A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TABOOS AND EUPHEMISMS IN TURKISH AND IRANIAN-AZERI LANGUAGES

Year 2020, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 47 - 62, 30.09.2020

Ahmad Zirak Ghazani

Abstract

This study compares and contrasts the use of taboos terms and euphemisms such as the use of jargon terms, constructions, euphemisms, metaphoric expressions, circumlocution, and use of borrowed terms in two Turkic languages, i.e. Iranian-Azeri and Turkish. Having been born and bred in Tabriz, an Azeri city in Iran, I settled down in Istanbul, Turkey as a language instructor in 2015. The use of ethnographic observations of interactions between local people in Istanbul led me to infer the similarities and differences that exist in linguistic taboos and the use of euphemistic strategies. Moreover, the present analysis is based on the theoretical framework informed by Qanbar (2011) and the politeness approach proposed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). In this vein, this work sought to describe how different categories of euphemistic terms are created and explicated the underlying reasons to use them, such as for face-saving, expression of admiration, manipulation, marketing etc. The findings are also aimed to account for marked differences that would be present in the use of euphemisms in the Turkish language as a result of language change in the course of time. In the end, it is concluded that these processes are conditioned by the cultural and religious norms of the society.

Keywords

taboo, euphemism, Turkish, Azeri

References

• Aliakabri, M., & Raeesi, H. (2015). A Sociolinguistic Study of Linguistic Taboos in the Iranian Society. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 91-104.
• Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: the language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: taboo and censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E. Goody, Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 26-289). Cambridge: CUP.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP.
• Çelik, C. (2011). Euphemisms and taboos in Istanbul Turkish [Türkiye türkçesinde örtmece ve tabu kelimeler]. Gazimağusa: Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi.
• Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: an analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.
• Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff.
• Einhorn, A., Horton, L., Altieri, M., Ochsenschlager, D., & Klein, B. (1989). Serious respiratory consequences of detergent ingestions in children. Pediatrics, 472-474.
• Erol, H. (2002). The impact of taboo words on the field of comprehension [tabu ve kelimelerin anlam alanlarına etkisi]. TDAY-II Syf, 35-56.
• Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: step b step (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Guisen, T., & Hongxu, H. (1990). A sociolinguistic view of linguistic taboo in Chinese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 63-85.
• Hazır, A. (2015). Comparing Turkey and Iran in political science and historical. Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1-30.
• Heller, M. (2008). Doing Ethnography. In L. Wei, & M. G. Moyer, The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 249-262). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Johanson, L. (2011, 08, 18). Azerbaijan ix. Iranian elements in Azeri Turkish. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/azerbaijan-ix
• Keshavarz, M. (2008). Contrastive analysis and error analysis. Tehran: Rahnema Press.
• Leach, E. (1964). Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categories and verbal abuse. In E. H. Lenneberg, New directions in the study of Language (pp. 23-36). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
• Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden, & I. A. Richards, The meaning of meaning: a study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism (pp. 296-336). New York: Brace & World.
• Mead, M. (1934). Tabu. In E. R. Seligman, & A. Johnson, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (pp. 505-512). New York: The Macmillan company. Mirhosseini, S.-A., & Abazari, P. (2016). “My language is like my mother”: Aspects of language attitudes in a bilingual Farsi-Azerbaijani context in Iran. De Gruyter, 373-385. DOI:10.1515/opli-2016-0018
• Mollanazar, H. (2012). Principles and methodologies of translation. Tehran: SAMT.
• Özden, H. (2014). The place of taboos and euphemisms as synonoms in Istanbul Turkish [Türkiye Türkçesinde eş anlamlılık ve örtmece (tabu) kelimelerin es anlamlılık içindeki yeri]. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomı̇k Arastırmalar Dergı̇si, 160-165.
• Qanbar, N. (2011). A sociolinguistic study of the linguistic taboos in the Yemeni society. MJAL, 86-104.
• Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
• Steiner, D. F. (1967). Taboo. Harmondsworth: Penguin books.
• Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
• Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
• Wundt, W. (1927). Social Psychology [Völkerpsychologie]. Leipzig: Kröner.