An Image-Schematic View to Guilaki Proverbs in the Domain of Food and Its Related Concepts

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Proverbs are fixed sentential expressions that express the well-known truth, social norms or moral concerns of a specific culture. Therefore, they have a linguistic-cultural aspect and are transmitted through generations and applied to various states of affairs in the world. Since most proverbial expressions are metaphorical in nature which rooted in bodily experiments, the present paper offers an image-schematic view to Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts. It takes up the twin task of distinguishing the image schemas in Guilaki proverbs and of defining their domain of semantic usages. The proverbs of this qualitative research have been collected in a library research method and analyzed based on Johnson’s (1987) opinions. The findings of the research reveal that the path, control and spatial schemas are used in Guilaki proverbs. They also showed that the desirable cultural concepts like kindness, hospitality and faithfulness are simultaneously applied alongside undesirable ones such as corruption, betray and ungratefulness. 
 
1. Introduction
Proverbs form the gist of what cultures consider of real concern to them, presenting cultural desirables and undesirables, all of which betray the cultural models a culture lives by. Therefore, they have a linguistic-cultural aspect and are transmitted through generations and applied to various states of affairs in the world.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
“The notion of image schema is rooted in gestalt psychology (e.g., à la Arnheim) and the phenomenology of the body (à la   Merleau-Ponty); it was developed by Mark Johnson from the early 1980s into linguistics” (Kimmel, 2008, 159). In Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, human being is an embodied subject. In Linguistics, embodiment refers to the ways person’s bodies and bodily interactions with the world shape their minds, actions, and personal, cultural identities. Embodied accounts of mind and language embrace the idea that human symbols are grounded in recurring patterns of bodily experience. The study of embodiment demands recognition that thought and language arise from the continuous dynamic interaction between brains, bodies, and the world. Cognitive linguistic research has long embraced the idea that “our construal of reality is likely to be mediated in large measure by the nature of our bodies” (Evans and Green, 2006:2). Lakoff and Johnson (1991) suggested that there are three levels of embodiment which together shape the embodied mind. Neural embodiment concerns the structures that characterize concepts and cognitive operations at the neurophysiological level. The cognitive unconscious consists of the rapid, evolutionary given mental operations that structure and make possible conscious experience, including the understanding and the use of language. The phenomenological level is conscious and accessible to the consciousness and consists of our awareness of our own mental states, our bodies, our environment, and our physical and social interactions (Johnson, 1999: Gibbs, 2017: 451). Many cognitive scientists agree that an embodied understanding of mind and language require attention to all three levels of embodiment, and most importantly, the interactions to all three levels of embodiment, and most importantly, the interaction between them.
 
3. Methodology
Adapting the image-schematic view to Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts, the present article tries to achieve the following two goals. First, distinguishing the image-schemas found in Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts; second, defining the scope of their semantic usage. Specifically, it tries to answer these two questions complies with the previously mentioned goals: first, which kinds of control, spatial and motion schemas are there in Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts; and second, which target domains does this source domain refer to. Referring to the specific goal of the research -description and analysis of image-schemas found in Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts- the present qualitative research is categorized as fundamental studies. The broad framework of the research is cognitive linguistics and the narrow one is dialectology. The geographical research area is limited to Rasht. Data have been collected and selected in a library research method from The Missing Guilaki Proverbs (Jadakafte Gaban) by Moradiyan Garrosi (2007) and Guialki Proverbs and Expressions (Masalha va Estelahat e Guilaki) by Fakhrayi (2015). To be doubly sure of the use of proverbs in Rasht, beside the writer’s intuition as a native speaker, some interviews were carried out with aware speakers. Overall, it was known that 41 Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts are used. However, regarding the purpose of the research, those proverbs directly related to the concept of image schemas were analyzed. This reduced the sample size of the study to twenty proverbs. The data were analyzed by descriptive-analytic method based on Johnson’s Image Scheme Theory (1987).
 
4. Result and Discussion
The analysis of Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts indicates the existence of three types of control, spatial and motion schemas with a frequency of 35%, 20% and 45% in this dialect, respectively. This finding is different from the results of Sheykh Sang Tajan (2017) since it showed the increasing frequency in the occurrence of containment, power and motion schemas. In addition, no example of power example was found in studied Guilaki proverbs. The findings of the study indicate that in Guilaki proverbs in the domain of food and its related concepts, the moral cultural values of kindness, hospitality and having belief are used along with the reprehensible acts of   destruction, betrayal and ingratitude. That is, like pleasant and unpleasant taste, the figurative meanings they refer to are both positive and negative. This finding confirms the view of Lawal et al. (1999).
 
5. Conclusion and suggestion
It is important to study the image schemas hidden in the proverbs of different ethnic groups since these linguistic utterances reflect the modes of thinking and the strategies each culture and society used to formed its attitudes. Proverbs as a part of intellectual and cultural tradition of a society can be estimated by image schemas as the origin of conceptual metaphor, since both have common roots in general human experiences. The hallmark of a genuinely socio-cultural perspective on image schemas must be its ability to account for their variation both across cultures and it situated cognition. The experiences of Guilanian embodiment in a fertile environment and being witness of generosity of the nature leads to the formation of image schemas referring to positive cultural senses. Investigating image schemas from this brand-new dimension, is a step opening an avenue to augmented descriptions of them. Since such apparently trivial details express the ethnic diversities, the researcher considers such study worth noticing. That is, image schemas propose mechanism for communities to assert their ethnic identities.  
 
Select Bibliography
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. 2017. “Embodiment”. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 449-462), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honeck, R.P. & Temple, J. G. 1994. “Proverbs: The Extended Conceptual Base and Great Chain Metaphor Theories”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(9): 85-112.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, M. 1989. “Image schematic bases of meaning”. Semiotic Inquiry, 9: 109-118.
Kimmel, M. 2009. “Analyzing image schemas in literature”. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(9): 159-188.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books. 
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lawal, A., Ajayi, B. & Raji. W. 1997. “A pragmatic study of selected pairs of Yoruba proverbs”. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(27):635-652.
Rezayi, M. & Moghimi, N. 2014. Study of the Conceptual Metaphor in Persian Proverbs. Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies, 4 (8): 91- 116. [in Persian]
Sheykh Sang Tajan, Sh. 2018. The Study of Image Schemas in Taleshi’s Proverb’s Bades on Cognitive Semantics. Language Studies, 8(16): 103-113. [in Persian]

Keywords

Main Subjects


ابراهیمی، ب؛ عامری، ح و ابوالحسنی چیمه، ز. 1397. «استعاره­های مفهومی عشق در آینة ضرب‌المثل­های فارسی، انگلیسی و ترکی»، فرهنگ و ادبیات عامه، 20(6): 23-47.
استرنبرگ، ر. 1392. روان­شناسی شناختی، ترجمة س. ک. خرازی و ا. حجازی، تهران: سمت و پژوهشکدة علوم شناختی.
اوانز، و. و گرین، م. 1398. الف-ب. زبان‌شناسی شناختی، ترجمة ج. میرزابیگی، تهران: آگاه.
اونگرر، ف. و اشمیت، ه. ی. 1397. ­مقدمه­ای بر زبان­شناسی شناختی، ترجمة ج. میرزابیگی. تهران: آگاه. 
بهمنیار، ا. 1398. داستان­نامة بهمنیاری، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
پاک­نژاد، م.؛ ویسی، ا. و نقی­زاده، م. 1396. «بررسی طرح­واره­های موجود در ضرب­المثل­های شمال خوزستان در گویش دزفولی». زبان­پژوهی، (24): 111-138.
رضائی، م. مقیمی، ن. 1392. «استعاره­های مفهومی در ضرب­المثل­های فارسی». مطالعات زبانی و بلاغی، (8): 91-116.
روشن، ب؛ یوسفی­راد، ف. و شعبانیان، ف. 1392. «مبنای طرح­واره­ای استعاره­های موجود در ضرب‌المثل­های شرق گیلان». زبان­شناخت، (92): 75-94.
شیخ سنگ­تجن، ش. 1396. «بررسی طرح‌واره‌های تصوری در ضرب‌المثل‌‌های گویش تالشی در چهارچوب معنی‌شناسی شناختی». زبان‌شناخت، 2(8):  103-113.  
شیخ سنگ­تجن، ش. و فرد خاقانی، ف. 1396. «بررسی طرح‌واره‌های تصوری در ضرب‌المثل‌های گویش غرب گیلان». در مجموعه مقالات دوازدهمین گردهمایی انجمن ترویج زبان و ادب فارسی: 5863-5881.
عباسی، ز. 1397. «تلاقی زبان­شناسی شناختی و پارمیولوژی: جهانی بودن و تنوع در تفسیر ضرب‌المثل­های زبان­های مختلف». دوماهنامة­ فرهنگ و ادبیات عامه، 23(6):  27-60.
فخرایی، ا. 1394. مَثَل­ها و اصطلاحات گیلکی، بازخوانی و ویرایش ر. صفری، رشت: فرهنگ ایلیا.
فضائلی، س.م. و شریفی، ش. 1392. «بررسی طرح­واره­های قدرتی در برخی از ضرب­المثل­های زبان فارسی». زبان­شناسی و گویش­های خراسان دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، 8(5): 131-144.
گلشائی، ر.؛ موسوی، ف. و حق­بین، ف. 1398. «تحلیلی شناختی از استعاره­های مفهومی و طرح‌واره‌های تصوری در ضرب­المثل­های ترکی آذری». مطالعات زبان­ها و گویش­های غرب ایران، 29(8): 81-101.
مرادیان گروسی، ع. 1386. جادَکَفته گَبان (مَثَل گیلکی)، رشت: گیله­مرد.
Al-Krenawi, A. 2000. “Bedouin-Arab Clients’ Use of Proverbs in the Therapeutic Setting”. International Journal of the Advancement of Counselling, 2(22): 91-102.  
Brown, W. P. 2004. “The Didactic Power of Metaphor in the Aphoristic Sayings of Proverbs”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2(29): 133-154.
Cienki, A. 1997. “Some Properties and Groupings of Image Schemas”. In Marjolijn. Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee, and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning (pp.3-15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clausner, T.C. & Croft, W. 1999. “Domains and image schemas”. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(10): 1-37.
D'Andrade, R. 1981. “The cultural part of cognition”. Cognitive Science, 5(3): 179-195.
Evans, V. & Green, M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. 2001. “Proverbial themes we live by”. Poetics, 3(29): 167:188.
Gibbs, R.W. 2002. “A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated”. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(34): 457-486.
Gibbs, R.W. 2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. 2017. “Embodiment”. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 449-462), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J.E. 2007. “Metaphor”. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 88-213), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts (Volume III) (pp. 41-58), New York/ London: Academic Press.
Haas, H. A. 2002. “Extending the Search for Folk Personality Constructs: The Dimensionality of the Personality-relevant Proverb domain”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(82): 594-609.
Hampe, B. 2005. “Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction”. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning (Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 29: 1-12), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Honeck, R.P. & Temple, J. G. 1994. “Proverbs: The Extended Conceptual Base and Great Chain Metaphor Theories”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(9): 85-112.
Honeck, R.P. & Temple, J. G. 1999. “Proverb comprehension: the primacy of literal meaning”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1(28): 41–70.
Honeck, R.P. & Weldge, J. 1997. “Creation of proverbial wisdom in the laboratory”. Journal of Psychological Research, 6(26): 605-629. 
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Johnson, M. 1989. “Image schematic bases of meaning”. Semiotic Inquiry, 9: 109-118.
Katz, A. N. 1999. “Proverb in mind” (Book Review). Metaphors & Symbols, 1(14): 71-75.
Kimmel, M. 2005. “Culture Regained: Situated and Compound Image Schemas”. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning (Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics) (pp. 285- 312), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kimmel, M. 2009. “Analyzing image schemas in literature”. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(9): 159-188.
Kovecses, Z. 2010. “Metaphor: A Practical Introduction”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind, Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books. 
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Theoretical Prerequisites) (Volume I), Stanford: Stanford University Press.  
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lawal, A., Ajayi, B. & Raji. W. 1997. “A pragmatic study of selected pairs of Yoruba proverbs”. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(27):635-652.
Merleau-Ponty, M. 2002, The Visible and The Invisible. C. Lefort (Ed.), Translated by Alphonso Lingi. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Moreno, A. I. 2005. “An Analysis of the Cognitive Dimension of Proverbs in English and Spanish: The Conceptual Power of Language Reflecting Popular Believes”. Theoretical Linguistics, 2 (1): 42-54.
Oakley, T. 2007. “Image Schemas”. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214-235), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Özbal, G., Strapparava, C. & Tekiroglu, S. S. 2016. “PROMETHEUS: A corpus of proverbs annotated with metaphors”. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Pantarić, A. P. & Škifić, S. 2016. “Changes of Proverbs in Form and Meaning: The Case of Croatian ‘Odjeća ne čini čovjeka čovjekom (Clothes Do Not Make the Man)”. Folklor, 2(127): 210-228.
Talmy, L. 1988. “Force and dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Sciences”, 1(12): 49-100.
Temple, J. G. & Honeck, R. P. 1999. “Proverbs comprehension: The primacy of literal meaning”, Journal of Psychological Research, 1(28): 41-70.
Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science, Princeton:  Princeton University Press.
Turner, M. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M. 2000. Death Is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism, New Zealand: Cybereditions.
Zlatev, J. 2005. “What’s in a Schema? Bodily Mimesis and the Grounding of Language”. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning (Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics) (Vol. 29, pp. 313-342), Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.