Investigating and Analyzing The Application of Image Schemas in The Blinds From Cognitive Perspective

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
E. Esmailpour 1
M. Dehghan 2
E. Badakhshan 3
1 PhD Student in Linguistics, Kermanshah Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
2 assistant professor in Linguistics, faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
3 Associate professor in Linguistics, University of Kurdistan
Abstract
Introduction: In cognitive linguistics, the study of linguistic meaning is not the aim by itself. Instead in this field of linguistics, the focus is on understanding the nature of conceptual system of human's mind. Noting that image schema due to its importance in understanding of abstract concepts are an important category in linguistic studies. This paper studies the embodied patterns of image schemas in the absolute congenital blind compared with their counterparts based on Johnson's embodied cognition theory (1987) in cognitive semantics.

Method: The methodology of this quantitative research is comparative between two groups of blind and non-blinds. Thus, 48 male and female blinds and non-blinds with diploma and graduate education aged 18- 28 years, due to the study of such variables as gender, education and age, were evaluated, and they were asked to describe 30 selected words based on Ricci Bitty and Poggi's procedures (1991), then their image schemas were investigated.

Results and Findings: The results showed that the blinds, due to lack of vision, use more lexical descriptions and more image schema than their counterparts, in a way, graduate female blinds were reported as the most frequent users of image schema. The statistics also prove that the path and cycle schema, among different types of schema proposed by Johnson (1987), have the most and the least amount of usage in both groups respectively. Also, the study showed that age, gender, education variables as influential factors had no effect on understanding blind people and their counterparts from the image schema.


Keywords

Subjects

بدخشان، ابراهیم و خاطره صیفوری (۱۳۹۵).شناخت طرح‌واره‌های ذهنی در نابینایان و لزوم تقویت آن در آموزش افراد بینا، مجموعه مقالات هشتمین همایش زبانشناسی ایران (جلد اول)، تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، چاپ اول.
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1383). زبا‌ن‌شناسی نظری، پیدایش و تکوین دستور زایشی. تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).
رحمانی پرهیزکار، زهرا، ارسلان گلفام و آزیتا افراشی (1393). بررسی طرح‌واره‌های وجهیت در زبان فارسی با رویکرد شناختی، فصلنامه مطالعات زبان و گویش‌های غرب ایران. سال اول، شمارۀ 4، صص 101-118
روشن، بلقیس ، فاطمه یوسفی راد و فاطمه شعبانیان (1392). مبنای طرح‌واره‌ای استعاره‌های موجود در ضرب‌المثل‌های شرق گیلان، زبان شناخت،
روشن، بلقیس و لیلا اردبیلی (1392). مقدمه‌ای بر معناشناسی، چاپ دوم، تهران، نشر علم
شرف زاده، محمدحسین، فردوس آقاگل‌زاده، آزیتا افراشی و شهلا رقیب دوست (1394). واژه، طرح‌واره تصوری و تفاوت‌های فردی، پژوهشی بر پایه ارتباط بدنی، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی زبان پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا، سال هفتم، شماره 17
صفوی، کوروش (1382). بحثی درباره طرح‌واره‌های تصویری از دیدگاه معنی‌شناسی شناختی، نامه فرهنگستان 6/1.
ضیاء حسینی، محمد (1384). درآمدی بر روانشناسی زبان. تهران، رهنما.
نامنی، محمدرضا، افسانه حیات‌روشنایی و دکتر فریده ترابی میلانی (1395). تحول روانی، آموزش و توانبخشی نابینایان، چاپ چهارم، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی.
Reference
Alba, J. & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203-231
Chahan. P. (1992). Blindness. New York. Academic press.
Evans,‌V. & Green,M.(2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (1995). Cognitive Linguistics: Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: J. Bengamin Pub. Co.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, Chicago: The university of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics Requires Embodied Realism? In Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (3).
Lowenfeld, B. (1987). Psychological problems of children with severely impaired vision. Englewood chiffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Muller, U. & Overton, W.F. (1998). “How to Grow a Baby: A Reevaluation of Image Schema and Piagetion Action Approaches to Representation”, Human Development, (karger AG). Vol. 41, Issue 2.
Nielsen, L. (2005). ‘Nielsen’s Active Learning Philosophy for Children Who are Blind’, www.nationaldb.org.
Polanyi, M. (1964) Personal knowledge, New York: Harper and Row
Ricci Bitti, P. E. & Poggi, I. (1991). “Symbolic Nonverbal Behavior: Talking through Gestures”. Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior. Robert S. Felman and Bernard Rime (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PP. 431-457.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Educational Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Baoon.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspect of semantic structure. Cambridge studies in linguistics: Vol. 54. Cambridge [England], New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, 2 Vols, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, N. J. T (2003). A Note on Image and Image Schema, http://www.‌Calstatela. Edu/faculty/ n Thomas/ Schemata. Html.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 3 - Serial Number 57
July and August 2020
Pages 313-346