Cultural-Geographical Lexicon: Linguistic Relativity or Word Discourse?

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Master. Department of Linguistics , Faculty of perisan literature and foreign languages . Allameh Tabataba'i University.

2 Associate Professor . Department of Linguistics , Faculty of Persian literature and foreign languages Allameh Tabatabaei University

3 Assistant Professor . Department of Linguistics , Faculty of Persian literature and foreign languages Allameh Tabatabaei University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference between cultural-geographical words in the dialects of different regions of Iran. The question is whether the Whorfian theory of linguistic relativity is confirmed by what exists in the scope of these terms and consequently, the relationship between language and thinking process in these dialects must be considered from a cognitive perspective or this difference and the subject of "cultural-geographical vocabulary" in general should be analyzed from the opposite side, i.e. the influence of culture and society on language. This research was conducted by the descriptive-analytical method in several stages and through two questionnaires (with 110 and 148 participants, respectively). Considering all the components involved, the data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The results show that geographical-cultural words are related to the socio-economic conditions of cultures rather than to the cognition and way of thinking of people of different regions. These words do not reflect cognitive distinctions rather, they are a mirror of the geography, climate, ecosystem, occupations geographical-cultural customs of their speakers and as part of a larger discourse, they carry and reflect many details and unspoken words from the geography and climate of the place of production. Thus, these lexical differences go back to the differences in the culture and ecology of the speakers and it is not in the realm of linguistic relativity and cognition. The findings emphasize the narrow border between these two types of lexical differences, which is usually ignored in cognitive-discourse research.

Keywords

References

Bernabeu, P. & R. Tillman. (2019). More refined typology and design in linguistic relativity: The case of motion event encoding. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), pp. 163 – 171.
Blomberg , J & J. Zlatev. (2021). Metalinguistic relativity: Does one's ontology determine one's view on linguistic relativity?. Language and Communication, 76. pp. 35-46.
Boas, F. (1995). Introduction to the handbook of American Indian languages. In language, culture, and society: A book of readings,  edited by. B. G. Blount, (pp.9-28). Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland Press.
 Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought: the languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. ScientificAmerican. pp.63-65.
Chrisomalis, S. (2021). The scope of linguistic relativity in graphic and lexical numeration. Language and Communication,.76, pp. 1-12.
González, S. H. (2020). Linguistic relativism in science fiction [El relativismo lingüístico en la ciencia ficción]. Tonos Digital. 38, pp:1-18.
Henle, P. (ed). (1958). Language, thought and culture. pp.1-24, University of Michighan Press.
Hoijer, H. (1951). Cultural implications of some navaho linguistic categories. Language, 27 (2), pp.111-120.  
Jonauskaite, D., N. Dael & D. Oberfeld. (2020). Universal patterns in color-emotion associations are further shaped by linguistic and geographic proximity. Psychological Science, 31 (10), pp. 1245-1260.
Kluckhohnand , C & D. Leighton. (1948). The Navaho. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kukkonen, K. (2020). Does cognition translate? predictions, plot, and world literature. Poetics Today, 41 (2), pp. 243-259.
Lee , D. (1938) . Conceptual implication of an Indian language. Philosophy of science, 5, pp . 89-102.
Pablé, A. (2020). Integrating linguistic relativity. Language and Communication, 75, pp. 94-102.
Sapir, E. [1949] (1985). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. ed by D. G. Mandelbaum .Berkeley: University of California Press.
Taylor, K. A. (2011) . Conceptual relativism. in  A Companion to Relativism, ed by Steven D. Hales. (pp.159-178). Singapore: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Vereshagin, Е. М.&  V. G. Кastamarov. (1990). Yazik i kultura (Язык и культура), Мoscow: Russki Yazik.
Whorf, B.  L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Edited by J. B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zeisler, B. (2016). Evidentially, inferentiality, and speaker’s attitude questionnaire orexemplary set. In: https://uni-tuebingen. academia. edu/BettinaZeisler.
Zeisler, B. (2018a). Don’t believe in a paradigm that you haven’t manipulated yourself! Evidentiality, speaker attitude, and admirativity in Ladakhi. Himalayan Linguistics. 17 (1), pp. 67-130.
Zeisler, B. (2018b .(Contrast instead of comparison: evidence from West Tibetan differentiating property ascriptions. In: Linguistic discovery. https://uni-tuebingen. academia. edu/BettinaZeisler.
Zeisler, B. (2018c). Evidence for the development of ‘evidentiality’ as a grammatical category in Tibetan. in: https://uni-tuebingen. academia. edu/BettinaZeisler.
Zhou, S. (2020). A cognitive analysis of conceptual metaphors of color idioms in English and Chinese based on data mining. In Application of Intelligent Systems in Multi-modal Information Analytics, edited by Sugumaran V., Z. Xu, & H. Zhou. MMIA 2020. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol. 1234. Cham: Springer.
Journal of Iranian Dialects & Linguistics
Volume 5, Issue 2
April 2021
Pages 57-88

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 April 2021
  • Revise Date: 14 May 2021
  • Accept Date: 15 May 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics