Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi

封面

如何引用文章

详细

By displaying a certain fragment of reality in the linguistic consciousness of a person, socio-cognitive categories convey important information about the social structure of society, the lingua-cultural identity of its representatives and the values they share. This study focuses on kinship terms in the Syrian Arabic and Hindi languages. It is aimed at identifying similarity and the cultural specificity of kinship terms in two linguistic cultures and explaining the identified features through types of cultures and cultural values. The research is based on kinship terms that name consanguineal (blood) and affinal (non-blood) relatives in Arabic and Hindi. The material was collected through analysis of terms in dictionaries as well as anonymous questionnaires and observation. The collected material was systematized and analyzed using comparative, definitional, semantic and lingua-cultural methods. The results showed that both languages have a rich system of kinship terms, in which the line of kinship (paternal or maternal), the type of kinship (relatives by blood or through marriage), and age are recorded. They testify to the We-identity of the representatives of the cultures under consideration for whom family relations are of great value, and to the importance of determining the place of each member in society in the social system. The revealed features showed that age differences are more important in Indian society than in Syrian, although respect for elders is one of the most important values of both cultures. The results obtained once again confirm the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of language, which in turn provides new data for other areas of humanities.

作者简介

Neelakshi Suryanarayan

Delhi University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: nsuryanarayan@sfus.du.ac.in

Professor of Russian Language and Literature at the University of Delhi, Department of Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Studies. Her research interests include language, culture and cognition, intercultural communication, cross-cultural pragmatics, address forms in different cultural contexts.

North Campus, Delhi, 110007

Amr Khalil

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: 1042185145@pfur.ru

postgraduate student at Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. His research interests include language, culture and communication, intercultural communication, (im)politeness theory, identity and address forms.

10/12 Miklukho-Maklaya, Moscow, Russia, 117198

参考

  1. Ahn, Hyejeong. 2017. Seoul uncle: Cultural conceptualisations behind the use of address terms in Korean. Cultural Linguistics. 411-431. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_19
  2. Besemeres, Mary & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.). 2007. Translating lives: Living with two languages and cultures. Univ. of Queensland Press.
  3. Bogdanova, Ludmila. 2017. The reflection of evaluation and values in Russian language dictionaries. Russian Journal of Linguistics 21 (4). 729-748. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-4-729-748
  4. Bromhead, Helen & Zhengdao Ye (eds.). 2020. Meaning, Life and Culture: In Conversation with Anna Wierzbicka. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
  5. Ember, Carol R. & Melvin Ember. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 13th edn. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  6. Gaby, Alice. 2017. Kinship semantics: Culture in the lexicon. In Farzad Sharifian (ed.), Advances in cultural linguistics, 173-188. Singapore: Springer.
  7. Geng, Chunling. 2015. Comparison between Chinese address terms and English address Terms. Higher Education of Social Science 9. 1-4.
  8. Gladkova, Anna & Tatiana Larina. 2018a. Anna Wierzbicka, Words and The World. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (3). 499-520. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3-499-520
  9. Gladkova, Anna & Tatiana Larina. 2018b. Anna Wierzbicka, language, culture and communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (4). 717-748. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-4-717-748
  10. Godelier, Maurice. 2012. The metamorphoses of kinship. Verso Books.
  11. Hall, Edward. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Anchor.
  12. Holmes, Janet. 2013. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4th edn. Routledge.
  13. Hofstede, Geert H. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.
  14. Hofstede, Geert H. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Limited.
  15. Hughson, Jo-anne. 2009. Diversity and Changing Values in Address: Spanish Address Pronoun Usage in an Intercultural Immigrant Context. Peterlang: Frankfurt am Mein.
  16. Jones, Doug. 2010. Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5). 367-381. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000890
  17. Khalil, Amr & Tatiana Larina. 2018. Arabic forms of address: Sociolinguistic overview. The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, Vol. XXXIX - WUT 2018: Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects. Future Academy Publ. 229-309. doi: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.44
  18. Khalil, Amr, Tatiana Larina & Neelakshi Suryanarayan. 2018. Sociocultural competence in understanding forms of address: Case study of kinship terms in different cultural contexts. EDULEARN18 Proceedings. 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Palma de Mallorca. 3038-3045. doi: 10.21125/edulearn.2018.0799
  19. Kronenfeld, David. 2009. Fanti Kinship and the Analysis of Kinship Terminologies. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
  20. Larina, Tatiana & Vladimir Ozyumenko. 2016. Ethnic identity in language and communication. Cuadernos de Rusística Española 12. 57-68.
  21. Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir Ozyumenko & Svetlana Kurteš. 2017. I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13 (1). 195-215.
  22. Larina, Tatiana & Neelakshi Suryanarayan. 2013. Madam or aunty ji: Address forms in British and Indian English as a reflection of culture and cognition. In Monika Reif, Justina A. Robinson & Martin Putz (eds.), Variation in Language and Language Use, 190-217. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
  23. Larina, Tatiana. 2015. Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics 7 (5). Special issue: Communicative Styles and Genres. 195-215.
  24. Larina, Tatiana, Neelakshi Suryanarayan & Julia Yuryeva. 2019. Socio-cultural context, address forms and communicative styles: A case study of British and Indian Englishes. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie 18 (3). 39-51.
  25. Leech, Geoffrey & Tatiana Larina. 2014. Politeness: West and East. Russian Journal of Linguistics (4). 9-34.
  26. Lewis, Richard D. 2019. The cultural imperative: Global trends in the 21st century. Training, Language and Culture 3 (3). 8-20. doi: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.3.1
  27. Malone, Martin. 2004. Structure and Affect: The Influence of Social Structure on Affective Meaning in American Kinship. Social Psychology Quarterly 67. 203-216.
  28. Mehrotra, Raja R. 1985. Sociolinguistics in Hindi context. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company. 39-79.
  29. Passmore, Sam & Fiona M. Jordan. 2020. No universals in the cultural evolution of kinship terminology. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2. 1-23. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2020.41
  30. Rácz, Peter, Sam Passmore & Fonia M. Jordan. 2020. Social practice and shared history, not social scale, structure cross-cultural complexity in kinship systems. Topics in Cognitive Science 12 (2). 744-765. doi: 10.1111/tops.12430
  31. Sharifian, Farzad. 2017. Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualizations and Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  32. Smakman, Dick. 2019. Cultural bias and Sociolinguistics. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (1). 9-22. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-9-22
  33. Stone, Linda. 2014. Kinship and Gender. 4th edn. Westview Press.
  34. Suryanarayan, Neelakshi & Larina Tatiana. 2012. English and Hindi address forms in a bilingual context. Cognitive Psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, Cognition and Communication: 35-th International LAUD Symposium. LAUD Linguistic Agency, University of Duisburg - Essen, Germany. 199-220.
  35. Trask, Robert Lawrence. 2007. Language and linguistics: The key concepts. Taylor & Francis.
  36. Triandis, Harry C. & Michele J. Gelfand. 2012. A theory of individualism and collectivism. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, 498-520. Sage Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446249222.n51
  37. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford University Press.
  38. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. Lexical universals of kinship and social cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33. 403-404. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10001433
  39. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2013. Kinship and social cognition in Australian languages: Kayardild and Pitjantjatjara. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33. 302-321. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2013. 846458
  40. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2016. Back to “Mother” and “Father”: Overcoming the Eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight lexical universals. Current Anthropology 57. 408-429. doi: 10.1086/687360
  41. Yoon, Kyung-Joo. 2007. My experience of living in a different culture: The life of a Korean migrant in Australia. In Besemeres, Mary & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Translating lives: Living with two languages and cultures, 114-127. Univ. of Queensland Press.

版权所有 © Suryanarayan N., Khalil A., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##