JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE STUDIES

Polysemy in English and Kurdish Languages: Some Selected Words

Dlshad Ghali Salih

Kurdish Department, College of Education, University of Garmian

Hemn Adil Karim

Kurdish Department, College of Education, University of Garmian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25130/Lang.8.11.13

Keywords: Meaning Extension, Prototype Theory, English Language, Kurdish Language, Body Organs

---

Abstract

Polysemy is a universal phenomenon which shows economical, creative, flexible of human language and reflects the approach people use for cognition. This research compares English to Kurdish language of selecting human body parts, namely mouth, heart and eye for the process and the ways of human body words. From the perspective of lexical semantics and prototype theory, the study of the semantic extension of polysemy in both languages explores the process of meaning extension and the reasons for meaning extension. The method of the present research is a descriptive and comparative in nature. The objective of the study is comparing two distinct cultures using polysemy and depending on the lexemes of English and Kurdish languages. The data of this research are collected from dictionaries of the English and Kurdish languages. The significance of this research is the investigation of relation between English and Kurdish languages in terms of polysemy. On the other hand, linguistic researches across cultures are not easy tasks when they concern polysemy, because it needs to study enough about both languages. The essential point is that to note any differences in the domain and to show certain similarities underlying the phenomena as a frame against which to compare them. Comprehending the research procedures is vital, especially to start with a brief presentation of theoretical models and measurement implications of polysemy in English and Kurdish language. From polysemous point of view, the study depends on Henbaneborine Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary.

---

References

- Bréal, M. (1900). Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning. W. Heinemann.

- Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic Structures. Mouton de Gruyter. Mouton de Gruyter.

- Crystal, D. (2010, July). Semantic targeting: past, present, and future. In Aslib proceedings (Vol. 62, No. 4/5, pp. 355-365). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

- Cuyckens, H. & Zawada, B. (Eds.). (1997). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

- Dabrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton.

- Dictionary, C. (2024). "Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nice.

- Eco, U. (1986). Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Vol. 398). Indiana University Press.

- Falkum, I. L., & Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current perspectives and approaches.

- Falkum, I. L. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)).

- Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens (Eds.) (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics: 139-169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Halas, A. (2016). The application of the prototype theory in lexicographic practice: a proposal of a model for lexicographic treatment of polysemy. Lexikos, 26, 124-144.

- Hazrati, Y., Yousefirad, F., Rovshan, B., & Ahmadkhani, M. R. (2016). The Study of Polysemy in the Framework of Cognitive Semantics in Azerbaijani Turkish. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 130-138.

- Israa, B. A., & Istabraq, T. J. (2017). The Ability of EFL Students to Differentiate between Homonymy and Polysemy. Journal of Language Studies, 1(1), 92-126.

- Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and language, 81(1-3), 205-223.

- Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.

- Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories.

- Li, Y., & Feng, Y. (2018, July). An Analysis of the Polysemy “HEAD” Based on Prototype Theory. In 4th International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education (ICADCE 2018) (pp. 386-389). Atlantis Press.

- Lopukhina, A., Laurinavichyute, A., Lopukhin, K., & Dragoy, O. (2018). The mental representation of polysemy across word classes. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 192.

- Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics (Vol. 510). Cambridge university press.

- Murphy, M. L., & Koskela, A. (2010). Key terms in semantics. A&C Black.

- Nerlich, B. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy. Historical pragmatics, 193-215.

- Pardede, H. (2016). Semantics: a view to logic of language. Pematang Siantar: FKIP Nommensen.

- Pethő, G. (2001). WHAT IS POLYSEMY?-A SURVEY OF CURRENT RESEARCH AND RESULTS¹. Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning, 8, 175.

- Rushdi, A. E. (2024). 4th Year EFL Iraqi Learners’ Pragmatic Failure in Polysemy. Journal of Language Studies, 8(10), 136-149.

- Sharafkandi, A. (1990). Henbaneborine, Ferheng. “Ferhengi Henbaneborine”.

- Stanojević, M. (2009). Cognitive synonymy: A general overview. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, 7(2), 193-200.

- Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

- Vicente, A., & Ingrid L. F. (2017). "Polysemy." Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics.