Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba’i University

2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Payam-e Noor University

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the polysemy of the Persian word /jigar/ from the perspective of cognitive sociolinguistics. The main objective is to show that cognitive sociolinguistic approach is more adequate to explain lexical polysemy in comparison to cognitive linguistics. 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 meanings of the polysemous words. This paper, in line with Robinson (2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2014), investigates the effects of two social variables of age and gender on the number and salience of each meaning of the polysemous word /jigar/. The data are gathered through library research (e.g., using Persian dictionaries), interviews, and questionnaires. The research method employed is hybrid, i.e. qualitative and quantitative. The data are gathered from 200 subjects, 100 male and 100 females, in four different age groups in Tehran. The results indicated 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 are not accidental but explainable in terms of age and gender of the speakers.

Keywords

انوری، حسن (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن (دورة هشت جلدی). تهران: انتشارات سخن.
دبیرقدم، محمد (1383). زبان‌‌‌شناسی نظری، پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی (ویراست دوم). تهران: سمت.
دبیرمقدم، محمد، فاطمه یوسفی‌راد، ویدا شقاقی و سیدمحمود و متشرعی (1397). زبان ‏شناسی شناختی اجتماعی:‏ رویکردی نوین به معنا و تنوعات زبانی. فصلنامة زبان‌‌‌شناسی اجتماعی . دورة 2 . ش 2: 20- 29.
صدری افشار، غلامحسین و نسرین حکمی (1388). فرهنگنامة فارسی (دورة سه جلدی). تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 711-733.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (2003). ‘Usage-based’ implies ‘Variational’: On the inevitability of cognitive sociolinguistics. Plenary lecture presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference: Cognitive Linguistics, Functionalism, and Discourse Studies: Common Ground and New Directions. Logrono.
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lacteal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. S. P. Carvel (Eds.) Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 163-189). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., &Cuyckens, H. (Eds.) (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman , Y. (Eds.) (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitch, A. (Eds). (2006). Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus –based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grondelares, S., Geeraerts, D., & 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 Benjamin.
Talmy, L. (2007). Foreword. In M. Gonzales-Marquez, & I. Mittelberg. (Eds.) Methods in cognitive linguistics. John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics: Rationale, methods & scope. In G. Kristiansen, & R. Dirven (Eds.). Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1997). Linguistics and sociolinguistics. In N. Coupland, & A. Jaworski (Eds.) Sociolinguistics: Modern linguistics series. Palgrave: London.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Robinson, J. A. (2010). Awesome insights into semantics variation. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Piersman. (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 85-109). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Robinson, J. A. (2012b). A gay paper: Why should sociolinguistics bother with semantics? English Today, 28(4): 38-54.
Robinson, J. (2014). Quantifying polysemy in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 87-115). Corpus methods for semantics. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 33-65.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.