1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article explicates the cultural conceptualizations of the word for salt () in Persian. The concept of reveals an important aspect of Persian sociality, hospitality, mutual respect, and playfulness. For instance, a person’s face or words can be perceived to ‘have salt’, or one’s hand is declared to ‘not have salt’ in the Persian language. To examine the conceptualization of , this article makes use of corpus data as well as the metalanguage proposed by Natural Semantic Metalanguage to spell out the nuances of salt-related cultural concepts in Persian. Three senses are identified for from a historical perspective: for the substance of salt; the cornerstone of Iranian sociality and hospitality; and the pleasantness, which has changed its semantic content from referring to being pleasant and eloquent to being amusing and playful.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.21038.ara
2022-06-14
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ameka, F.
    (1994) Ewe. InC. Goddard & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings (pp.57–86). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.25.07ame
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.25.07ame [Google Scholar]
  2. Amouzadeh, M., & Tavangar, M.
    (2005) Sociolinguistic transfer: The case of Persian speakers in Australia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 147, 63–77. 10.2143/ITL.148.0.2002065
    https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.148.0.2002065 [Google Scholar]
  3. Apresjan, J. D.
    (1974) Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 14(2), 5–32. 10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arab, R.
    (2020) Ethnopragmatics of hāzer javābi, a valued speech practice in Persian. InK. Mullan, B. Peeters, & L. Sadow (Eds.), Studies in ethnopragmatics, cultural semantics, and intercultural communication (pp.75–94). Singapore, SG: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑32‑9983‑2_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9983-2_5 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2021) To be with salt, to speak with taste: Metapragmatics of playful speech practices in Persian (unpublished PhD thesis), Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (forthcoming). Metapragmatics of maze (taste) in Persian. InA. Korangy Ed. Persian cultural linguistics and pragmatics. Singapore, SG: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Asdjodi, M.
    (2001) A comparison between ta’arof in Persian and limao in Chinese. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 148, 71–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Atoofi, S.
    (2011) Poetics of repetition in ordinary talk: A case among Persian heritage language teachers and their students. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3362–3373. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeman, W. O.
    (1976) Status, style and strategy in Iranian interaction. Anthropological Linguistics, 18, 305–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1986) Language, status, and power in Iran. Bloomington, US: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2001) Sincerity and emotion in Persian discourse: Accomplishing the representations of inner states. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 148, 31–57. 10.1515/ijsl.2001.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2001.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bell, N.
    (2009) Responses to Failed Humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1825–1836. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boas, F.
    (1911) Introduction [to the] handbook of American Indian languages. Washington, DC, US: Bureau of American Ethnology.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carbaugh, D.
    (2007) Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 167–182. 10.1080/17475750701737090
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750701737090 [Google Scholar]
  15. (Ed.) (2016) The handbook of communication in cross-cultural perspective. London, UK & New York, US: Taylor and Francis. 10.4324/9781315709321
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315709321 [Google Scholar]
  16. Conway, T.
    (2009) From tolerance to hospitality: problematic limits of a negative virtue. Philosophy in the contemporary world, 16, 1–13. 10.5840/pcw20091611
    https://doi.org/10.5840/pcw20091611 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cook, R. T.
    (2009) Extension. InA dictionary of philosophical logic. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dynel, M.
    (2017) Academics vs. American scriptwriters vs. academics: A battle over the etic and emic “sarcasm” and “irony” Labels. Language and Communication, 55, 69–87. 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Eelen, G.
    (2001) A critique of politeness theories. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Enfield, N. J.
    (2011) Taste in two tongues: A southeast Asian study of semantic convergence. The Senses and Society, 6(1), 30–37. 10.2752/174589311X12893982233632
    https://doi.org/10.2752/174589311X12893982233632 [Google Scholar]
  21. Eslami, Z. R.
    (2005) Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine?Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 453–480. 10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.4.453 [Google Scholar]
  22. Geeraerts, D.
    (1994) Polysemy. InR. E. Asher & J. M. L. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.3227–3228). New York, US: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gladkova, A.
    (2007) Universal and language-specific aspects of “propositional attitudes”: Russian vs. English. InA. C. Schalley & D. Khlentzos (Eds.), Mental states: Vol. 2: Language and cognitive structure (pp.61–83). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.93.06gla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.93.06gla [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010) “Sympathy,” “compassion,” and “empathy” in English and Russian: A linguistic and cultural analysis. Culture and Psychology, 16(2), 267–285. 10.1177/1354067X10361396
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X10361396 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goddard, C.
    (2002) On and on: Verbal explications for a polysemic network. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 277–294. 10.1515/cogl.2002.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.019 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2004) The ethnopragmatics and semantics of “active metaphors”. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1211–1230. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. (Ed.) (2006) Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110911114
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911114 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2007a) Semantic primes and conceptual ontology. InA. C. Schalley & D. Zaefferer (Eds.), Ontolinguistics: How ontological status shapes the linguistic coding of concepts (pp.145–174). Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2007b) Semantic molecules. InI. Mushin & M. Laughern (Eds.), Selected papers of the 2006 annual meeting of the Australian linguistic society. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:12853
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (Ed.) (2008) Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.102
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.102 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2010) Semantic molecules and semantic complexity (with special reference to “environmental” molecules). Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 123–155. 10.1075/ml.8.1.05god
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.1.05god [Google Scholar]
  32. (2011) Semantic analysis: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Words as carriers of cultural meaning. InJ. R. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word (pp.380–398). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2018) Ten lectures on natural semantic metalanguage: Exploring language, thought and culture using simple, translatable words. Leiden, NL: Brill. 10.1163/9789004357723
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004357723 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A.
    (2007) NSM analyses of the semantics of physical qualities: Sweet, hot, hard, heavy, rough, sharp in cross-linguistic perspective. Studies in Language, 31(4), 765–800. 10.1075/sl.31.4.03god
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.03god [Google Scholar]
  36. (2009) Contrastive semantics of physical activity verbs: “Cutting” and ‘chopping’ in English, Polish, and Japanese. Language Sciences, 31(1), 60–96. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2014) Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages and cultures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goddard, C., & Ye, Z.
    (2014) Ethnopragmatics. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.66–84). London, UK & New York, US: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Haugh, M.
    (2012) Epilogue: The first-order distinction in face and politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 111–134. 10.1515/pr‑2012‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2012-0007 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hill, D., & Goddard, C.
    (1997) Spatial terms, polysemy and possession in Longgu (Solomon Islands). Language Sciences, 19(3), 263–275. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00064‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00064-2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hillmann, M. C.
    (1978) Language and social distinctions in Iran. InM. E. Bonine & N. R. Keddie (Eds.), Modem Iran: The dialectics of continuity and change (pp.327–340). Albany, US: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hodge, C. T.
    (1957) Some aspects of Persian style. Language, 33, 355–369. 10.2307/411158
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411158 [Google Scholar]
  43. Houston, C.
    (2009) “Thou glorious kingdome, thou chiefe of empires”: Persia in early seventeenth-century travel literature. Studies in Travel Writing, 13, 141–152. 10.1080/13645140902857240
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13645140902857240 [Google Scholar]
  44. Howes, D., & Classen, C.
    (1991) Sounding sensory profiles. InD. Howes (Ed.), The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses (pp.257–288). Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Izadi, A.
    (2015) Persian honorifics and im/politeness as social practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 81–91. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Killgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
    (2014) The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  47. Koutlaki, S.
    (2002) Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: Ta’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1733–1756. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00055‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00055-8 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kwon, D. Y.
    (2017) Ethnic foods and their taste: Salt and sugar. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 3(4), 133–134. 10.1016/j.jef.2017.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jef.2017.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  49. Leavitt, J.
    (2015) Ethnosemantics. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.51–65). London, UK & New York, US: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Levisen, C.
    (2012) Cultural semantics and social cognition: A case study on the Danish universe of meaning. Berlin, DE: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110294651
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294651 [Google Scholar]
  51. Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2011) The senses in language and culture. The Senses and Society, 6(1), 5–18. 10.2752/174589311X12893982233551
    https://doi.org/10.2752/174589311X12893982233551 [Google Scholar]
  52. Matthee, R.
    (2009) The Safavids under western eyes: Seventeenth-century European travellers to Iran. Journal of Early Modern History, 13, 137–171. 10.1163/138537809X12498721974624
    https://doi.org/10.1163/138537809X12498721974624 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mehran, J.
    (2019) The meaning of hospitality in Iran. InA. Correia, M. Kozak, & A. I. Rodrigues (Eds.), Experiencing Persian heritage, Vol. 10 (pp.155–167). Bingley, UK: Emerald. 10.1108/S2042‑144320190000010010
    https://doi.org/10.1108/S2042-144320190000010010 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mizumoto, M., Ganeri, J., & Goddard, C.
    (Eds.) (2020) Ethno-epistemology: New directions for global epistemology. London, UK & New York, US: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003037774
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003037774 [Google Scholar]
  55. Moosavie, S. M.
    (1986) A sociolinguistic analysis of the Persian system of taarof and its implication for the teaching of Farsi (Doctoral dissertation), University of Texas at Austin, the USA.
  56. Peeters, B.
    (Ed.) (2006) Semantic primes and universal grammar: Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.81
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.81 [Google Scholar]
  57. Roberts, J. R., Barjasteh Delforooz, B., & Jahani, C.
    (2009) A study of Persian discourse structure. Uppsala, SE: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Senft, G., Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2007) The language of taste. InA. Majid (Ed.), Field manual, Vol. 10 (pp.42–45). Nijmegen, NL: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharifian, F.
    (2004) Cultural schemas and intercultural communication: A study of Persian. InJ. Leigh & E. Loo (Eds.), Outer limits: A reader in communication across cultures (pp.119–130). Melbourne, AU: Language Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. (2005) The Persian cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi: A study of compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics and Cognition, 13(2), 337–361. 10.1075/pc.13.2.05sha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.13.2.05sha [Google Scholar]
  61. (2008) Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(1), 55–80. 10.1515/PR.2008.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2015) Cultural linguistics. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.473–492). London, UK & New York, US: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2017) Cultural linguistics: Cultural conceptualizations and language. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  64. Slobin, D. I.
    (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” InJ. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.70–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Taleghani-Nikazm, C. M.
    (1999) Politeness in native–nonnative speakers’ interaction: Some manifestations of Persian taarof in the interaction among Iranian speakers of German with German native speakers (Doctoral dissertation), University of Texas at Austin, the USA.
  66. Whorf, B. L.
    (1956) Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (ed. and intro.J. B. Carroll). Cambridge, US: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1972) Semantic primitives. Frankfurt, DE: Athenäum.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. (1987) Speech act verbs. Sydney, AU: Academic Press Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. (1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  70. (1991) Cross-cultural pragmatics. Berlin, DE: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112329764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764 [Google Scholar]
  71. (1992) Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (1997) Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (2006a) Anglo scripts against “putting pressure” on other people and their linguistic manifestations. InC. Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context (pp.65–98). Berlin, DE: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110911114.31
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911114.31 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2006b) English: Meaning and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2007) Bodies and their parts: An NSM approach to semantic typology. Language Sciences, 29(1), 14–65. 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2009) Language and metalanguage: Key issues in emotion research. Emotion Review, 1(1), 3–14. 10.1177/1754073908097175
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097175 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2014) Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (1992) On verbal irony. Lingua, 87(1), 53–76. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90025‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E [Google Scholar]
  80. Wong, J.
    (2000) The semantics of Singapore English. Singapore, SG: Centre for Advanced Studies Research, National University of Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Yarbakhsh, E.
    (2018) Reading Derrida in Tehran: Between an open door and an empty sofreh. Humanities, 7(1), 21. 10.3390/h7010021
    https://doi.org/10.3390/h7010021 [Google Scholar]
  82. Ye, Z.
    (Ed.) (2017) The semantics of nouns. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Yu, N.
    (2009) The Chinese HEART in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213348
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213348 [Google Scholar]
  84. Zarrinkoub, A.
    (2006) History of Iranian people: From the end of the Sasanian to the end of the Buyid [Tārixe mardome iran: az pāyāne sāsāniyān tā pāyāne āle buye]. Tehran, IR: Amirkabir.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Zonis, M.
    (1971) Political elite of Iran. Princeton, US: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.21038.ara
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.21038.ara
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cultural semantics; namak; Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM); Persian; salt
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error