Rules of Speech Behavior in Tatar and Turkish Proverbs

Iskander Zhamilovich  Edikhanov; Guzel Amirovna  Nabiullina; Renat Islamgarayevich  Latypov; Akarturk  Karahan

doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.297

Authors

Iskander Zhamilovich Edikhanov Department of General Linguistics and Turkology, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University Kazan, Russia
Guzel Amirovna Nabiullina Department of General Linguistics and Turkology, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University Kazan, Russia
Renat Islamgarayevich Latypov Department of General Linguistics and Turkology, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University Kazan, Russia
Akarturk Karahan Department of the Ancient Turkic Language of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ankara Y?ld?r?m Beyaz?t University, Ankara, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.297

Keywords:

Ethnocultural Stereotype Speech Behavior, Speech Culture, Turkish Ethnic Cultures, Tatar Cultures, Paroemiological Fund.

Abstract

Today, despite the abundant supply and scientific papers concerning particular features of multi-method, communicative culture and comparative linguistic research on the ethnocultural stereotypes of Turkic peoples' communicative behavior, it is vital in modern linguistics. The issue statement is because the ethnocultural examination of the Turkic peoples' communicative behavior permits us to look at the ethnos' communicative culture in the modern context and distinguish typical and distinctive characteristics of the Tatar's communicative culture Turkish peoples. This survey investigates the ethnocultural stereotypes of the communicative behavior of the Tatar and Turkish linguistic cultures expressed in the paroemiological fund. The analysis is based on the Tatar and Turkish languages' phraseological and paroemiological units within this article's framework. The research adopted descriptive, stylistic, and comparative techniques. Moreover, The methodological framework is the linguoculturological, cognitive-linguistic aspects of the investigation of paroemiological units. The most substantial typical categories of the Tatars' communicative culture are the culture of communication, politeness, sociability, verbiage, silence, conflict communication, and effective communication. In paroemias, truth is proclaimed before lie, laconicalness before loquacity, silence before speaking, deed before the word, listening before speaking. The examination of stereotypes of communicative behavior reveals that the Tatars persist faithfully to the observance of folk traditions and particular speech cultures.

References

Abdulin, А.А. (2006). Ethic Expressions in Modern Literary Language. Author's Dissertation for Candidate of Philology. Kazan, 25 p.

Busnel, R.G. (1976), Whistled Languages. Berlin: Springer Verlag: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46335-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46335-8

Dunbar, R. I. (2003). The Origin and Subsequent Evolution of Language. Studies In The Evolution Of Language, 3, 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.003.0012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.003.0012

Galieva, A. (2018), Synonymy in Modern Tatar reflected by the Tatar-Russian Socio-Political Thesaurus, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences.

Gilazetdinova, G. K., Edikhanov, I. Z., & Aminova, A. A. (2014). Problems of Ethno-Cultural Identity and Cross-Language Communication. Journal of Language And Literature, 5(3), 39-42. https://doi.org/10.7813/jll.2014/5-3/7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7813/jll.2014/5-3/7

Graney, K. (2007), Making Russia multicultural. Kazan at its Millennium and beyond, in Problems of Post-Communism, 54(6). https://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075-8216540602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/PPC1075-8216540602

Güntürkün, O., Güntürkün, M., & Hahn, C. (2015), Whistled Turkish alters language asymmetries. Current Biology, 25(16), R706-R708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.067

Isina, G.I. (2008). Stereotypes and National Linguistic World image. Author's Dissertation for Candidate of Philology. Almaty, 55 p.

Jobo, M.M. (2016), The Prejudiced Negative Images of Femininity in Wolaita Proverbs. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language. 4(1), 58-68

Kolosova, E. I. (2016), Variation in the verb formation in the Russian Language. Current Issues of the Russian Language Teaching XII. Brno: Masary ova Univerzita.

Koneva, Ekaterina (2014), The Role of Comparative Analysis in Foreign Language Learning (German and Russian langu-

ages), Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 154, License: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.156

Kuznetsov, А.V. (2004). Verbal Means of Etiquette Communication in the Chuvash Language: The Comparative, Contrastive and Ethnolinguocultural Studies. Author's Dissertation for Candidate of Philology. Cheboksary, 25 p.

Meyer, J. (2015). Whistled Languages: A Worldwide Inquiry on Human Whistled Speech. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45837-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45837-2

Mugtasimova, G. R., Nabiullina, G. A., & Denmukhametova, E. N. (2014). Paremiological fund of the Tatar people in the ethno-linguistic aspect. Life Science Journal, 11(11), 409-412.

Ozaydin, S. (2017), Comparative Analysis of Early Studies on Turkish Whistle Language and a Case Study on Test Conditions, Journal of Modern Linguistics 08(04). https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2018.84013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2018.84013

Quasthoff, U. (1978). The Uses of Stereotype in Everyday Argument. Journal of Pragmatics, 2(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(78)90021-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(78)90021-8

Safin, I. K., Kolosova, E. I., & Bychkova, T. A. (2016), Specifics of Teaching Grammar in the bilingual education conditions. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), Special Issue.

Saifullina, E.R. (2009). Cognitive Sphere of Russian a Tatar Paroemias: "Language Image" and the Rhetorical Norms. Author's Dissertation for Candidate of Philology. Ufa.

Shirshova, V. (2018), Employers-racists: how Kazan and Ufa overtook Moscow and St. Petersburg in tolerance. Real time. June 8.

Sibgaeva, F.R., Nurmukhametova, R.S., Sattarova, M.R., & Smagulova, G.N. (2017). Man as an object of evaluation in the phraseological picture of the world (on the material of Tatar language). AD ALTA – Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 7(2), 267-269.

Sibgaeva, F.R., Zamaletdinova, G.F., & Nurmukhametova, R.S. (2016). Linguoculturological specific features of phraseological units of the Tatar language. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 116-119.

Underwood, E. (2015), Whistled Turkish Tickles Both Sides of the Brain. Science, August. https://www.sciencemag.org/

news/2015/08/whistled-turkish-tickles-both-sides-brain?utm_ source=facebook&utm_medium=social &utm_ campaign= facebook (Access Date 11.25. 2019.) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad1630 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad1630

Wertheim, S. (2008), language "purity" and the de-russification of Tatar, University of California, Berkeley.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts In Culture-Specific Configurations. Oxford University Press On Demand.