1- introduction the literature review of persian suffixes show that “-i, -in, -ineh, -gan, -ganeh, -aneh, and -iyeh/yeh” are attributive suffixes. linguistic evidences show that once these suffixes are added to a word, in addition to the central senses of “related to” and “attributed to”, they add peripheral sense such as possession, similarity, possibility, obligation, origin, direction, goal, rank, manner, limit, quantity, intermediary, and so on to some words. such secondary senses are actually related to pragmatics. the way the main senses are related to the pragmatic ones is the subject of study of morphopragmatics which explains the pragmatic roles of words within morphological process and in relation with other words. the aim of the present research is the morphopragmatical study of attribution derivational suffixes in persian in terms of jurafsky radial model (1996). 2- theoretical framework lakoff (1987) argues in his idealized cognitive model (icm) that words show radial categories. following lakoff’s radial category model, jurafsky (1996) performed a typological study of “diminutive” in different languages in terms of morphopragmatics and proposed that semantic expansion and relation can be a reason for the plurality of pragmatic characteristics. he came to the conclusion that the numerous meanings of diminutive affixes are extensions of the central senses of child/small/female gender which are related to the main meanings of child/small/female gender through different semantic change mechanisms such as metaphor, inference, generalization, and lambda-abstraction. the radial category is a graphic representation of a polysemous category, composed of a central and main meaning of “prototype”, which is represented in a network of nodes and links through the expansion of its meaning. nodes show meanings, and links show metamorphic extensions, transfer in terms of mental overall plans, transfer to different domains, or inference. therefore, once interpreted as a synchronic phenomenon, the radial category describes active relations among the notions of a polysemous category, and once interpreted as a diachronic phenomenon, it reaches expansions on different mechanisms of semantic change. 3- methodology the methodology of the present research is descriptive-analytical, with both library and field data collection methods. the data for the present research are collected from the spoken (conversational) and written versions of the persian language in different ways. at the beginning, we used some persian dictionaries such as ravaghi dictionary of persian suffixes (2009), farshidvard dictionary of persian prefixes and suffixes (2007), the zansou kashani persian dictionary (1993), and suffix derivation in contemporary persian language (kashani, 1992). we used suffix derivative words (attributive suffixes) for note taking on cards. we also used the daily conversation of persons in different contexts and situations for finding out suffixes which are used in everyday conversational persian. we named different usages of suffixes based on syntax patterns in the persian language (sameei and tafsiri, 2004). we also made some innovations based on prior researches. 4- results & discussion the study of attributive affixes show that the main and central sense of these affixes has always been “attribution”, and that they are used in the meaning of “related to” or “attributed to”. however, in the contemporary persian language, in addition to this central sense, affixes have got other different pragmatic senses which have been derived from the main sense through different mechanisms in different eras based on different needs of speakers. furthermore, the analysis of data and drawing of the radial diagram of attributive suffixes showed that some of their pragmatic senses overlap with the semantic domains of other derivative suffixes such as diminutive, similarity, and place suffixes. 5- conclusions & suggestions the overlapping of the pragmatic senses of attributive suffixes with other derivative suffixes of the persian language shows network links between different linguistic senses which have always been in continuous interaction all through the history. the relation nodes among the semantic network of words are so interconnected that sometimes the prominence of one relation leads to the prominence of some other relational branches, in a way that different meanings are conveyed to mind. language works in terms of a network all through its history, a complicated and heavily interconnected network which leads to the creation of different meanings and applications in language. in some cases, the pragmatic meaning of an attributive suffix overlaps with the meaning and application of other attributive suffixes or even that of other suffixes of the persian language such as suffixes of similarity, description, possession, and diminutive. all suffixes subject to this study (“-i, -in, -ineh, -gan, -ganeh, -aneh, and -iyeh/yeh, či, eki, and ou) rotate around one network and are correlated in some way. another important point is that the process of semantic change in the attributive suffixes of the persian language conforms to the “unidirectionality of semantic change” claim of lak off (1987) and jurafsky (1996) radial model, i.e., diachronically speaking, the meanings of the attributive suffixes of the persian language are expanded from the central meanings to peripherial ones of the category. key words: morphopragmatics, attributive derivational suffix, cognitive approach, jurafsky radial model. references (in persian) ravaghi, a.(2009).dictionary of persian suffixes, tehran: academy persian language and literature. sameei,h. and m.tafsiri.(2004). syntax patterns in the persian language, tehran: academy persian language and literature. farshidvard,kh.(2007). dictionary of persian prefixes and suffixes, tehran. keshani,kh.(1993). the zansou persian dictionary, tehran: university publication centre., keshani,kh.(1992). suffix derivation in contemporary persian language, tehran:university publication centre. references (in english) dressler w. & merlini – barbaresi, l (1994). morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in italian, german, and other languages. in werner (ed), trends in linguistics: studies and monographs 76. new york: mouton de gruyter. heine, b. et al. (1991). grammaticalization: a conceptual frame work. chicago: university of chicago press. jurafsky, daniel. (1996). “universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive”. language, source: language, vol. 72 no. 3, pp. 533-578. kiefer, f. (1998). morphology and pragmatics. in a. spencer & s. zwicky, the handbook of morphology (pp. 272-279). massachusetts blackwell. klaus laalo(2001). diminutives in finnish child-diercted and child speech: morphophonemic and morphophonemic aspects, psychology of language and communication, vol. 5, no. 2. pp.71-80. körtvélyessy, lívia (2015).evaluative morphology from a cross-linguistic perspective. newcastle.cambridge scholars publishing. lakoff, g (1987). women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. chicago: university of chicago. meibauer, jorg (2014). word-formation and contextualism. international review of pragmatics ,vol. 6,pp. 103–126. prieto,moises,victor(2005).spanish evaluative morphology: pragmatic, socialinguistic, and semantic issue.phd dessertation, university of florida.