Reza Pishghadam; Aida Firooziyan Pour Esfahani; Ailin Firooziyan Pour Esfahani
Abstract
Considering the salient role of vocabularies in reflecting the cultural beliefs of a given society, the present study aims at examining the discursive functions of “death” and the related terms in the Persian language corpus, using Hymes's (1967) SPEAKING model. The reason we have chosen ...
Read More
Considering the salient role of vocabularies in reflecting the cultural beliefs of a given society, the present study aims at examining the discursive functions of “death” and the related terms in the Persian language corpus, using Hymes's (1967) SPEAKING model. The reason we have chosen such concept is that not only can it vividly illustrate the existing cultural beliefs of a society, but also it can be examined from social and linguistic points of view. To this end, 673 contexts in which the death-related discourses have been used were recorded, and after analyzing the data based on the SPEAKING model, the social aspects of the discursive functions were extracted. The results revealed that the intention behind using death and its related terms among Persian speakers of Iran is rooted in the prevalence of morbid thoughts, death-seeking, necrolatry, love of sadness, and cherophobia.
Reza Pishghadam; Aida Firooziyan Pour Esfahani; Sahar Tabatabaee Farani
Abstract
Considering the new concept of emotioncy (emotion+frequency), the present study intends to examine the lingua-cultural concept of [nāz] in Persian language using Hymes’(1967) SPEAKING model. The outcomes of this study revealed that the concept of [nāz] has been mostly prevalent inthe collective ...
Read More
Considering the new concept of emotioncy (emotion+frequency), the present study intends to examine the lingua-cultural concept of [nāz] in Persian language using Hymes’(1967) SPEAKING model. The outcomes of this study revealed that the concept of [nāz] has been mostly prevalent inthe collective culture of Iran, and the expressions related to [nāz] are even more widely used in comparison to the past. The high frequency and variety of this lingua-cultural concept is due to fact that Iranians have mostly positive and mixed emotions toward this concept, and as a result, their level of emotioncy toward [nāz] is higher (Inner-emo and Arch-emo).Overall, the results suggest that this lingua-cultural element is more commonly used in informal situations with participants of equal or unequal power relationships. It was also concluded that the main aim behind the use of this lingua-cultural item is to use it as a politeness strategy. Considering the oral mode of language, the tones that are accompanied with [nāz] are usually begging, admiring, offensive, and sardonic.
Reza Pishghadam; Aida Firooziyan Pour Esfahani
Abstract
Considering the Hymes’ SPEAKING model (1967), the current qualitative research examines the use of the expression "I don't know" (/nemidānam/) in Persian language to come up with its different discourse functions. To achieve this goal, 450 natural contexts in which this linguistic sample was used, ...
Read More
Considering the Hymes’ SPEAKING model (1967), the current qualitative research examines the use of the expression "I don't know" (/nemidānam/) in Persian language to come up with its different discourse functions. To achieve this goal, 450 natural contexts in which this linguistic sample was used, were recorded, transcribed, and later analyzed. Therefore, the required data was collected purposefully from the natural context through observation. Hymes' model was then applied, and finally the uses of this label were sociologically investigated. The hidden motivation behind the use of ‘I don’t know’ in Persian language in the condition that the speaker has the demanded information is to consider the principles of politeness and to save the face of the addressee. Based on the findings of the research, different functions of ‘I don't know’ in Persian can be classified under five broad categories of ‘Minimizing face-threatening acts’, ‘Avoiding explicit disagreement’, ‘Marking uncertainty’, ‘Displaying indirectness’ and ‘Avoiding commitment’.
