/A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Approach to Lexical Polysemy, A Case Study: Persian Adjective /topol

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 8, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2020, Pages 181-201   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2020.48245.0

Authors

Seyed Mahmoud Motesharrei¹; Fatemeh Yousefi Rad^{* 2}

¹Guest Lecturer of English and Linguistics, Payam-e Noor and Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

²Assistant Professor of linguistics, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The present paper aimed at investigating the polysemy of the Persian word Topol from the perspective of cognitive sociolinguistics. The study begins with introducing the tenets of cognitive sociolinguistics, and then goes on to investigate the polysemy of the Persian adjective topol within this framework. In cognitive sociolinguistics, it is believed that polysemy cannot be reduced to a static state, one and the same for all speakers of a language. Rather, social variables like age and gender of speakers affect the way they perceive different senses of the polysemous words. This paper, in line with cognitive sociolinguistic studies on polysemy employed advanced statistical methods of Logistic Regression and Cross Tab to study the polysemy of Persian adjective Topol. The data were gathered through library research (including Persian dictionaries), interviews, and questionnaires. The research method employed is mixed, that is, qualitative and quantitative. The data were gathered from 200 participants, 100 male and 100 females, in four different age groups. The main hypothesis was that the “mere” cognitive approach is not adequate enough to explain lexical polysemy. The results indicate that cognitive sociolinguistics is indeed more adequate in giving more exact explanations concerning meaning variation in polysemous words and the effect of social variables of age and gender on the number and salience of each sense. In other words, the results show that different senses of the polysemous words do not suggest the same distribution among different speakers, both male and female, belonging to different age groups, and is not accidental but explainable in terms of age and gender of the speakers.

Keywords

Cognitive Sociolinguistics; Polysemy; Age; Gender; Social Variables

References

1- انوری، ح. (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن. تهران: انتشارات سخن.

2- دبیر­مقدّم، م. (1383). زبان­شناسی نظری، پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی (ویراست دوم). تهران: سمت.

3- دبیرمقدّم، م.، و یوسفی راد، ف.، و شقاقی و.، و متشرّعی، س. م. (1397). زبان‌شناسی شناختی اجتماعی: ‏رویکردی نوین به معنا و تنوّعات زبانی. فصلنامه‌ی زبان­شناسی اجتماعی، 2(2)، 20- 29.

4- صدری افشار، غ.، و حکمی، ن.، و حکمی، ن. (1388). فرهنگنامه‌ی فارسی. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.

5- Bybee, J. (2006). From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82, 711-733.

6- Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7-  Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8- Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal Variation and Empirical Data in Cognitive Linguistics. In: F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary interaction, (pp.163-189). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

9- Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10- Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.) (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

11- Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus –based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

12- Grondelares, S., & D. Geeraerts., & Speelman, D.  (2007). A Case for a Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. In: M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, (pp. 149- 169). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

13- Gonzales-Marquez, M., & Mittelberg, I., (Eds.) (2007). Foreword: Talmy, Leonard, Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamin Publishing Company.

14- Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction: Cognitive Linguistics: Rationale, methods & Scope, Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, Edited by: Gitte Kristiansen & Rene Dirven, Mouton de Gruyter.

15- Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. (1966). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16- Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

17- Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

18- Langacker, R. W. (2000). A Dynamic Usage-based Model. In: M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language, (pp. 1-64). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

19- Robinson, J. A. (2010). Awesome Insights into Semantics Variation. In: D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Piersman, Y. (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, (pp. 85-109). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

20- Robinson, J. A. (2012a). A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Semantic Change. In: K. Allen & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Linguistics, (pp. 191-231). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

21- Robinson, J. A. (2012b). A Gay Paper: Why Should Sociolinguistics Bother with Semantics? English Today, 28(4), pp. 38-54.

22- Robinson, J. (2014). Quantifying Polysemy in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, Corpus Methods for Semantics, John Benjamins Publishing Co. pp. 87-115.

23- Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meaning in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantivc Change. Language, 65, 33-65.

24- Traugott, E. C., & Dasher R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.