Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Prof. of Linguistics, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Researcher of Post-Doc Program, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran,Iran
3 Assistant Prof. of Linguistics, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Social linguistics adopted a synchronic framework and turned onomastics from an archaist science to a modern one dealing with contemporary society. However, it is impossible to ignore the role names play in shaping individuals’ cognitive structures. Thus, cognitive linguistics also showed an interest in this subject because “Names” are multifaceted linguistic elements. Similar to traditional and philosophical studies, social onomastics mostly deal with proper names, but cognitive linguistics, especially studies of Geeraerts et al., address common names. Labov (1972) sees urban social linguistics as the “science of field studies”; this view can be safely applied to onomastic studies, especially to the approach that addresses onomastics from a socio-cognitive perspective with an emphasis on use and context. This article aims to provide roadmap for onomastics studies applying documentary research method. The authors, after a quick philosophical and diachronic review of literature, examine contemporary onomastics studies from a sociocognitive perspective. The conclusion of their observation and studies shows that the scope of onomastic research has expanded, word-formation (lexical generation) processes draw less attention. Instead, lexical structure and different quantitative approaches, which study the strength of onomastic processes, are receiving more attention by the day.
Keywords
Main Subjects
دبیرمقدم، محمد، فاطمه یوسفی راد، ویدا شقاقی و سید محمود متشرعی (1397). زبان‌شناسی شناختی اجتماعی: رویکردی نوین به معنا و تنوعات زبانی. فصلنامة زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی، دورة 1، شمارۀ 2، 20-29.
زندی، بهمن، و بهزاد احمدی (1395). نام‌شناسی اجتماعی-شناختی؛ حوزۀ نوین مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای. فصلنامة مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، دورۀ نهم، شمارۀ 1، 99-122.
گیررتس، دیرک (1393). نظریههای معناشناسی واژگانی. مترجم: کورش صفوی. تهران: انتشارات علمی.
متشرعی، سید محمود و فاطمه یوسفی‌راد (1398الف). رویکردی شناختی اجتماعی به چندمعنایی واژگانی، مطالعة موردی: "جیگر". فصلنامة زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی، دورة سوم، شمارۀ 1، 59-74.
متشرعی، سید محمود و فاطمه یوسفی راد (1398ب). رویکردی شناختی اجتماعی به چندمعنایی واژگانی:
مطالعة موردی "تپل". مجلۀ زبان‌شناسی و گویش‌های خراسان، سال یازدهم، شمارۀ 2، 181-202.
مدرسی، یحیی و شراره مظفری (1397). تأثیر نگرش گویشوران بر کاربرد تنوعات گونه‌ای زبان فارسی در استان فارس؛ پژوهشی اجتماعی-شناختی. فصلنامة زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی. دورۀ 2، شمارۀ 1، 22-50.
مظفری، شراره، یحیی مدرسی، آزیتا افراشی و مصطفی عاصی (1397). تأثیر عوامل اجتماعی بر کاربرد تنوعات گونه‌ای از دیدگاه زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی شناختی. فصلنامۀ زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی، دورۀ2، شمارۀ 2، 27-39.
یوسفی راد، فاطمه و سید محمود متشرعی (1397). پرتوی از زبان‌شناسی شناختی اجتماعی بر روی فرهنگ‌نگاری. فصلنامۀ پازند، سال 14، شمارة 52-53، 97-112.
یوسفی راد، فاطمه (1389). بررسی نشانه‌شناختی مسأله اسماءالله. طرح پژوهشی دانشگاه پیام نور قزوین. منتشر نشده.
Ainiala, T., & Ostman, J-O. (2017). Socio- onomastics: The pragmatics of names.Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ainiala, T., Saarelma, M., & Sjöblom, P. (2018). Names in focus: An introduction to Finnish onomastics. Suomalaisen Kirjallsuuden Seura.
Allan, K. (2008). Metaphor and metonymy: A diachronic approach. Publications of the Philological Society 42. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Allan, K. (2010). Tracing metonymic polysemy through time: Material for object mappings in the OED. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 163-196). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Anderson, J. (2004). On the grammatical status of names. Language, 80(3), 435-474.
Andryuchshenko, O. K., Suyunova, G. S., & Tkachuk, S. S. (2015). The cognitive aspects of the study of regional onomastics. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8 (10), doi:10.17485/ ijst/2015/v8is (10)/84835..
Baldinger, K. (1964). Semasiologie et
onomasiologie. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 28, 249-272.
Baldinger, K. (1980). Semantic theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Translation of Teoria Semantica. Hacia una semantica moderna. Madrid: Ediciones Alcala 1977).
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In: R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view (pp. 7-58). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Berlin. B. (1978). Ethnobiological classification. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 9-26). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berlin. B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms, their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blank A., & Koch, P. (1999). Historical semantics and cognition. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter.
Blank, A. (2001). Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. metaphorik.de, 1, 6-25.
Blank, A. (2003). Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. In R. Eckardt, K. Heusinger, & Ch. Schwarze (Eds.), Trends in linguistics. Words in time. Diachronic semantics from different points of view (pp. 37–66). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter,.
Coates, R. (2013). Onomastics. In C. Chapelle (Ed.) The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4315–4320). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Danesi, M. (2004). A basic course in anthropological linguistics. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Davidko, N. (2012). What color is business? An onomasiological and semasiological study of business terms containing color words. Studies about Languages, 21, 92-107.
Diller, A. (1994). Thai. In C. Goddard, & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Semantics and lexical universals (pp. 149-170). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes and frames semantics. In A Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55-81). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-255.
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts. New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fillmore, C., O’Conner, P., & Catherine, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538.
Forster, K. I. (2002). Accessing the mental lexicon. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Psychoinguitics. Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 270-296). London/New York: Routledge.
Geeraerts, D, (2008). Prototypes, stereotypes, and semantic norm”. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.) Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 21-44). Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The scope of diachronic onomasiology. In V. Agel, A. Gardt, U. Hass-Zumkehr & T. Roelcke (Eds.) Das wort. Seine strukturelle und kulturelle dimension (pp. 29-44). Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives (pp. 21-49). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (2017). Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Brill.
Geeraerts, D. Kristiansen, G. & Piersman, Y. (Eds.) (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In J. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 153-179). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Gevaert, C., & Speelman, D. (2011). How anger rose: Hypothesis testing in diachronic semantics. In K. Allan & J. Robinson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 109-131). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gillieron, J., & Roques, M. (1912). Etudes de geographie linguistique. Paris: Champion.
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (2010). Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts D. (2003). Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 67-92). Berlin: 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 Benjamins.
Grygiel, M. (2008). From semantic change to conceptual blending: Semantic development of English historical near-synonyms of man/male human being. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.
Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar. In G. Radden, K-M. Kopcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 77-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Janda, L. (2013). Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. The essential reader. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kleparski, G. A. (2005). Towards the semantics of Mid.E. Synonyms of MAN. Studia Anglica Resoviensia, 3, 88-95.
Kleparski, G. A., & Borkowska p. (2007). A note on synonymy: Synchronic and diachronic. Studia Anglica Resoviensia, 4, 126-139.
Koch, P. (2004). Metonymy between pragmatics, reference and diachrony. Metaphorik.de, 07, 6-54.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lackoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lackoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. NY: Basic Books.
Lackoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langaker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Leino, A. (2006). Place Names as Constructions. Onoma: Journal of the Int’ Council Onomastic Sciences, 41, 215-235.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno-Fernandez, F. (2017). A framework for cognitive sociolinguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2(2), 245-272.
Paradis, C. (2011). Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rutkiewicz-Hanczewska, M. (2016). Semantics of proper names. The structure of the mental lexicon of proper names. In C. Hough, D. Izdebska (Eds.) ICOS 2014: Names and their environment, Proceeding of the 25th Int’ Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Glasgow, 25-29 August 2014, Vol: 4: Theory and Methodology, Socio-Onomastics (pp. 167-187). Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
Sweetser, E. (1991). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ullman, S. (1951). The principles of semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Glasgow: Jackson, Son and Co.
Ullman, S. (1962). Semantics. An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Walther, H. (1971). Namenforshung heute. Ihre Ergebnisse und Aufgaben in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Yousefi Rad, F., Motesharrei, S. M., & Dabirmoghaddam, M. (2019). A conative scioliguistic approach to lexical polysemy, a case study: Persian adjective / šax/. The International Journal of Humanities of Tarbiat Modares University, 26(2), 70-86.
Zauner, A. (1902). Die Romanischen Namen der Korperteile: eine Onoamsiologiche Studie. Romanische Forschungen, 14, 339-530.
Zhang, W., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2015). Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for WOMAN in Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(2), 289-330.
)