch of Yue dialect. From the perspective of comparison with Putonghua and Yue dialects, this article explores the aspectual meaning of the aspect auxiliary EI in Shunde dialect. The six kinds of aspect are summarized: Perfect aspect; Perfective aspect; Realization aspect; Completive aspect; Partial Performance aspect; Continuous aspect. Then, this paper analyzes its aspectual usage according to its syntactic environment, pragmatic function, and level of grammaticalization. On the one hand, the obvious commonality is that with regard to the usage and meaning of the first six aspectual categories, the aspect auxiliary EI in Shunde dialect can roughly correspond to ZUO in Guangzhou dialect. Moreover, the two dialects can roughly correspond to the aspect auxiliary LE in Mandarin in terms of usage and meaning of the first six aspectual categories. On the other hand, the significant difference is that the expression of continuous aspect in Shunde dialect is much more complicated than Guangzhou dialect and Mandarin. Specifically, in the Shunde dialect, the continuous aspect auxiliary EI must appear when expressing static continuance, but the continuous aspect auxiliary ZHU does not necessarily appear; in Guangzhou dialect, ZHU can only be used; in Mandarin, the continuous aspect auxiliary ZHE must be used. The complexity of the dialects and Mandarin in term of aspectual system illustrates the complex relationship between grammatical categories, grammatical means, and forms of expression: these three are not simple one-to-one relationships. That is, that a grammatical category uses a grammatical means and form to express is almost non-existent. Since there is no morphological change in Chinese in the strict sense, Chinese tends to express a grammatical category with more than one lexical item or construction, or a lexical item or construction expresses more than one grammatical category. The similarities and differences between aspect auxiliary EI in Shunde dialect, ZUO in Mandarin and Le in Mandarin represent the diversity of means and ways of expressing aspect in Chinese. This study demonstrates the identity between the difference and commonality of the grammatical system of Chinese dialects.

Language Processing: The Neural Basis of Nouns and Verbs

In recent years, linguistics has become increasingly more willing to allow some type of representation of 'meaning' in the study of language. However, most approaches deal with sentence or utterance meaning and thereby ignore the meaning of linguistic form. Yet no description of linguistic semantics can be complete without a comprehensive account between meaning and form. This study returns to the problem of form and meaning by presenting a detailed account of certain forms in Spanish which have traditionally been called grammatical forms, or grammatical categories, and associated with grammatical meaning. It is suggested that not all linguistic forms represent the same kind of 'meaning', and that a subset of grammatical forms constitute a highly organized system that parallels phonology and syntax in its capacity to explain variation at the level of discourse. The book opens with an introductory chapter, which is followed by five chapters on the analysis of the Spanish verbal system. In Chapter 7 problems of the noun phrase (the meaning of determiners and grammatical number) are discussed. Chapter 8 offers an explanation of the meaning of the direct object a, and in Chapter 9 a crosslinguistic study of the semantics of Spanish and English is presented. A summary of findings is given in Chapter 10, along with a further consideration of the goals and procedures of semantic analysis.

In recent years, linguistics has become increasingly more willing to allow some type of representation of 'meaning' in the study of language. However, most approaches deal with sentence or utterance meaning and thereby ignore the meaning of linguistic form. Yet no description of linguistic semantics can be complete without a comprehensive account between meaning and form. This study returns to the problem of form and meaning by presenting a detailed account of certain forms in Spanish which have traditionally been called grammatical forms, or grammatical categories, and associated with grammatical meaning. It is suggested that not all linguistic forms represent the same kind of 'meaning', and that a subset of grammatical forms constitute a highly organized system that parallels phonology and syntax in its capacity to explain variation at the level of discourse. The book opens with an introductory chapter, which is followed by five chapters on the analysis of the Spanish verbal system. In Chapter 7 problems of the noun phrase (the meaning of determiners and grammatical number) are discussed. Chapter 8 offers an explanation of the meaning of the direct object a, and in Chapter 9 a crosslinguistic study of the semantics of Spanish and English is presented. A summary of findings is given in Chapter 10, along with a further consideration of the goals and procedures of semantic analysis.

The article examines the problems of creating a typology of grammatical categories of the Ukrainian Language based on the nature of their components (grammatical forms, grammatical meanings) and the relationship between them. The author draws attention to the need to determine the grammatical meaning as the initial structure in the definition of a grammatical category, which enables a clearer clarification of the relationship between the concepts "grammatical category" and "morphological paradigm", creating their classification as bilateral structures. The proposed typology is built on the basis of the principles of functional cross-analysis "from forms to meanings and from meanings to forms", based on the semiotic nature of language, taking into account various disproportions between the systems of forms and meanings of grammatical categories, realized in different lexical-grammatical categories and paradigmatic types of grammatical categories, relationship and interaction of different levels of language structure (primarily morphological, syntactic, word-forming, lexical-semantic). The latter, as well as the consistent consideration of the relationship of grammatical categories with parts of speech, lexical-grammatical categories, and inflectional classes, allows a clearer view of the field structure of grammatical categories. The principles of the classification of grammatical categories were the degree of coverage of different parts of speech, the compatibility or incompatibility of their expression in one-word form and within the limits of one formant, the semantic and functional loading of the category, the nature of the information conveyed by the grammatical category, the degree of correspondence of grammatical categories to conceptual ones, the type of grammatical forms of morphological paradigms grammatical categories, the number of grammemes in grammatical category. Emphasis is placed on some contradictions regarding the assignment of grammatical categories to one or another type. For example, the semantic type of grammatical category has a significant dependence not only on the part of speech, but also on the lexical-grammatical classification, and the classification of categories according to the nature of grammatical forms depends primarily on the paradigmatic varieties of the morphological class where it is implemented.

INTRODUCTION In this research, we have had an exact categorization for different kinds of derivational and derivational-compound past participles in the frame of typological prototypes which is a universal approach towards the parts of speech. In this theory, prototypical adjectives with no morphemes belong to the semantic class of ‘property’ and to ‘modification’ in terms of propositional act constructions. These prototypical adjectives should be simple and without any morphemes on the basis of structural coding of typological prototypes theory. Furthermore, the adjectives which are not simple and have morphemes, are considered as marked and non- prototypical adjectives. Indeed, the structural coding criterion specifies only that the marked member is encoded by at least as many morphemes as the unmarked member (croft, 1999:73). This generalization is an implicational universal. If a language codes a typologically unmarked member of a grammatical category by n morphemes (n > 0), then it codes a typologically marked member of that category by at least n morphemes. Past participles which are studied in this research, are marked and are not simple structurally. They are divided to derivational and derivational- compound ones which have all morphemes. Derivational past participles are made by the past stem of verb + a suffix (-h) and the derivational-compound past participles are made by a noun, adjective, adverb, pronoun + derivational past participle (stem of a verb+ suffix(h)). Therefore, they are not prototypical in terms of their structure and their different semantic class. Typological markedness also constrains the distribution of constructions exhibiting the behavioral potential of the categories; if a construction encoding the behavioral potential of members of a grammatical category is found in that category, it is found with at least the unmarked member of that category for that construction.MATERIALS AND METHODSIn this research, examples of derivational and derivational-compound past participles are collected from the definitions and classifications of Persian grammarians and linguists. Then the examples of past participles are verified based on the typological criteria; structural coding and behavioral potential. All the examples are studied through the consideration of their adjectival and nominal behavioral potentials. Finally, their status and positions are specified in the Croft’s parts of speech semantic map. Then the new classification of past participles regarding their nominal and adjectival behaviors are placed in the behavioral diagrams.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONPast participles do not act similarly and are not uniform on the basis of behavioral potential. Therefore, they are not in the same level. Some derivational past participles are used both with adjectival and nominal behavioral potentials. Some of them are used only in modification and propositional constructions and with nominal behavioral criteria. Some are used only in modification and propositional constructions. Some of derivational-compound past participles are used as both adjectives and nouns. Some of them are used only in modification and propositional constructions and with nominal behavioral criteria. Moreover, some are used only in propositional constructions with all of nominal behavioral potentials which are considered as marked nouns. In this research, past participles behavioral potential is verified and at last it is shown that they follow the behavioral potential of typological prototype theory. Totally, their behavioral potential is not more than the behavioral potentials of unmarked nouns. Hence, they are marked category in terms of both structural coding and behavioral potential. Finally, their position is specified on the semantic map and their behavioral potentials are shown through diagrams. The position of derivational and derivational-compound past participles on the semantic map are considered as ‘action’ in terms of semantic class and ‘modification’ in terms of propositional act. Because in all derivational and derivational-compound past participles, we have used an action for the propositional act of modification. In other words, by marking and adding morphemes to an action as a semantic class, we have used it for acting as modification. Therefore, the position of past participles is shown in the semantic map as figure 1 below. CONCLUSIONDerivational and derivational-compound past participles’ new classifications on the basis of their adjectival, nominal or both are placed on the behavioral diagrams. behavioral potentials are shown by ovals and the positions of past participles are shown by (*) in the ovals. One oval is dedicated to adjectival criteria. One oval is dedicated to nominal criteria. These ovals have some common spaces which are considered for past participles which have both the adjectival and nominal behavioral potential."Reference to PDF article"Figure 1. semantic map of Persian parts of speech constructionsAnother classification is considered for a class of derivational- compound past participles which are made by a noun and the past participle of verbs ‘zadeh’: giving birth and ‘xandeh’: to call someone’. This class of derivational-compound past participles have only nominal usage. They are used with all of the nominal behavioral criteria and are not used with specific behavioral potentials of adjectives. In other words, they cannot be gradable, they are not used with intensifiers and are not used in the modification constructions. These are the most specific properties of prototypical adjectives. They only are used in the propositional constructions. It should be mentioned that nouns also could be used in the propositional constructions. So, this class of derivational-compound past participles are considered as marked nouns and not adjectives. Therefore, their position in the semantic map is considered as ‘action’ in terms of semantic class and ‘reference’ in terms of propositional act. If their propositional act was modification, they could be used as adjectives. It means they could be used with the most specific adjectival properties (able to be gradable, used with intensifiers and used in modification constructions). However, Persian speakers have used this construction to refer and name some specific persons. Accordingly, their propositional act would be reference and not modification. Therefore, they are called persons’ name.