نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ادراک حسی از محیط پیرامون می‌تواند نقش مهمی در شناخت و شیوة مفهوم‌سازی انسان از رخدادهای جهان خارج داشته باشد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی نقش ساز‌و‌کارهای مفهومی و معیارهای برون‌زبانی در برداشت معانی مجازی از مزه‌واژه‌ها درگلستان سعدی انجام شده‌است. داده‌های این مقاله، از بیت‌ها و جمله‌های گلستان سعدی که دربردارندة مزه‌واژه‌های شیرین، تلخ، ترش، شور، تند و نمکین  هستند، استخراج شده و در چارچوب معناشناسی شناختی مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته‌اند. یافته‌های به‌دست‌آمده از تحلیل داده‌ها نشان می‌دهد که کاربرد مجازی مزه‌واژه‌ها در حوزه‌های شخصیت، اخلاقیات و عواطف، اغلب مبتنی بر ساز‌و‌کارهای مجاز و استعارة مفهومی هستند که بر پایة تجربة بدنمند ما از محیط پیرامون و کاربرد پیاپی پاره‌گفته‌های چشایی شکل می‌گیرند. تجربه‌های خوشایند مربوط به چشیدن شیرینی، تجربة ناخوشایند ناشی از مصرف مواد تلخ، چین و چروک چهره بعد از چشیدن مواد غذایی ترش، تغییر حالات عاطفی در اثر خارش و گرمای ناشی از مصرف مواد غذایی تند و زیان ناشی از وجود نمک زیاد در آب از نمونه‌ تجربیات بدنمند ما هستند که پس از گذشتن از صافی فرهنگ، در نگاشت میان مزه‌واژه‌ها و ویژگی‌های شخصیتی به کار می‌روند. از این رو، اغلب معانی مجازی برداشت‌شده از مزه‌واژة شیرین خوشایند است؛ ولی مزه‌واژه‌های ترش، تلخ، شور و تند غالباً معانی ناخوشایند و احساسات منفی را مفهوم‌سازی می‌کنند. یافته‌های این پژوهش، همسو با پژوهش‌های اخیر در حوزه ادراک حسی، بر نقشِ بدنمندی معنا، نشانه‌های بافتی، کاربرد زبان و دانش دایره‌المعارفی ما در برداشت معنای مجازی از مزه‌واژه‌ها در گلستان سعدی تأکید می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

An inquiry into Meaning Extension of Persian Taste Terms in Golestan Saadi:A Cognitive- Semantic Approach

نویسنده [English]

  • Mahmood Naghizadeh

Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Taste is a complicated mechanism that relies on an intricate network of receptors and nerves (Sturtevant, 1964). The importance of taste and taste terms should not be underestimated in human cognition and language. Since ancient Greek philosophy, the linguistic study of taste terms has been downplayed due to lack of scientific understanding of taste and gustatory language and this can be the reason behind limited range of scientific works in taste compared to other senses such as vision and hearing. The present research is an attempt to study Persian taste terms in Golestan Saadi and to investigate conceptual mechanisms (metaphor and metonymy) along with language-external factors such as culture, use, entrenchment, body structure, and nature of human mind through which figurative meanings are derived from gustatory words. In cognitive semantics, metaphors and metonymies are considered as cognitive mechanisms that lead to semantic change and motivate polysemy of lexical items (Bagli, 2017).  Conceptual metaphors act as a bridge to connect two concepts in two different domains, while metonymies are considered as tip of an ice-berg that leads us to see the rest of the ice-berg under the sea. Metaphor and metonymy are both motivated through our embodied interaction of the physical world (Perez-Sobrino, 2017). The main objectives in this research are to find how conceptual metaphor and metonymy in language, together with other external factors account for construction and derivation of non-literal meanings of taste terms in Golesatan Saadi.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • cognitive semantics
  • conceptual metaphor
  • conceptual metonymy
  • Golestan Saadi
  • tase terms
  1. انوری، حسن (1383). فرهنگ سخن. تهران: انتشارات سخن. Retrieved from <https://sokhanpub.net/>
  2. دهخدا، علی اکبر (1310). فرهنگ دهخدا. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. Retrieved from <https://abadis.ir/dehkhoda/>
  3. صلاحی، عسگر و ندا نبی زاده اردبیلی (1399). «استعارة مفهومی مزه‌ها در اشعار کودکانه». زبان‌شناخت. سال 11. شمارة 2. صص 111-131.https://doi.org/10.30465/LS.2021.6182
  4. کوشکی، فاطمه و آزیتا افراشی (1399). «احساس عاطفهِ نفرت، مجازهای مفهومی، عاطفهِ «نفرت»: تحلیل شناختی-عصبی-زیستی». زبان‌پژوهی. سال 12. شماره 24. صص 7-24. https://doi.org/10.2205/jlr.2019.20974.1560
  5. معین، محمد (1382). فرهنگ لغت فارسی. تهران: انتشارات زرین. Retrieved from <https://www.abadis.ir/moeen/>
  6. نایب لوئی، فاطمه، سید مصطفی عاصی، آزیتا افراشی و مسعود قیومی (1400). «بررسی حوزه مفهومی فعل «شنیدن» در زبان فارسی با اتخاذ اصول شبکه فریم‌نت». علم زبان. دورة 8. شمارة 14. صص 195-223.https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2021.57628.1424
  7. Ankerstein, C. A., & Pereira, G. M. (2013). Talking about taste. Starved for words. In Gerhardt, C., Frobenius, M., & Ley, S. (Eds.), Culinary Linguistics: The Chef’s Special (pp. 305-316). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/clu.10.13ank.
  8. Anvari, H. (2004). Sokhan Dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan Publication. Retrieved from <https://sokhanpub.net/[In Persian]
  9. Backhouse, A. E. (1994). The lexical field of taste: A semantic study of Japanese taste terms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554322
  10. Bachmanov, A., & Beauchamp, G. K. (2007). Taste receptor genes. Annual Review of Nutrition 27, 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.26.061505.111329.
  11. Bagli, M. (2017). Tastes we’ve lived by. Taste metaphors in English. In Annalisa Baicchi & Bagasheva, A. (Eds.), Figurative Language we live by: the cognitive underpinnings and mechanisms of figurativity in language. Textus, Issue XXX, Vol. 1, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.7370/87664.
  12. Bagli, M. (2021). Tastes we live by: The Linguistic conceptualization of taste in English. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630404.
  13. Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27588715_Metaphor_and_Metonymy_at_the_Crossroads_A_Cognitive_Perspective_Antonio_Barcelona_ed.>
  14. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from <https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers? ReferenceID=1331178.>
  15. Brillat-Savarin, J-A. (1949) [1825]. The physiology of taste, or meditations on transcendental gastronomy, translated by M. F. K. Fisher. New York: Heritage Press. Retrieved from <https://www.amazon.com/Physiology-Taste-Meditations-Transcendental-Gastronomy/dp/0307390373>
  16. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864
  17. Dehkhoda, A. (1931). Dehkhoda Dictionary. Tehran, Tehran University: Retrieved from <https://abadis.ir/dehkhoda</ [In Persian]
  18. Enfield, N. J. (2008). The anatomy of meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257255478_The_anatomy_of_meaning_Speech_gesture_and_composite_utterances.>
  19. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315864327.
  20. Geeraerts, D. (2000). Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. In Liliane Albertazzi (ed.), Meaning and cognition, (pp. 125–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.2.05gee.
  21. Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267.
  22. Grady, J. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts, H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188–214). USA: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from <https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-cognitive-linguistics-9780195143782?cc=us&lang=en&>
  23. Grice, P. (1975).  Logic and conversation. New York: New York Academic Press. Retrieved from <https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/studypacks/Grice-Logic.pdf.>
  24. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0014.
  25. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3613865.htm.>
  26. Kay, P. (2009). The world color survey. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Retrieved from <https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~kjameson/ECST/Kay_Cook_WorldColorSurvey.pdf.>
  27. Korsmeyer, C. (2002) [1999]. Making sense of taste: food and philosophy. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. Retrieved from <https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801488139/making-sense-of-taste/>
  28. Koushki, F., & Afrashi, A. (2020). Feeling the emotion of hatred, conceptual metonymies of the emotional concept of "hate": cognitive-neurobiological analysis. Scientific Journal of Language Research, 12(34), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.2205/jlr.2019.20974.1560 [In Persian]
  29. Kövecses, Z. (2010) [2002]. Metaphor: a practical introduction. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from <https://acikders.ankara.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/159239/mod_resource/content/1/the%20study%20of%20metaphor.pdf.>
  30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html.>
  31.  Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009.
  32. Levinson, S. C., & Asifa M. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language 29(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057.
  33.  Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620614.
  34. Moeen, m. (2003). A Persian Dictionary. Tehran: Zarin Publication. Retrieved from <https://www.abadis.ir/moeen/>
  35. Myers, C. S. (1904). The Taste-names of primitive peoples. British Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 117–126. Retrieved from <https://www.proquest.com/openview/8de59314bbb6db93e66e3da8e58eb235/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1818401.>
  36. Nayeb lui, F., Assi, M., Afrahi, A., & Ghayoomi, M., A. (2021). Study of the conceptual domain of the verb "listening" in Persian Language adopting the principles of FrameNet Network. Elme Zaban, 8(14), 195-223. https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2021.57628.1424 [In Persian]
  37. Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2.
  38. Rhee, S., & Koo H. J. (2017). Multifaceted gustation: systematicity and productivity of taste terms in Korean. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, 23(1), 38–65. https://doi.org/10.1075/term.23.1.02rhe.
  39. Rubin, E. (1936). Taste. British Journal of Psychology, 27, 74-85. Retrieved from <https://www.proquest.com/openview/cb4b2a577a6ed5f0c574fab94a8c6fd8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1818401>
  40. Rudolph, K. C. (2018). Introduction. In Rudolph, K. C.  (ed.), Taste and the Ancient Senses, (pp. 1–21). New York & London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315719245.
  41. Salahi, A., & Nabizadeh Ardebili, N. (2020). The conceptual metaphor of tastes in childish poetry. Journal of Language Cognition, 11 2(22), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.30465/LS.2021.6182. [In Persian]
  42.  Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis “. Retrieved from <http://encyclopedia.lochergnome.com/s/b/sapir-whorf-hypothesis>
  43. Schmid, H. J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
  44. Shepherd, G. M. (2011). Neurogastronomy: How the brain creates flavor and why it matters. New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from <https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neurogastronomy/9780231159104.>
  45. Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., Roque, S, L., & Majid, A. (eds.). (2019). Perception metaphors. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1712785
  46. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved from <https://monoskop.org/images/e/e6/Sperber_Dan_Wilson_Deirdre_Relevance_Communica_and_Cognition_2nd_edition_1996.pdf.>
  47. Steinbach-Eicke, E. (2019). Taste metaphors in Hieroglyphic Egyptian. In Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O’Meara, Lila San Roque & Asifa Majid (eds.), Perception Metaphors, (pp. 145–164). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.08ste.
  48. Taylor, J. R. 1995 [1989]. Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Retrieved from <https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=363946>
  49. Tyler, A, Vyvyan, E, (2003). The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517
  50. Warde, A. (2014). After taste: culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(3), 279-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540514547828
  51. Wierzbicka, A. (1990). The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 99–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.99.
  52. Winter, B. (2019). Synesthetic metaphors are neither synesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. Speed, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception Metaphor (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.06win.
  53. Zhong, Y., Dong, S & Huang, Ch., (2022) Bodily sensation and embodiment: A corpus-based study of gustatory vocabulary in Mandarin Chinese. The Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 196-230. https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2017.0102