An Investigation of the Relationship between Taxonomic/Thematic Categorization and Using Conventional Metaphor and Metonymy among Persian Speakers: A Corpus-Based Approach

Document Type : Original Research

Author
Raheleh Gandomkar
Assistant Professor, Linguistics Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
This paper examines the differences between two types of categorization and then the use of conventional metaphor and metonymy and their relationship among Persian-speaking Iranians. Recent studies on categorization show that Persian speakers, similar to the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese, categorize based on thematic relationships, unlike the European Americans who categorize based upon taxonomic relations. These studies have shown that Eastern Asians, with regard to categorization, act on the syntagmatic axis and the units in the context, and Westerners act upon the paradigmatic axis. Therefore, the hypothesis was put forth that these different cognitive functions are also represented in the application of metaphor and metonymy that is, those who use the category-based classification are more likely to use metaphors, and those who are inclined to use the relationship-based categorization tend more toward using metonymy. Examining the Persian corpus of 30,000 sentences confirmed this hypothesis. Persian speakers, who categorize based on relationships, use metonymy, which works on syntagmatic axis and based on the contiguity of two things, more than metaphor, which is based on the similarity and paradigmatic relation between two entities. The present study confirms this fact again that cognition is not the same in all human beings.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Anvari, H. (2003). Farhange Fesorde Sokhan (Sokhan Concise Dictionary). Tehran: Sokhan.
[2] Black, M. (1993). More about Metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, edited by Andrew Ortony, 19-24. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Chiu, L. H. (1972). A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American children. International Journal of Psychology 7, 235-242.
[4] Dunham, P., and Dunham, F. (1995). Developmental Antecedents of Taxonomic and Thematic Strategies at 3 Years of Age. Developmental Psychology 31, 483–493.
[5] Gandomkar, R. (2019 [In Press]). The Analysis of Persian Speakers’ cognition in categorization: taxonomic or thematic categorization? Language Related Research (Dasturhɑye Zabɑni).
[6] Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to Differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
[7] Ji, L. J., Peng, K., and Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, Control, and Perception of Relationships in the Environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 943–955.
[8] Ji, L. J., Schwarz, N., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, Autobiographical Memory, and Social Comparison: Measurement Issues in Cross-cultural Studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 586–594.
[9] Ji, L. J. and Yap, S. (2016). Culture and Cognition. Current Opinion in Psychology 8, 105-111.
[10] Knowles, M. and Moon, R. (2006). Introducing Metaphor. London: Routledge.
[11] Lakoff. G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[12] Markman, E., and Hutchinson, J. (1984). Children’s Sensitivity to Constraints on Word Meaning: Taxonomic Versus Thematic Relations. Cognitive Psychology 16, 1–27.
[13] Murphy, M. L. and Koskela, A. (2010). Key Terms in Semantics. London: Continuum
[14] Nisbett, R. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why. New York: Free Press.
[15] Nisbett, R., Ji, L. J. and Zhang, Z. (2004). Is it Culture or is it Language? Examination of Language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 87, No. 1, 57-65.
[16] Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., and Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural Preferences for Formal versus Intuitive Reasoning. Cognitive Science 26. 653–684.
[17] Rasooli, M.‎ S.‎ Kouhestani, M.‎ and Moloodi, A.‎ S.‎ (2013)‎.‎ Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank.‎ In The 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT), Atlanta, USA.
[18] Riemer, N. (2003). When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy? In Dirven, R. and Pörings, R. (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. 379-406. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
The International Journal of Humanities
Volume 26, Issue 2
Summer 2019
Pages 1-13