Abstract
AbstractThis study aimed to investigate the phenomenon of diminutive morphological function in terms of productivity, similarities, and differences in inflectional bound morphemes between English and Pashto, particularly in the categories of nouns and adjectives. The study also aims to examine the possible influence of ancient languages, such as Greek, on the diminutive morphological function and productivity of these two languages. It is generally assumed that languages descending from similar parental groups share the same diminutive function and productivity pattern in marking morphological mechanisms such as number, gender, and case. Different online sources, libraries, and publication papers were consulted to make a comparison between these two varieties. The findings revealed that both English and Pashto retain a morphological function, but English uses limited inflectional morphemes. Pashto, on the other hand, employs a wide range of suffixations, particularly in marking the diminutive aspect, and that differentiates it from English in semantic and pragmatic expressions. The findings aligned with the initial hypothesis developed that languages descending from similar parental groups use a similar pattern of morphological mechanisms. The only difference is that English drops the inflections to a greater extent because it underwent different phases of modifications, while Pashto still retains the inflections and, in turn, reveals greater productivity. Moreover, the findings disclosed that Pashto is closer to Greek in its inflectional nature and functioning of diminutives than English.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Psychology,General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference55 articles.
1. Ali A, Khan B, Awan N (2016) Contrastive analysis of the English and Pashto adjectives. Glob Lang Rev 1(1):74–84
2. Arabiat RM, Al-Momani IM (2021) Diminution in Arabic: a suggested strategy to Mona Baker’s non-equivalence problem “differences in form”. J Lang Linguist Stud 18:1
3. Aronoff M (1976) Word formation in generative grammar. Linguist Inq Monogr 1:1–134
4. Baker M (1992) A coursebook on translation. Routledge, London
5. Baugh AC, Cable T (1993) A history of the English language. Routledge, London, England