An Eco-linguistic Study on Plants (A Case Study on Plant Entries in Farhang-e Bozorg-e Sokhan)
محورهای موضوعی : Environmental policy and management
ابراهیم عزتی
1
(بخش زبانشناسی وزبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران)
بهاره قلی نژاد پیربازاری
2
(بخش زبانشناسی وزبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران)
کلید واژه: plants, dictionaries, entries, Eco-linguistics, Farahng-e Bozorg-e Sokhan,
چکیده مقاله :
Eco-linguistics concerns linguistic expressions that can improve the way human beings deal with their ecosystem. To reiterate, the connection between human language and the environment in which he lives has been a matter of curiosity for years. However, there has remained a question of whether it is nature including the ecosystem in a particular area that has effects on human language or vice versa. The next question which springs into mind would be the quality of the mentioned correlated link (i.e. language and nature) not to mention how these two sides can influence each other. Regarding the effects of language on human attitudes, and dictionaries as a main source of culture, the current study has selected all entries related to plants listed in “Farahng-e Bozorg-e Sokhan”. Based on studying 75,000 main entries, 1,312 entries related to plants have been extracted. Then, they were categorized based on botanical definitions as well as the parts of their body such as “wood, trunk”, “flower, blossom”, “fruit, nut”, “kernel, seed”, “nectar, syrup”, “leaf, vegetable” and “powder, or pollen”. After that, all entries’ usages as mentioned in the dictionary whether being beneficial for humans in the form of “food”, “medicine”, “industrial and decorative use” or being detrimental to humans in the arrangement of “drug, poison, and weed or wild plant” were analyzed according to an eco-linguistic perspective. On the basis of findings, 82 percent of definitions were positively or negatively humanized, while less than 18 percent were neutral in which plants were regarded as independent entities regardless of human benefits. On account of the tangible data in the findings of the study, it seems to be fair to say that human beings directed their attitude towards plants mostly for their own benefits and usages, the notion which was introduced conspicuously in the definitions of plants.
پژوهش حاضر با نظر به اهمّیت حفظ زیست‌بوم، و با توجّه به تأثیر «زبان» و نقش آن درشکل‌دهی رفتارهای انسانی درتعامل با محیط پیرامون خود، باانتخاب فرهنگ‌نامه‌ها به عنوان یکی ازمنابع مهم مؤثّر بر شناخت و فرهنگ بشری، به تحلیل تعاریف ارائه شده در هشت جلد فرهنگ‌نامه «کتاب بزرگ سخن» به کوشش حسن انوری پرداخته و با استخراج تمام مداخل مرتبط با حوزۀ مفهومی گیاهان از این مجموعه، تعاریف ارائه شده در ذیل این مداخل را براساس ملاک‌های چندگانۀ کمّی و کیفی و در چهارچوب نقد زیست‌بوم‌گرا مورد تحلیل قرارداده است. بامطالعه و بررسی تعداد 75000 مدخل این فرهنگ‌نامه، تعداد 1312 مدخل مرتبط باحوزۀ مفهومی گیاهان استخراج شده، و تعاریف ارائه شده براساس طبقه‌بندی زیست گیاهی در سه دستۀ «درخت، درختچه، بوته» و «گیاه، علفی» به عنوان گیاهان آونددار ازسویی، و «خزه، جلبک، سرخس» به عنوان گیاهان غیرآونددار ازسوی دیگرطبقه‌بندی شدند. سپس هر مدخل براساس اجزاء مورد توجّه در ارائۀ تعریف درهفت طبقه 1-«چوب/ تنه/ ساقه/ پوست»، 2-«گل/ شکوفه»، 3-«میوه/ مغز»، 4-«هسته/ دانه/بذر/روغن»، 5-«صمغ/ شیره/ شهد»، 6-«شاخه/ برگ/ سبزی»و 7-«پودر/ گرد/ پرز/ کرک/ الیاف» تحلیل شده و درنهایت براساس ملاک‌های زبانشناسی زیست‌بوم‌گرا، هر یک تعاریف براساس ملاک‌های انسان‌گرایانه‌ای مانندکاربرد «دارویی/ درمانی»، «خوراکی/ ادویه»، «تجاری/علوفه دام/ صنعتی»، «زینتی/معطر»، «مخدّر/سمّی/علف هرز»، «پرورشی یا خودرو/وحشی/جنگلی» و «بسط ویژگی‌های انسانی» تحلیل گردیدند. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل کمّی و کیفی مداخل مرتبط با حوزۀ مفهومی گیاهان در این پژوهش، نشان‌دهندۀ آن است که از مجموع مداخل مورد بررسی، بیش از 82 درصد نمونه‌ها، بر اساس نگاه انسان‌مدارانه، مفهوم‌سازی گشته‌اند.
Afshar, T. & Abdi-Boloukani, M. (2020). Analysis of human-nature interaction in the Persian proverbs: An eco-linguistics Perspective. Language Researches, 5(10), 45-69.
Anvari, Hasan. (2002). Farahng-e Bozorg-e Sokhan. Tehran: Sokhan.
Bahodirovna, B. G. (2021, June). Anthropocentric Dictionaries and Problems of Classification. In “Online Conferences" Platform (pp. 59-61).
Boycheva, P., Ivanov, D., & Yaneva, G. (2021). Application of medicinal plants for decorative purposes by the local population on the North Black Sea coast (Bulgaria). Acta Scientifica Naturalis, 8(2), 28-43.
Brown, Michael H. (2017). Nonhuman animals and the relative pronoun 'who' in English learner's dictionaries and graded readers. Languages & Ecology, 9(2), 43-59.
Fortuna, P., Wróblewski, Z., & Gorbaniuk, O. (2021). The structure and correlates of anthropocentrism as a psychological construct. Current Psychology, p(1-13). DOI:10.1007/s12144-021-01835-z
Franco, K., Piringer, B., & Wandl-Vogt, E. (2017). A case-study on lexical variation in plant names using interlinked digitized dialect dictionaries. In Action meeting ENeL (European Network of e-Lexicography) (pp. 1-4). Sn; Sl.
Franco, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2019). 1. Botany meets lexicology: The relationship between experiential salience and lexical diversity. In Dimensions of Diffusion and Diversity (pp. 115-148). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110610895-005
Ghatreh, Fariba; Poshtvan, Hamideh; Talebi Dastnaee, Mahnaz. (2015). Ecological approach in linguistic researches. Language Studies, 6(1), 231-243.
Ghiasian, Marayamossadat and Shirini, Akbar. (2016). An eco-linguistic approach to anthropocentrism in defining animals in Moin Persian dictionary. Researches in Linguistics, 8(1), 53-70.
Ghorbanpour, Amir (2021). Book review, Arran Stibbe, Eco-linguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By (2nd ed.). International Eco-linguistics Association, 4(1), 18-25.
Haugen, E (2001). The ecology of language. In Fill, A. & Muhlhausler, P. (Ed), The Eco-linguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment, 57' 66. London: Continuum.
Heuberger, R. (2003). Anthropocentrism in monolingual English dictionaries: An Eco linguistic approach to the lexicographic treatment of faunal terminology. AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 93-105.
Heuberger, R. (2007). Language and ideology. A brief survey of anthropocentrism and speciesism in English. In Fill, A., Penz, H. (Eds.), Sustaining Language, 105-124.
Heuberger, R. (2017). Overcoming anthropocentrism with anthropomorphic and physio-centric uses of language. In The Routledge handbook of eco-linguistics (pp. 342-354). London: Routledge.
Huang, Guowen and Zhao, Ruihua (2021). Harmonious discourse analysis: approaching peoples’ problems in a Chinese context. Language Sciences. 85 (2), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101365
Indriyanto, K. (2021). An Eco linguistics analysis of the wind Gourd of La’amaomao. International Journal of Humanity Studies, 5(1), 97-108.
Liu, X., Lyu, J., & Zheng, D. (2021). For a better dictionary: Revisiting eco-lexicography as a new paradigm. Lexikos, 31, 283-321.
Mohammadi, M. R., & Abdaltajedini, N. (2013). Survey of Russian Loanwords in Persian Language: Case Study on Farhang–e Bozorg-e Sokhan. Language Related Research, 4(3), 155-178.
Nigmatova, L. K. (2021). Language and cultural issues in Uzbek vocabulary. Scientific Reports of Bukhara State University, 5(1), 30-49.
Rakei, Fatemeh and Naeimi Hashkavaee, Fatemeh. (2016). Metaphor and Ecocriticism: Case Study on Two Stories "Gilemard" and "Az Khame Chambar". Language Studies, 7(1), 89-103.
Roccia, Mariana (2020). Changing lives and professional practice: A report on the impact of Eco-linguistics. International Eco-linguistics Association.
Rosenfeld, Cynthia (2019). From Prometheus to Gaea: A case for Earth-centered language. Journal of Language & Ecology, 8(11), 112-133.
Samudro, H., & Mangkoedihardjo, S. (2021). Indoor phytoremediation using decorative plants: An overview of application principles. Journal of Phytology, 13(6), 28-32.
Sapir. E. (1912). Language and Environment. New York: Wiley. https://www.jstor.org/stable/659930.
Shaghaghi, Vida. (2007). Principles of Morphology. Tehran: SAMT.
Simotwo, Prisca C. (2019). An Analysis of Linguistic Choices in Kalenjin Narratives Relating to Protection of Animals. International Eco-linguistics Association24.
Şimşek, Ö. (2020). Lexicographic Decision Rule. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Sishchuk, J. M., Gerasimova, I. G., & Goncharova, M. (2019). Anthropocentric world picture in German and English geological and mining metaphoric terms. In Innovation-Based Development of the Mineral Resources Sector: Challenges and Prospects-11th conference of the Russian-German Raw Materials (pp. 555-560).
Stibbe, Arran (2014). Approach to Critical Discourse Studies. 117-128.
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by.
Von Verschuer, F. (2021). Making post/anthropocentric futures in agrobiodiversity conservation. Nature and Culture, 16(1), 47-64.
Wang, S., & Caldwell, C. D. (2020). Agriculture and Its Anthropocentric Sciences. In Introduction to Agroecology (pp. 3-17). Singapore: Springer.
Wang, W. W., Gorsuch, J. W., & Hughes, J. S. (Eds.). (2020). Plants for environmental studies. Florida: CRC Press.
Wei, R. (2020). The Routledge handbook of eco-linguistics. Southern African linguistics and applied language studies, 38(3), 265-267. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2020.1828955
Wenjuan, Zhou (2017). Eco-linguistics: Towards a new harmony, Language Sciences. 62:124-138. DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2017.04.004.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language Thought and Reality, selected writing. Ed. By Carrol, Cambridge.
Winick, C. (2021). Dictionary of Anthropology Lanham-Seabrook: Rowman & Littlefield.
Zhang, L., Huang, G., Li, Y., & Bao, S. (2021). The application of landsenses ecology in language carriers. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1-8.
Zhang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2021). Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and the Stories We Live By by Arran Stibbe, London and New York, Routledge, 2021, XII+ 247 pp.,£ 27.99 (pbk), ISBN: 978-0-367-42841-9 (pbk).
