1. Introduction
The study of semantic prototypes in the field of semantics in general and cognitive semantics in particular has recently been of great interest to many scholars and semanticists. By defining cognitive semantics, identifying some semantic categories as examples (including food), and shedding light on the prototype theory presented by Rosch (1973, 1975), the semantic prototypes of food in Bahdini Kurdish (henceforth BK) are investigated.
There have been few studies and research papers investigating the semantic prototypes of food that are used by BK speakers in the Duhok governorate. That is why different types of food used in the BK context are categorized for the purpose of finding their prototypes. Simply, the current study is an attempt to answer the following questions:
1. What are the semantic categories of food in BK?
2. What are the most frequently used semantic prototypes of food in BK?
3. What is the influence of gender on the perception and use of prototypes of food in BK?
Some studies have been conducted to show the frequencies and percentages of different semantic categories (e.g., food, cars, machines, animals, birds, insects, flowers, etc.). However, studies and research on such categories especially the food categories and their prototypes within the BK context are still open to investigation. Therefore, it is very important to manifest the food prototypes that are used by the BK speakers, showing the statistical differences between males and females. Further, the findings of our study will be important for the BK speakers to know about the prototypical examples of all the different food categories understudy.
This study is limited to investigating the use of semantic prototypes of food by the BK speakers. These speakers have been chosen from different departments at the University of Zakho. Also, and on the basis of results obtained from a previously prepared questionnaire and data collection, this study is especially devoted to statistically calculating frequencies and percentages of food prototypes regarding gender.
2. Literature Review
Food is a daily necessary need for all living things, especially human beings. Without food, no one can live. Hence, the study of semantic categories of food is very important in the field of semantics in general and cognitive semantics in particular. In this section, the term semantics and cognitive semantics are defined and explained. Semantic categories, including food categories, are tackled. Also, Rosch's prototype theory (1973, 1975) is discussed to present the theoretical viewpoint of semantic categories. Finally, some previous studies that are related to the present study are explained.
2.1. Semantics
Semantics, derived from the Greek term Semantikos, is a branch of linguistics that systematically examines the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences (Palmer, 1981; Parker, 1986). The term semantics is a relatively new English language term that has been added in late history. Although academics, linguists, and philosophers have been arguing about “What is meaning?” none has offered a convincing response. That is why; the study of meaning has been a challenging aspect of language. This is due to the following reasons (Lyons, 1981; Fromkin and Rodman, 1988: 205):
1. What we refer to with the word “meaning” has some kind of reality.
2. Meaning is changeable. That is, new words and lexical items are invented and added to language while others disappear.
3. The word “meaning” itself has many meanings. For instance, the meanings of the word “mean” in sentences such as I mean to help you., He means the mall., and I mean the other story are explained as want to, go to and talk about respectively.
4. There are different types of meaning including the conceptual, associative, stylistic, social, thematic, prosodic meanings, among others.
Along with all the mentioned views on the concept of meaning, this latter term has also been viewed differently. In other words, it has been explained cognitively and conceptually.
2.2. Cognitive Semantics
One of the most important branches of general linguistics and semantics is cognitive semantics. According to Croft and Cruse (2004), Cognitive semantics relates the meaning of concepts with human perception. This means that the significance of words is cognitively perceived by speakers. This general conceptual view of cognitive semantics has been explained by Talmy (2000: p. 4) before stating that cognitive semantics is “the study of the way conceptual content is organized in language”. Also, the same idea has been later confirmed by Evans and Green (2006: p. 170) claiming that “cognitive semantics is primarily concerned with investigating conceptual structure” of lexical items. Figure 2.1 shows the relation between meaning and concepts in the mind:
Figure 2.1: Representation of meaning as a concept in the mind
Contributed writings on cognitive semantics have been developed by many linguists and semanticists such as Jackendoff (1983), Fauconnier (1985), Lakoff (1987), Langacker (1987), Talmy (1988), Sweetser (1990), Gärdenfors (1999) among others. Almost all of them have shared similar views about cognitive semantics. Their beliefs can be summarized below:
1. Meanings are conceptualizations in the mind. In other words, the meaning of words and expressions is related to some mental entities in the mind.
2. Meanings depend on perception. That is, meanings derive from physical and social experiments in the world.
3. Meanings are considered concepts that in turn show prototype effects. This means that the best conceptual example among a semantic category can be perceptualized.
It can be said that cognitive semantics basically relates the construction of meanings to cognitive representations in the mind.
2.3. Semantic Categories
In the field of semantics, certain entities may have the same semantic features. They are categorized into one semantic class. For instance, the homonymous class of animals includes all lion, tiger, elephant, fox, horse, cat, rhino, donkey, etc. All of them can make one semantic category of ANIMAL. The entities such as rose, sunflower, daffodil, tulip, etc., can make the semantic category of FLOWER. The same is true with INSECT, BIRD, CAR, FURNITURE, among others. (In this study, the general item for a semantic category is written in uppercase letters). This means that in lexical semantics, lexical items are interpreted in terms of sense (or semantic) relations. Here, the meaning of lexical items is analyzed as linguistic units via lexical relations such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, metonymy, and taxonomy, among others (Geeraerts, 2010; Palmer, 1981; Yule, 2006). For example, all the words cat, dog, horse, and snake are co-hyponyms (subordinate items) included in a more general item (hypernym) which is ANIMAL (Figure 2.2):
Figure 2.2: ANIMAL category
There are systemic interrelations between words and their respective underlying concepts. In other words, the lexical knowledge of any word might reveal some meaning postulates, which are a part of the lexicon (Yule, 2006). However, in cognitive semantics, such knowledge is grounded in human interaction with one another and with the world.
Radden and Dirven (2007: p. 3) defined the term “semantic category” as “A category is the conceptualization of a collection of similar experiences that are meaningful and relevant to us, i.e., categories are formed for things that ‘matter’ in a community.”
Thus, certain physical and social experiences may share similar semantic features, depending on somehow similar perceptualizing of these experiences by the speakers in a community. For example, when asking any English speaker which of the below objects is better used and perceptualized to represent the category CUP, they most likely tend to use image 2.2. (a) among the others. This is due to the fact that this entity is most commonly perceptualized and experienced by the speakers in their physical and social occasions.
Figure 2.3: Semantic category of CUP (adapted from Evans and Green , 2006: p. 29)
All the above entities represented by a-e images shown in Figure 2.3 can make the semantic category of CUP; however, one of them (i.e., a) is the best conceptual example. Here, the idea of prototyping is presented. It is explained in the following subsection.
2.4. Food Categories
All living things must eat food to sustain life, develop normally, and carry out essential bodily functions, which emphasizes the universal truth highlighted by Khollam and Mane (2019) that “Food is a necessary part of human lives” (p. 107). A food category denotes the grouping of food items according to common attributes such as nutritional value, flavor, origin, preparation technique, etc. Given its importance for life and its intrinsically pleasurable and hedonic qualities, food is an exceptionally prominent biological category. (LaBar et al., 2001). According to the USDA, which is an official website of the United States government, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), food is classified into certain groups, namely, Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, Protein Foods, and Dairy. (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017; University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2022). These are not the only categories, but these are considered the major ones. That is, there are other categories such as the Fast-Food category, Homemade category, Nuts and Seeds category, etc. A great deal of variety exists within the realm of food, and this variety may impact how we perceive and classify foods. Foods are not only taxonomically classified into different groups (e.g., fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, etc.), but they also vary in terms of enticing qualities like flavor and energy density (Foroni & Rumiati, 2017).
2.5. Prototypes
A prototype is perceived as the cultural context that shapes the definition as well as the understanding of a word. For example, to understand the meaning of the word breakfast, it is necessary to understand the practices of the culture in which the category exists. Prototypes are relatively abstract mental representations that assemble the key attributes or features that best represent instances of a given category (Evans & Green, 2006 ,Coleman & Kay, 1981).
For most people, a saloon car is the best type of car, and an estate car is a better type of car than a jeep. Thus, a saloon car would be considered a prototypical member, or prototype, of the car category, while other types of cars such as a jeep would be considered to be less prototypical members of this category. In most languages, a van or a lorry would be seen as peripheral members of the category car. A motorcycle or a bicycle would be outside the category of car altogether because they only have two wheels. This can be illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 2.4: CAR prototype
As shown in Figure 2.4, the saloon car occupies the central circle and it is a prototype while others are not.
2.6. Rosch Prototype Theory
Rosch (1973, 1975) proposed the “prototype” hypothesis of categorization. Based on this theory, individuals build categories based on an archetypal example or representative member; other members relate to the extent that they possess characteristics in common with that prototype. The degrees vary among members, resulting in an internally graded category. Rosch (1975) stated that a prototype exemplifies the quintessential representation of a category. Category members can be conceptualized as organized by their degree of ‘goodness’, where items closely like the prototype are regarded as highly typical or exemplary members, while those that deviate significantly are considered less typical or inferior members.
Rosch (1973) and Rosch et al. (1976) argued that in Prototype Theory in semantics, categories in natural language are not defined by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions but rather by typical examples, or “prototypes”. According to this theory, some members of a category are more central than others. For instance, a robin might be a prototypical bird, while a penguin is less so. This contrasts with classical theories of categorization, which assume that categories are defined by fixed boundaries. Rosch and Lloyd (1978) pointed out that prototypes of categories refer to the most definitive instances of category membership, determined operationally by individuals’ assessments of membership quality inside the category. In her investigation, Rosch (1973) found that some category members serve as cognitive reference points in human thinking. Also, some category members (called prototypes) are thought to be more typical of a category than others. Lakoff (1987: p. 12) elaborated further that “the properties of certain categories are a consequence of human biological capacities and of the experience and functioning in a physical and social environment”. Moreover, Yule (2014) said that the robin is the most typical example, or prototype, of a bird. The prototype concept explains word meanings by resemblance to the best example, rather than by listing features. For instance, while ostriches and penguins are technically birds, people might hesitate to classify them as such, unlike sparrows or pigeons, which closely match the bird prototype.
Jumaniyozovna (2023) mentioned that, according to the prototype hypothesis, people prefer to group objects into categories based on how similar they are to an idealized version of that group. People tend to give higher ratings to things that they perceive as more normal; for instance, a robin is seen as more typical of the “bird” category than a penguin. Moreover, Jumaniyozovna (2023) claimed that the Prototype Theory has had a profound influence on cognitive psychology and it provides illustrations for various phenomena such as concept creation, language, and reasoning. According to this theory, individuals demonstrate superior categorization abilities by employing prototypes compared to other methods. To expedite and streamline the process, they only need to consider the degree of resemblance between the object and the archetypal example.
According to the experiments of Rosch, the Prototype Theory consists of certain characteristics which are summarized as follows (Giannakopoulou, 2003):
1. All categories have a prototype structure. For instance, within the category of ‘birds’, a robin is regarded as a prototype due to its fundamental bird attributes, such as flight capability, a beak, and feathers.
2. A collection of features cannot be used to realize prototype categories because different members may not have the same amount of these features. For instance, Within the ‘furniture’ category, members such as chairs and sofas exhibit distinct characteristics; nonetheless, both are classified as furniture despite these differences.
3. Prototype categories may be blurred at the edges. For example, certain members serve as clear prototypes, whilst others, such as puzzles or playing catch within the ‘games’ category, may not conform as clearly. Chess and soccer exemplify robust prototypes due to their explicit rules and competitive nature, while puzzles lack direct competition, and playing catch seems more informal, and this leads to less defined category boundaries.
4. Category membership can be understood in terms of gradation. For example, within the ‘carpenter’s tool’ category, a saw is the most prototypical instance followed by a hammer, ruler, screwdriver, drill, nails, etc.
5. The semantic structures of these categories tend to overlap and cluster. For example, in the category of ‘vehicles’, cars, trucks, and motorbikes exhibit overlapping characteristics such as transportation and wheels, however, they are categorized into various subgroups according to their respective functions.
2.7. Previous Studies
Attempting to provide empirical support for the Prototype Theory, Rosch (1975) initiated a study that included several experiments. Experiment 1 aimed to identify the most representative (prototypical) example of certain semantic categories including fruit, bird, vehicle, vegetable, etc. 209 Participants, who were psychology students, were given a 7-point scale to indicate how well each example matched their mental picture of the category word. A rating of 1 signifies an excellent match with the category, 7 denotes a weak match or non-membership, and 4 represents a moderate match. The results of the study indicated that, within the Fruit category, orange obtained the greatest prototypicality rating, whereas squash received the lowest. In the Vegetable category, pea was regarded as the most archetypal, whilst rice obtained the lowest grade.
Schwanenflugel and Rey (1986) carried out a similar experiment to that of Rosch. They aimed to investigate the potential correlation between instance familiarity and variations of prototypicality that was cognitively manifested by 100 Spanish and English native speakers. The study selected 12 semantic categories, namely, bird, cloth, clothing, color, fruit, furniture, etc. By administering a questionnaire (in Spanish and English), and following the Rosch model (1973, 1975), the results indicated that the best example (prototypical) to represent the Fruit category for both groups (English and Spanish speakers) was Apple.
Jamalifar (2014) studied the prototype of the Fruit category in American and Iranian communities, involving 28 American native speakers from Houston and 28 Farsi speakers from Esfahan. Noteworthy, the researcher had direct access to the participants living in Esfahan and no direct access to the participants living in Houston who were contacted via E-mail. By distributing a questionnaire (in English and Farsi), the findings reported that the American native speakers regarded Apple as the prototypical example of the Fruit category, whereas Banana is considered the least. However, the case was different for the Farsi native speakers. That is, Banana is considered the prototypical example of the Fruit category, while Watermelon is the least. Therefore, the study concluded that the prototypes differ between the studied two groups.
To test how the Prototype Theory applies to the Kurdish language, Abdullah and Salih (2017) conducted an experiment. The objective of this investigation is to ascertain the impact of various factors, including economic conditions, geographic regions, age, gender, watching TV, and multilingualism, on selecting the prototypes in the Fruit semantic category. The participants of the experiment were selected from certain departments at the University of Zakho, as well as high school pupils from Balqos village and Shinwar School in Duhok. A questionnaire was employed by the researchers to gather pertinent data for the investigation and the category of Fruit was selected in order to identify its prototypical example. The outcomes indicated that male participants selected Greengages while females chose Pomegranates as the prototypical example of the Fruit category.
3. Method
For the purpose of investigating the use of prototypes of the food semantic categories among the BK speakers (university students in our study), the current study used a descriptive and quantitative method. Further, research design, participants, sampling procedures, and tools are tackled in the following sub-sections.
3.1. Research Design
In an attempt to investigate the semantic categories of food in the BK and show the food prototypes in these categories, the present study utilized descriptive and quantitative approaches for collecting information and data. To show the main semantic categories of food and the perceptual prototypes in the BK, and following the prototype theory by Rosch (1973, 1975), a questionnaire of nine items (semantic categories of food in the BK) was designed and distributed to 100 BK speakers (50 males and 50 females) from English and non-English departments, University of Zakho. All of the responses (i.e., 100 copies) returned. Finally, interpreting and analyzing the obtained data by Excel sheets made finding the statistical results easier.
3.2. Participants and Sampling Procedure
In this paper, and for receiving the questionnaire responses, the researchers did their best to return every single copy of the questionnaire. The participants of the study were 50 males and 50 females from different departments at the University of Zakho. The data was gathered from the university for several reasons. Initially, university students were more accessible to the researcher, facilitating a more easy and efficient data gathering method. Second, university students can be considered a representative sample of the BK population, as they reflect diverse social, cultural, and linguistic characteristics present in the community. This ensures the findings are relevant and applicable beyond the university setting. In our opinion, 100 hundred copies of the questionnaire may be considered reliable for authenticating the data from a university. In other words, the results obtained from the questionnaire can represent a larger population of BK speakers. The age variable is excluded from our study. However, only the gender variable has been chosen for our study to show the difference between males and females using prototypes in the semantic categories of food.
3.3. Tools and Data Collection Procedures
The tool that was used to gather and measure the data was the following:
1. A questionnaire of nine items about the semantic categories of food was used to collect the participants’ understanding and perception of food prototypes in the BK. A total of 100 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to 100 BK speakers from English and non-English departments, at the University of Zakho. All of the questionnaire responses were returned.
2. For the sake of obtaining all responses, the questionnaire, which was originally written in English, was translated into the BK. So, every item and sub-item in the questionnaire was in both English and Kurdish. The translated version of the questionnaire was helpful for understanding the idea of semantic categories by participants who did not know English. This was because the questionnaire was also sent to students from other departments, not English, in the target university.
3. The participants were asked to circle the prototypical example from each semantic category of food. Also, the participants were told that they could choose more than one item.
4. Statistical descriptions (frequencies and percentages) of responses were calculated by using Excel sheets. Finally, the obtained results have been presented on bar charts.
4. Data Analysis, Results and Discussion
On the basis of the literature review and aims of the study, the obtained data were analyzed and interpreted in order to determine an answer to the three research questions, namely: (1) determining the semantic categories of food in BK, (2) identifying the most frequently used semantic prototypes, and (3) examining the influence of gender on the perception and use of these prototypes.
The semantic categories of food in the BK presented in our study are shown in the following table:
Table 4.1: The Semantic Categories of Food in the BK
|
1. Homemade Food (خوارنا مالان): |
Rice & Soup (ئاڤک ، برنج), Dolma (ئیپراخ), Bulgur (ساڤار), Maqluba (مەقلوب), Soup (شوربە), Pilaf (بريانى), Mahshi (مەحشی) |
|
2. Fast Food (خوارنا سەرپێ): |
Sandwich (لەفە), Hamburger (هامبورگەر), Fries (پتاتێن قەلاندی), Fried Chicken (مریشكا قەلاندی), Pizza (پيتزا), Kebab (کەباب), Noodles (مەعكەرون) |
|
3. Dairy Food (سپیاتی): |
Eggs (هێك), Yogurt (ماست), Cheese (پەنیر), Milk (شير), Butter (نیڤشك), Herbal Cheese (ژاژی), Kaymak (قەیماخ) |
|
4. Meat, Poultry & Fish (گوشت و ماسی): |
Chicken مريشك, Beef گوشتێ چێلێ, Venison گوشتێ خەزالێ, Lamb گوشتێ بەرخی, Fish ماسى, Turkey گوشتێ عەلوكێ, Sparrow Meat گوشتێ چیچکێ |
|
5. Grains ( بەرهەمێ هشک): |
Rice برنج, Bulgur ساڤار, Corns شاميك, Mung beans ماش, Chickpeas نوك, Beans باقلك, Lentils نيسك |
|
6. Nuts & Seeds (چەرەز): |
Walnuts گیز, Almonds باهیڤ, Pistachio قستەق, Hazelnuts بندەق, Sunflower seeds توفكێن گولبەروژا, Resins مێویژ, Pumpkin seeds توفكێن كولندا |
|
7. Fruits (فێقی): |
Watermelon شتی/زەبەش, Fig هژیر, Grapes تری, Apple سێڤ, Orange پرتەقال, Pomegranate هنار, Melon گوندور |
|
8. Vegetables (زەرزەوات): |
Onion پیڤاز, Potato پتات, Tomato باجان, Garlic سير, Beetroot تڤر, Cabbage كەلەمی, Cucumber خیار |
|
9. Sweets (شریناهی): |
Custard كاستەر, Jelebi زەلابی, Chocolate چكلێت, Baklava بەقلاوە, Home-made cookies كادە , Candy شەكروك, Sweetness داتلى/لوقمك |
Probably the above semantic categories can be found in almost all languages in the world. However, the items in these categories may differ from one culture to another. For example, Dolma, Maqluba, Mahshi, etc., are restricted to the Kurdish culture.
According to the perception of prototypes of food by the BK speakers (males and females), these prototypes are statistically presented separately in the following subsections.
4.1. Homemade Food (خوارنا مالان):
The results showed that the BK speakers perceived RICE & SOUP as the prototype of the Homemade food category. It calculated the highest percentage, 50% (32% males, 18% females). Here, males prefer having rice and soup as a casual meal for them. Also, DOLMA was considered a prototype with a percentage of 32%, where females (20%) prefer DOLMA more than males (12%). Other items including BULGUR, MAQLUBA, etc., were not seen as important. The frequencies and percentages of food prototypes in the semantic category of Homemade food are shown in the following figure:
Figure 4.1: Percentages of Homemade Food Prototypes
4.2. Fast Food (خوارنا سەرپێ):
According to the fast-food category, the results presented that the highest percentage was recorded for SANDWICH to be the best example referred to by the BK speakers. The percentage was 36% (21% males, 15 females). Different types of sandwiches are usually prepared and served at almost all restaurants in the BK-speaking areas. Also, the females perceived PIZZA (15%) to be prototypical for the fast-food category. Other items such as HAMBURGER and KEBAB calculated equal percentages and they were 13% (7% males, 6% females). The obtained percentages of this category are shown in the following figure:
Figure 4.2: Percentages of Fast-Food Prototypes
4.3. Dairy Food (سپیاتی):
The results manifested that both males (26%) and females (18%) conceptualized YOGURT as a prototype among all the other items in the dairy food category. This may be due to the fact that yogurt is very commonly served and eaten at breakfast in the Kurdish culture. The second highest percentage was recorded for HERBAL CHEESE, and it was 15% (7% males, 8% females) followed by the item EGG, which was 11% (9% males, 2% females). It seems that the rest of the items were not significantly prototypical. Figure (4.3) shows the percentages of prototypes in the dairy food category.
Figure 4.3: Percentages of Dairy Food Prototypes
4.4. Meat, Poultry & Fish (گۆشت و ماسی):
As indicated in Figure (4.4), the BK speakers perceived three items of the meat, poultry, and fish category to be conceptually regarded as prototypes. First, CHICKEN has calculated the highest percentage (36%) for both males (18%) and females (18%). Second, the LAMB has the second highest percentage (30%), where males (22%) recorded a much higher percentage than females (8%). Third, a percentage of 23% (9% males, 14% females) was for the FISH item. Here, the other items in this category are not considered as important prototypical examples of food, only the above-mentioned three items are the only prototypes of meat, poultry, and fish.
Figure 4.4: Percentages of Meat, Poultry and Fish Prototypes
4.5. Grains (بەرهەمێ هشک):
In the semantic category of grains, the majority of the BK speakers chose RICE as a prototype of grains. The percentage was 60%, where there was no noticeable difference between males (29%) and females (31%). Such a percentage was expected because almost every house in the BK cities, towns, and villages store enough amounts of rice. It is an everyday meal, especially lunches and dinners. The other items in this category had various percentages. However, they did not record high percentages except for BULGUR and CHICKPEAS with an equal percentage of 10% for both.
Figure 4.5: Percentages of Grains Prototypes
4.6. Nuts & Seeds (چەرەز):
Concerning the semantic category of nuts and seeds, the results showed that more than half of the participants (52%) perceived PISTACHIO as the best example, i.e., prototype of all types of nuts and seeds. With regard to gender differences, there was a slight statistically significant difference between males (24%) and females (28%). Further, the SUNFLOWER SEEDS was also used as a remarkably prototypical item of the category. It recorded a percentage of 23% (12% males, 11% females). The other items had low percentages. This means they cannot be regarded as prototypes in the nuts and seeds category.
Figure 4.6: Percentages of Nuts & Seeds Prototypes
4.7. Fruits (فێقی):
As it is clear from the figure (4.7) below, almost all the items recorded approximately equal percentages. The only item that had the highest percentages was WATERMELON (25%), where there was no such statistical difference between males (13%) and females (12%). So, this item (i.e., WATERMELON) can be considered a prototype of the fruits semantic category. Other items including FIG, APPLE, ORANGE, and POMEGRANATE recorded exactly the same percentage, and it was 15%. Concerning these latter items, one cannot decide which one is more prototypical because both males and females manifested a variety of percentages between and across the items. For instance, males perceived the FIG as prototypical while females tended to choose the ORANGE as the best example. The results of the current study have not been supported by Rosch (1975), Schwanenflugel and Rey (1986), Jamalifar (2014), and Abdullah and Salih (2017).
Figure 4.7: Percentages of Fruits Prototypes
4.8. Vegetables (زەرزەوات):
The results showed that TOMATO recorded the highest percentage (33%) as a prototype in the semantic category of vegetables with no such statistical difference between males (17%) and females (16%). Also, the BK speakers perceived other items to be probably prototypical in everyday life. A percentage of 23% was calculated for POTATO, 11% males and 12% females, followed by the items CABBAGE and CUCUMBER with relative percentages, 16% (3% males, 13% females) and 13% (% males, 5% females) respectively. Finally, it seems that the remaining items were not considered prototypical because they calculated low percentages. The findings are not in-line with the findings of Rosch (1975).
Figure 4.8: Percentages of Vegetable Prototypes
4.9. Sweets (شریناهی):
In the last semantic category, i.e., sweets, the BK speakers perceived BAKLAVA (62%) as the most frequent item of sweets and the most prototypical example, with males showing a higher percentage (35%) than females (27%), as shown in the figure (4.9) below. According to these results, it seems that the majority of the BK speakers like to have BAKLAVA when they want to have some sweets after a meal. The other items of this same category were not chosen as prototypical because they recorded low percentages.
Figure 4.9: Percentages of Sweets Prototypes
5. Conclusions
The main points the present study arrived at t can be summarized below:
1. There are at least 9 semantic categories of food in BK: Homemade Food (خوارنا مالان), Fast Food (خوارنا سەرپێ), Diary Food (سپیاتی), Meat, Poultry & Fish (گوشت و ماسی), Grains (بەرهەمێ هشك), Nuts & Seeds (چەرەز), Fruits (فێقی), Vegetables (زەرزەوات), and Sweets (شریناهی).
2. The semantic categories of food in the BK showed various percentages. Hence, the participants perceived the selected items in these categories as the best examples (or prototypes) differently: RICE & SOUP and DOLMA (Homemade food), SANDWICH and PIZZA (fast-food), YOGURT, HERBAL CHEESE and EGG (dairy food), CHICKEN, LAMB and FISH (meat, poultry and fish), RICE (grains), PISTACHIO and SUNFLOWER SEEDS (nuts and seeds), WATERMELON, FIG, APPLE, ORANGE and POMEGRANATE (fruits), TOMATO and POTATO (vegetables), and finally BAKLAVA (sweets).
3. Males and females manifested a variety of frequencies and percentages in each semantic category. For some items, the males recorded higher percentages than females. However, in some other items, the females calculated higher percentages.
6. Suggestions for Further Studies
On the basis of the results and conclusions, the following points are suggested:
1. Conducting studies on the semantic category of food showing cultural differences between Bahdini and Sorani dialects as two major dialects of Kurdish.
2. Investigating the perception of prototypes within other semantic categories such as transportation, animals, birds, flowers, etc.
REFERENCES
Abdullah, A. & Salih, S (2017). The use of prototype theory in the Kurdish languages. Humanities Journal of University of Zakho (HJUOZ), 5(2), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.26436/2017.5.2.310
Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0002
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803864
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. GB: Edinburgh University Press. http://www.gbv.de/dms/bs/toc/50769533x.pdf
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-98635-000
Foroni, F., & Rumiati, R. I. (2017). Food perception and categorization: From food/no-food to different types of food. In Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 271-287). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101107-2.00012-9
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1988). An Introduction to Language. 3rd ed. USA: CBS College Publishing. https://books.google.iq/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Language.html?id=AkwFgEx3QBgC&redir_esc=y
Gärdenfors, P. (1999). Some tenets of cognitive semantics. In Pragmatics & beyond. New series (p. 19). https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.55.03gar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001
Giannakopoulou, A. (2003). Prototype theory: An evaluation. ECLOGA Working Papers, 3. http://hdl.handle.net/10547/625850
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-98223-000
Jamalifar, G. (2014). The conceptualization of fruit/vegetable distinction in Farsi and American English: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 764–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.479
Jumaniyozovna, B. N. (2023). Prototype theory in cognitive linguistics. In Integration Conference on Integration of Pragmalinguistics, Functional Translation Studies and Language Teaching Processes (pp. 72-74). https://www.conferenceseries.info/index.php/online/article/download/967/873
Khollam, P., & Mane, P. (2019). Review on food categorization techniques in machine learning. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev, 6, 107-111. http://ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_20543700.pdf
LaBar, K. S., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., Kim, Y. H., Nobre, A. C., & Mesulam, M. M. (2001). Hunger selectively modulates corticolimbic activation to food stimuli in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience, 115(2), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.115.2.493
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. http://books.google.ie/books?id=9GxmrgEACAAJ&dq=Women,+fire,+and+dangerous+things:+What+categories+reveal+about+the+mind&hl=&cd=3&source=gbs_api
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://books.google.iq/books/about/Foundations_of_Cognitive_Grammar.html?id=g4NCRFbZkZYC&redir_esc=y
Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics. GB: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809859
Palmer, R. F. (1981). Semantics (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.iq/books/about/Semantics.html?id=UWJSaxH9GiMC&redir_esc=y
Parker, F. (1986). Linguistics for non-linguists. London: Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.iq/books/about/Linguistics_for_Non_linguists.html?id=s7lrAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. In Cognitive linguistics in practice CLiP. USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2
Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language/New York: Academic Press, (pp. 111–144). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50010-4
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104(3), 192–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www.cs.rice.edu/~vo9/recognition/2016/slides/lecture07/CognitionAndCategorization.pdf
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Rey, M. (1986). The relationship between category typicality and concept familiarity: Evidence from Spanish- and English-speaking monolinguals. Memory & Cognition, 14(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198375
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511620904
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, volume 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. In The MIT Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001
United States Department of Agriculture. (2017). Back to basics: All about myplate food groups. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/09/26/back-basics-all-about-myplate-food-groups
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (2022). What are the five food groups? https://food.unl.edu/article/food-groups
Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.iq/books/about/The_Study_of_Language.html?id=Zw5Y0o0q1bYC&redir_esc=y
Yule, G. (2014). The study of language. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.iq/books/about/The_Study_of_Language.html?id=x-WfAgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y