Semantic codability in folk taxonomy: A cultural-linguistic perspective

Yıl 2023, Sayı: 37, 1224 - 1238, 21.12.2023

Bakıl Alı Alwalss

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1405997

Öz

A language definition is presented in the introduction without further detailed explanation, but it is given to show how language is viewed from a general perspective that encompasses most of its domains. Every word or phrase in this definition may rightly correspond to an independent branch in language studies. The aim of this study is to investigate the codability of meaning through examples taken from the dialect of a countryside in Marib, Yemen, specifically words related to animals and plants. The assumption in this study is that if the connotational features of meaning components are coded within the meaning of words, then these words are coined according to the need of the speaking community. As languages differ in selecting criterial features, they also differ in forming designata that pertain to the same extra-linguistic world. The main question in this study is: What is the nature of folk semantic codability? Is it a taxonomy or a partonomy? This ‘semantic codability’ of a word is the cause for non-equivalence in translation across languages. The emic perspective—description without analysis—was implemented in this study. Vocabulary related to domestic animals and wild plants were analysed by looking into their hierarchal relations. The relationship between words and concepts are also reviewed to exemplify their existence and frequencies in a language community due to interests, needs, concerns of that community. It is found that the purpose of semantic codability is to create specific labels (subordinates) for a general concept (superordinate), where this purpose plays a part as an economic communicative technique. There is a lack of richness among words related to animals’ taxonomies, which we rationalize to lack of interest in the language community. The conclusion is that semantic codability is driven by need and frequency of use, whether for taxonomy or partonomy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

cultural linguistics, codability, vocabulary, taxonomy, partonomy

Kaynakça

• Albuquerque, U. P., Ramos, M. A., de Lucena, R. F. P., & Alencar, N. L. (2014). Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. In U. P. Albuquerque, L. V. F. C da Cunha, R. F. P de Lucena, & R. R. N. Alves, (Eds.), Methods and techniques in ethnobiology and ethnoecology (pp. 15-37). Humana Press.
• Berlin B. (1992). Ethnobiological classifications: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press.
• Berlin, B, Breedlove, D. E & Raven, P. H. (1973) General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75, pp. 214-242. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1973.75.1.02a00140
• Braisby, N. (2005). Concepts. In N. Braisby, & A. Gellatly (Eds.), Cognitive psychology (pp. 163-195). Oxford University Press.
• Brown, C. H. (1976). General principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth of partonomic nomenclature 1. American Ethnologist, 3(3), 400-424. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1976.3.3.02a00020
• Brown, C. H., Kolar, J., Torrey, B. J., Trúóng‐Quang, T., & Volkman, P. (1976). Some general principles of biological and non‐biological folk classification 1. American ethnologist, 3(1), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1976.3.1.02a00050
• Bussmann, H., Trauth, G., & Kazzazi, K. (1998). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. Routledge.
• Danesi, M. (2004). A basic course in anthropological linguistics (Vol. 2). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
• Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
• Glanville, P. J. (2018). The lexical semantics of the Arabic verb. Oxford University Press.
• Hampton, J. A. (1999). Concepts. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 176-179). MIT Press.
• Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5(1), 329-350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.05.100176.001553
• Haviland, W. A. (1999). Cultural anthropology (9th ed.). Harcourt Brace & Company.
• Hunn, E. S. & Brown, C. H. (2011). Linguistic Ethnobiology. In E. N. Anderson, D. Pearsall, E. Hunn, & N. Turner (Eds.), Ethnobiology. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Kephart, R. (2006). Ethnosemantics. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (Vol. 2, pp. 865-866). Sage Publications.
• Kess, J. F. (1992). Psycholinguistics: psychology, linguistics, and the study of natural language. John Benjamin's Publishing Company.
• Langacker, R. W. (1994). Culture, cognition and grammar. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Language contact and language conflict (pp. 25-53). John Benjamins Publishing.
• Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge University Press.
• Mišić, S. (2004). Language and culture studies–wonderland through the linguistic looking glass. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, 3(11), 1-15.
• Murphy, G. L. and Lassaline, M. E. (1997). Hierarchical structure in concepts and the basic level of categorization. In K. Lamberts & D. Shanks (Eds.). Knowledge, concepts, and categories. (pp 93-131). MIT Press. Ogden, C.K., & Richards, I.A. (1927). Meaning of meaning. Harcourt, Brace & Company.
• Palmer G. B. and Sharifian, F. (2007). Applied cultural linguistics: An emerging paradigm. In F. Sharifian & G. B. Palmer (Eds.) Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication (pp. 1-14). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Palmer, G. B. (1996) Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. University of Texas Press.
• Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structures of human behavior (2nd ed.). Mouton.
• Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R, (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Pearson Education.
• Rosch, E. (2002). Principles of categorization. In D. J. Levitin, Foundations of cognitive psychology: core readings (pp. 251-270). MIT Press.
• Rumelhart, D. E. (1980) Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology linguistics, artificial intelligence and education (pp. 33-58). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Salzmann, Z., Stanlaw, J., & Adachi, N. (2012). Language, culture, and society: An introduction to linguistic anthropology (5th ed.). Westview Press.
• Sapir, E. (1912). Language and environment. American Anthropologist. 14(2), 226-242. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1912.14.2.02a00020
• Schank, R. C., and R. P. Abelson. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum
• Schmid, H-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117- 138). Oxford University Press.
• Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Signs: An introduction to semiotics (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press.
• Sharifian, F. (2014). Advances in cultural linguistics. In M. Yamaguchi, D. Tay & B. Blount, (Eds.), Approaches to language, culture, and cognition: The intersection of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology (pp. 99-123). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Sinclair, J. (1987). Collins COBUILD English language dictionary. Harper Collins Publishers.
• Tuggy, D. (2007) Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 82-116). Oxford University Press.
• VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.). (2020). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Routledge.
• Whittlesea, B. A. (1997). The representation of general and particular knowledge. In Lamberts, K., & Shanks, D. (Eds.). Knowledge, concepts, and categories. (pp 335-370). MIT Press
• Zgusta, L. (2010). Manual of lexicography (Vol. 39). Walter de Gruyter.