Language Studies

Language Studies

Ecological Approach in Linguistic Researches

Document Type : Research original ,Regular Article

Authors
Fariba Ghatreh 1
Hamideh Poshtvan 2
Mahnaz Talebi-Datenaei 3
1 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Al-Zahra University
2 Masters of Linguistics, Al-Zahra University
3 Corresponding Author: PhD Candidate of Linguistics, Al-Zahra University
.
Abstract
Linguistic diversity, across socio-natural environments, reflects similarities and differences in ethnic groups’ views towards natural ecological phenomena. This diversity is driven by needs, cognition, culture, human-related and environmental factors. Lexicon, categorization, and classification in any given language, act differently with regard to interaction with ecology. Ecolinguistics emerged in 1990s as a new approach in language studies, which focuses on the interrelationship between a given language, and its users’ geographical and natural environment. This paper, aims to introduce Eco-linguistics, as well as its potentials in dialect-related research, highlighting the impact of natural environment on lexical, morphological, and syntactic differences among languages and dialects. The current paper, studies the relationship between Eco-linguistics approach, and Gilani and Semnani dialects from two different ecologies. The results reveal that, in the authors’ beliefs, this new approach can explain why the means of naming concepts and phenomena vary in dialects, how metaphors develop, and why regional–and local-dialects sometimes differ incredibly in terms of their lexicon and morpho-syntax. The answers eco-linguistics provides to these questions appear reasonable to a considerable extent.
Keywords
eco-linguistics
natural environment
regional dialect
cognition
Eco-morphology
احمدی‌‌پور، طاهره (1390). «درآمدی بر زبان‌‌شناسی زیست‌‌محیطی»، فصل‌نامة انسان و محیط زیست، ش ۲٨.
جواهری، محمدحسن و پرویز پژوم‌شریعتی (1387). واژه‌نامة گویش باستانی سمنانی، سمنان: آبرخ.
ستوده، منوچهر (١٣٤٢). فرهنگ سمنانی، سرخه‌ای، لاسگردی، سنگسری، شهمیرزادی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
قطره، فریبا و مهناز طالبی (١٣٩٠). «صرف‌شناختی و گسترة آن»، مجموعه مقالات سومین هم‌‌اندیشی صرف، انجمن زبان‌‌شناسی ایران.
مقدسی، علی‌محمد (1384). سامانه‌های صرفی و نحوی در گویش سمنانی، سمنان: آبرخ.
 
Al- Haq. A and A. El- Sharif (2008) “A Comparative study for the metaphors use in happiness and anger in English and Arabic”, In US- China Foreign Language 6/11.
Bundsgaard, J., Sune Steffensen (2002). The Dialectics of Ecological Morghology, Colourful Green Ideas: Papers from the Conference 30 Years of Language and Ecology (Graz, 2000) and the Symposium Sprache und Okologie (Passau, 2001).
Derni, A. (2008). “The Ecolinguistic paradigm: An Integrationist Trend in Language Study”, The International Journal of Language and Culture. Issue 24.
Diaz Fouces, O. (2010). “Ecolinguistic Planning and Language-Exchange Management”, MonTI, Traslated by Robert Neal Baxter.
Lupyan, G. and Rick Dale (2010). “Language Structure is Partly Determined by Social Structure”, PLOS One, Volume 5, Issue 1.
Haller, K. M. (2006). “Dialectal Variation in the United States”, Mind Matters: The Wesleyan Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1.
Muhlhausler, P. (2003). Language of Environment and Environment of Language, A course in Ecolinguistics, Battle Bridge Publication.
Nettle, D. (1998). “Explaining Global Patterns of Language Diversity”, Journal of Anthropological Archeology, 17.
Sapir, E. (1912). “Language and Environment”, Americam Anthropologist.
Steffensen, S. (2007). “Language, Ecology and Society: An introduction to Dialectical Linguistics”, in: Bang and Døør, Language, Ecology and Society, A Dialectical Approach.
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Blackwell publishing.
Whorf, B. (1956). “Language Thought and Reality”, selected writing, ed. by Carrol, Cambridge.

  • Receive Date 06 May 2015
  • Revise Date 09 June 2015
  • Accept Date 19 June 2015