Language Contact and Conflict
soheil daneshzadeh; Gholam-Hossein Karimi-Doostan
Abstract
In this research we critically evaluate two fundamental beliefs in explicitation studies. Our point of departure will be social cognitive linguisticss. These beliefs are as follows: 1) Degrees of explicitness are determined on the basis of linguistic forms. 2) Explicitation is by definition specification. ...
Read More
In this research we critically evaluate two fundamental beliefs in explicitation studies. Our point of departure will be social cognitive linguisticss. These beliefs are as follows: 1) Degrees of explicitness are determined on the basis of linguistic forms. 2) Explicitation is by definition specification. Through evaluating the first beliefs, we argue that degrees of explicitness cannot always be attributed to linguistic forms and other variables such as shared encyclopedic knowledge and contexts should be taken into account. Through evaluating the second beliefs we apply secondary analysis to four examples which have been taken form two previous researches, and demonstrate that it is not the process of specification that has caused explicitation in those cases and consequently explicitation cannot be reduced to this one construal operation. So these beliefs not only are unreliable, but also-being widespread- they have almost made it impossible for researchers to search for and sufficiently explain many potential instances of explicitation. In light of these findings we propose that explicitation researchers should take into account the socio-cognitive motivations for this type of translational shift, and explicitation and explicitation mechanisms should be defined in terms of various conceptualization processes that take place in the process of explicitation.
Language Contact and Conflict
Manijeh Mirmukri; gholam hosein karimi doostan; yadgar karimi; vahid gholami
Abstract
The present writing is a report of an empirical study to measure the level of mutual intelligibility between Mahabadi variety from West Azarbayjan and Badrei one from Ilam Province based on linguistic and non-linguistic criteria and receptive multilingualism approach. For this purpose, two types of tests, ...
Read More
The present writing is a report of an empirical study to measure the level of mutual intelligibility between Mahabadi variety from West Azarbayjan and Badrei one from Ilam Province based on linguistic and non-linguistic criteria and receptive multilingualism approach. For this purpose, two types of tests, that is, function tests and opinion tests were used. We used targeted sampling to exclude subjects who had previous language contact. Test materials which were translated into the most common language in both varieties, were recorded. Subjects wrote the meaning or translation of presented auditory items in Persian. Findings showed that intelligibility between two varieties was not symmetric and although the attitude of Badrei speakers was more positive compared to the other variety, the scores of Mahabadi speakers in function tests were higher. This finding contradicts the result of the previous studies conducted by Maurud (1976) and Delsing and Akesson (2005) who claimed that there was a positive correlation between positive attitude and intelligibility. Moreover, the findings showed that among the eleven lexical features emphasized by Gooskens et al. (2008) as factors affecting intelligibility, phonetic distance and lexical etymology influence intelligibility more than other factors in these varieties.
