Agis, Derya. July 2 – 4, 2008.  “Saving or Losing Face with the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriot Idioms and Proverbs with the Organ of Face.” Panel entitled ‘Face, Culture and Social Interaction,’ 4th International Symposium on Polite
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Agis, Derya. July 2 – 4, 2008. “Saving or Losing Face with the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriot Idioms and Proverbs with the Organ of Face.” Panel entitled ‘Face, Culture and Social Interaction,’ 4th International Symposium on Polite

on

  • 1,354 views

Agis, Derya. July 2 – 4, 2008. “Saving or Losing Face with the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriot Idioms and Proverbs with the Organ of Face.” Panel entitled ‘Face, Culture and ...

Agis, Derya. July 2 – 4, 2008. “Saving or Losing Face with the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriot Idioms and Proverbs with the Organ of Face.” Panel entitled ‘Face, Culture and Social Interaction,’ 4th International Symposium on Politeness, Budapest, Hungary. YOUNG SCHOLAR AWARD.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,354
Views on SlideShare
1,354
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Agis, Derya. July 2 – 4, 2008. “Saving or Losing Face with the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriot Idioms and Proverbs with the Organ of Face.” Panel entitled ‘Face, Culture and Social Interaction,’ 4th International Symposium on Polite Document Transcript

  • 1. Saving or Losing Face with the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish Idioms and Proverbs with the Organ of Face AGIS, DERYA Girne American University; Department of Translation and Interpreting; E-mail: deryaagis@gmail.com Key Words: Face Threatening Acts; Cognitive Pragmatics; Conceptual Metaphor Theory; Judeo-Spanish; Turkish; Cypriot Turkish Abstract In this study, I am going to talk about the data I gathered from the Judeo-Spanish dictionary of idioms and proverbs entitled De Punta Pie a Kavesa: Trezoro Sefaradi [From the Tip of Foot to the Head: Sephardic Treasure] (2006) of Beki Bardavid and Fani Ender. The uses of Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs in different contexts have been controlled by observing the Judeo-Spanish messages found in a chat-room called “Ladinokomunita,” a Yahoo group on the net, founded by Rachel Bortnick. I analyzed the interaction between native Judeo-Spanish speakers interacting with each other by using some idioms and proverbs that include the body part of face in order to express their negative and positive emotions. These emotions have been classified in accordance with the theory of Lazarus (1991). Thus, in our analyses the negative emotions include Disgust / hate, anger, sadness, and shame, and the positive emotions include happiness and love. We did not encounter any idioms or proverbs expressing fright, relief, and pride via the uses of the organ of face in Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish. Therefore, we eliminated these emotions from our calculations. Furthermore, I compared the uses of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs with those of the equivalents of these idioms and proverbs by Turkish and Cypriot Turkish university students between the ages of eighteen and thirty. Ten Turkish native speakers and ten Cypriot Turkish dialect native speakers took a test of forty (40) questions that measures the cultural differences in using the organ of face in order to express certain emotions for showing one’s politeness or for expressing one’s negative emotions. The participants selected in which situation they would use the idiom or the proverb. This study examines the role of the concept of face and politeness in the Sephardic culture, thus the culture of the Spanish Jews who arrived in the Ottoman Empire after their expulsion from Spain in 1492. One may use a specific Judeo-Spanish idiom or proverb to be polite and to preserve face by maintaining one another’s face. Sometimes Judeo-Spanish speakers may refer to idioms and proverbs using some politeness strategies such as indirectness, avoidance of confrontation, the suppression of negative emotions, and praises of one’s positive values for not mentioning this person’s negative sides so that one cannot lose face. However, some Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs with the organ of face may be used to express that one loses face, by becoming ashamed, angry, or sad. The idioms and proverbs of the three languages that we analyzed have been divided into five groups, as those threatening one’s positive face want via (1) negative evaluation or (2) disregard of the hearer’s positive face, as those threatening one’s positive and negative face want by (3) showing desire towards the hearer or her / his goods and as those threatening one’s negative face want by (4) posing pressure on the hearer and by (5) predicating some positive future act of the speaker towards the hearer. 1
  • 2. In this study, the uses of the organ of face for indicating different emotions are calculated with a Chi-Square test. The Chi-Square test results show that the organ of face is used in the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs in order to indicate more negative emotions than the positive ones. Therefore, the organ of face is widely used to explain that one loses face. The same is valid also for Turkish and Cypriot Turkish. This study shows that although people had lived within the borders of the same country, i.e. the Ottoman Empire in the past, today they may prefer to use different politeness terms constructed with the organ of face in order to indicate that one saves face or loses face. Besides, the Conceptual Metaphor Theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) is used for explaining the cultural reasons of the statistical differences. 1. Introduction This study intends to discover the idioms and proverbs with the organ of face that the Judeo- Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriots use in order to threaten one’s positive and / or negative face. We find some differences in the uses of the organ of face in the three cultural groups. The difference level is calculated with a comparison test of proportions, based on a Chi-Square test. Besides, the differences are explained in accordance with the Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT) of Lakoff and Johnson (1980). In this introductory section, we will discuss the differences between the idioms and proverbs and we will introduce you to the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish languages and to the Cypriot Turkish dialect. After citing the aim and scope of this study and our hypothesis and making a review of literature, in the next chapter, we will talk about our methodology. In the next section of Methodology, we will explain the classification of negative and positive emotions by Lazarus and the different positive and negative face threatening acts that Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest; moreover, in the same section we will give some information on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Successively, we will talk about our data and statistical technique. Finally, we will pass to our results and the analyses of the uses of the idioms and proverbs with the organ of face and discuss our findings. 1. 1. Differences between Idioms and Proverbs Idioms are formulated words, which are adopted by a certain nation, which are used metaphorically, and which render the description more beautiful and effective (Hengirmen, 1999: 116). On the other hand, proverbs are brief and concise sayings built by the ancestors of a nation due to their own experiences, and consequently used by a nation; furthermore, these sayings offer advice (Hengirmen, 1999: 39). 1. 2. Judeo-Spanish Language 1. 2. 1. The Period of Pure Judeo-Spanish or Castilian Kahane (1973), Perles (1925), Révah (1964, 1970), Lazar (1972), Sephiha (1971, 1973), and Malinowski (1979) argue that the Spanish language spoken by the Jews before their expulsion from Spain in 1492 was the same as that spoken by the Christians of Spain; however, Wagner (1930), Blondheim (1925), 2
  • 3. Benardete (1982), and Marcus (1962) mention that “the language of the Jews in Spain was already different in certain aspects of its lexicon, morphology, and phonology from that of the Christians by the Middle Ages” (as cited in Harris, 2005: 99). Clewlow (1990: 86) says that the Sephardim preferred to say, ‘el Dio’ (‘the God’) instead of ‘Dios,’ (‘Gods’), since the plural noun ending with ‘-s’ refers to the Trinity, and ‘alhad’ in place of ‘domingo,’ (‘Sunday’), considering that the word alludes to Christianity. The Spanish noun ‘domingo’ derives from the Latin noun ‘domus’ (‘house’); the word refers to the cathedral where the Christians go to pray on Sundays. 1. 2. 2. After 1492 Jews came to the Ottoman Empire after their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In Turkey, the Jews, coming from Spain, were speaking Spanish, those from Portugal Portuguese, and some were speaking Greek, as it was the language of Byzantines (Shaul, 1994: 12). Besides, there were Venetians and Genovans, living in Turkey: They could speak Italian (Shaul, 1994: 12). The words of all of these languages together with those of Turkish entered Judeo-Spanish in the Ottoman Empire. 1. 2. 3. After the Declaration of the Chief Rabbi of Istanbul in 1840 During the period of Tanzimat (Administrative Reforms - between 1839 – 1876), in 1840, the chief Rabbi of Istanbul, Moshe Fresko proposed that Turkish should have been learnt by every Jew, living in the Ottoman Empire (Besasel, 1991: 151). 1. 2. 4. The Period of l’Alliance Israélite Universelle L’Alliance Israélite Universelle was founded in Paris in 1860 for protecting the Jews all around the world; in 1865, it established its first school in Istanbul; by 1912, there were 115 Alliance schools in Turkey (Sephiha, 1977: 43). After the arrival of the Alliance Israélite, several French words entered the language, as soon as French had become the language of education (Shaul, 1994: 13). 1. 2. 5. Foundation of the Republic of Turkey The Republic of Turkey was proclaimed in 1923, and consequently, Turkish became the compulsory language of education in all the primary schools (Altabev, 2003: 63). However, by the 1950s, the slogan, “Citizen, speak Turkish!” had appeared: minority languages could be used only in “the private domain of home” (Altabev, 2003: 65). Today several language courses have been organized. In Israel, Judeo-Spanish courses have been organized since 1960s: Refael (2001) examined these courses. Moreover, other Judeo-Spanish teachers describe the methods they use: Koen - Sarano (2001) reveals the methods she used, teaching Ladino at Ben Gurion University at Negev, and how she prepared a book for beginners and advanced level students. Also, Ascher (2001) writes about her Ladino course. Several journals have been published in this language, such as El Amaneser and Aki Yerushalayim. 3
  • 4. 1. 3. Turkish Language and the Cypriot Turkish Dialect 1. 3. 1. Turkish Turkish is an Altaic language (Bozkurt, 2002: 50). In all the Altaic languages, vowel harmony exists, and no gender is assigned to the nouns. Additionally, all are agglutinative languages. Moreover, there are phonological, structural, morphological, and syntactic similarities between these languages. The first Turkish documents were the inscriptions of Orhun and Yenisey written in the 8th century C. E. The evolution of the Turkish language can be examined in nine periods (Bozkurt, 2002: 59 – 62): 1. Altai: In the period of Altai, Turkish, Mongolian, and other languages belonging to the same family had not been used yet; there was a single Main Altai language. 2. Ancient Turkish Period: In the period of Ancient Turkish, the language was separated from the Main Altai language. 3. First Turkish: The period of First Turkish lasts from the beginnings to the birth of Jesus. We encounter the languages of the nations of Huns and Bulgarians in this period. The Turkish language of this period is divided into two groups, as Western and Eastern Turkish. Talat Tekin divides the languages of this group into two groups as Main Bulgarian and Main Turkish. 4. Main Bulgarian: Main Bulgarian existed between the 1st and the 6th centuries C. E. Bulgarians were living in Caucasia, and in the northern part of the Black Sea region. The ancestors of the Hungarians were living in the same region in the same period, and adopted some Bulgarian words. The particularity of this language was that it had the /Iç/ sound group that would transform into /ş/ in the main Turkish. This language was a palatal *r and *l language. 5. Main Turkish: Main Turkish was spoken in the 1st and 6th centuries C.E. The /r/ consonant became /z/ in this language; for example, (a) The word ‘tokur’ in the first Turkish became ‘tokuz’ (‘nine’) in the Main Turkish; (b) The word medial and the word final /l/ sound became /ş/, as the word ‘bêl’ became ‘beş’ (five); (c) The /lc/ and /lç/ sound couples became /ş/, as the word ‘balç’ in the First Turkish language became ‘baş’ (‘head’) in the Main Turkish language; (d) The word initial /c/, /d/, and /n/ vowels became /y/, as the first Turkish word ‘cürük’ became ‘yüzük’ (‘ring’) in the Main Turkish language; (e) Besides, the short vowels of the final vowels fall, as the first Turkish stem ‘käli-’ became ‘käl-’ and then ‘gel-’of ‘gelmek’ (‘to come’) in the Main Turkish language. 6. Old Turkish: In the Old Turkish period some Turkish documents appeared, and the word Turk was used for the first time. This period was between the 6th and the 9th centuries C. E. This was the language of the Gokturks and the Uighurs. 7. Middle Turkish: Middle Turkish was spoken between the 11th and 16th centuries C. E. This language was divided into three groups as Eastern Turkish, Kipchak, and Western Turkish. In this period, Karahans, Selchuks, Mongolians, and the first Ottomans lived. 8. New Turkish: New Turkish was spoken between the 17th and 20th centuries C. E. Ottoman, Azeri, Turkmen, Cagatai, and Uzbek languages belong to this period. 9. Contemporary Turkish: Several Turkic languages spoken in Eurasia and Turkey, including modern Turkish, belong to the period of Contemporary Turkish. Table 1. Development of the Contemporary Modern Turkish Language (Bozkurt, 2002: 59 – 62) At this point, regarding the contemporary modern Turkish of Turkey, we should talk about the Language Revolution. The writers of the period of the Tanzimat (Period of Administrative Reforms) tried to purify the Turkish language from Arabic and Persian words - Ziya Gökalp a poet of the New Language Movement during the period of the Second Meshrutiyet says in his poem “Lisan” (“Language”), “Arapça’ya meyl etme, İran’a da hiç gitme” (“Do not tend to learn Arabic, and never go to Iran” ) (as cited in Tekin, 1994: 8). The writers of this movement eliminated Arabic and Persian grammar rules from 4
  • 5. Turkish. Besides, a part from the classification of Bozkurt (2002), in 1928, the Latin alphabet replaced the Ottoman one (Yücel, 2000: 21). On 12 July 1932, Atatürk founded the ‘Turkish Language Research Community’ (‘Türk Dili Tetkik Cemiyeti’) for conducting researches on modern Turkish. This society took the name of ‘Association of Turkish Language’ (‘Türk Dil Kurumu’, or briefly, TDK) in 1936 (Kocaman, 1994: 1). 1. 3. 2. Cypriot Turkish Regarding the Cypriot Turkish dialect, we can say that it is the mother tongue of Turkish Cypriots, some of whom can speak English or Greek with a native-like fluency; Cypriot Greek and British English influenced the dialect, and some Ottoman Turkish elements can be found in the dialect, as it has been isolated from Turkey for a long time (“Turkish Cypriots,” 2008). 1. 4. Aim and Scope of This Study In this study, we intend to discover the differences between the uses of the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Turkish Cypriot idioms and proverbs that express negative and positive emotions dealing with the acts threatening one’s positive face want and negative face want. 1. 5. Hypothesis We hypothesize that the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is used are employed in different techniques of threatening the positive and negative face want. 1. 6. Literature Review Concerning previous cognitive pragmatic studies, in Emotions in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, published in 2001, we can find some articles, analyzing the uses of some facial body parts from a cognitive pragmatic perspective: Amberber (2001) discusses the uses of bodily symptoms as metaphors in Amharic, such as the bodily symptom of acquiring the color of ash. In the same book, Bugenhagen (2001) mentions external bodily symptoms and body image expressions in Mbula that express emotions, and Enfield (2001) talks about Lao facial expressions, while Goddard (2001) talks about with expressions with ‘hati’ (‘heart’) in Malay. Our study differs from all of these studies, as we try to find the face threatening acts underlying Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is used in order to express emotions. 2. Methodology 2. 1. Negative and Positive Emotions 5
  • 6. In this study, we intend to analyze the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish metaphorical and metonymic idioms and proverbs that involve the negative and positive emotions classified by Lazarus (1991). According to Lazarus (1991: 361), ethnic differences play a crucial role in psycho-physiological responses to emotions. Lazarus (1991) suggests that goal congruence, or incongruence and goal relevance are present in the formation of both negative and positive emotions, and the type of ego-involvement is important in the formation of certain emotions. Lazarus’s classification of negative and positive emotions is shown below: NEGATIVE (GOAL INCONGRUENT) EMOTIONS: Disgust / hate fright / anxiety shame / guilt sadness jealousy / envy anger POSITIVE (GOAL CONGRUENT) EMOTIONS: Happiness / joy relief pride love / affection. Table 2. Lazarus’s Classification of Negative and Positive Emotions (1991) 2. 2. Face and Politeness Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1987) define politeness as a “redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect of face threatening acts (FTAs)” (as cited in Moore, 2002). According to this concept of Brown and Levinson, there are two types of face: one is the negative face that people exhibit, wanting their actions not to be inhibited by others, and the other is the positive face, which consists of the positive consistent self-image that people want to have in order to be appreciated, and approved by others (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 61). Besides, people have a tendency to maintain one another’s face continuously in human communication (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 61). Brown and Levinson (1987) grouped the kinds of face threatened in the following way: THREATENING THE ADDRESSEE’S POSITIVE FACE WANT (1) Negative evaluation: disapproval, criticism, ridiculing, complaints, accusations, insults, contradictions, disagreements, and challenges 6
  • 7. (2) The cases where the speaker does not take into account the hearer’s positive face: violent emotions, taboo topics, bringing bad or good news, raising dangerously emotional or divisive topics, non-cooperation in the activity, such as interrupting one’s talk, and the use of address terms and other status-marked identifications in initial encounters (3) The speaker’s desire of possessing the hearer’s goods or being in place of the hearer: complaints, envy, admiration, or strong negative emotions like hatred, anger, lust, etc. THREATENING THE ADDRESSEE’S NEGATIVE-FACE WANT (1) Acts putting pressure on the hearer: orders, requests, suggestions, reminding, threats, warnings, and dares (2) Acts that predicate some future act of the speaker towards the hearer, such as offers and promises (3) The speaker’s desire of possessing the hearer’s goods or being in place of the hearer: complaints, envy, admiration, or strong negative emotions like hatred, anger, lust, etc. Table 3. Face Threatening Acts (Brown and Levinson, 1987) 2. 3. Theory of Conceptual Metaphor of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) According to the contemporary metaphor theory that George Lakoff and Mark Johnson suggest in their book Metaphors We Live By, published in 1980, metaphors are principally divided into two major groups: 1) conceptual metaphors and 2) linguistic metaphors. The conceptual metaphors are those structural metaphors, and the metaphors formed by linguistic expressions are those orientational and ontological metaphors. 2. 3. 1. Conceptual (Structural) Metaphors Conceptual, or in other terms, structural metaphors are known as cognitive metaphors; they have two parts: a target domain and a source domain. The target domain’s meaning is understood via the source domain, as in TIME IS MONEY. Money, the source is a concrete object, whereas the target is the abstract concept of time. The relation between the target and the source domain(s) is called mapping (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 7). Table 4. Mapping between an abstract and a concrete object 7
  • 8. These metaphors define a concept with another one: “One concept is metaphorically structured in terms of another” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 14). 2. 3. 2. Linguistic Metaphors 2. 3. 2. 1. Orientational Metaphors Orientational metaphors organize concepts in accordance with spatial orientation (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 14). They have physical and cultural bases (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 14). The orientations of up-down, in-out, front-back, on-off, deep-shallow, central-peripheral form these metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 14). Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 15) cite these examples: HAPPY IS UP; SAD IS DOWN I’m feeling up. That boosted my spirits. My spirits rose. You are in high spirits. Thinking about her always gives me a lift. I am feeling down. I’m depressed. He’s low these days. I fell into a depression. My spirit sank. Physical basis: drooping posture typically goes along with sadness and depression, erect posture with a positive emotional state. 2. 3. 2. 2. Ontological Metaphors One can define her / his experiences as entities and substances; “just as the basic experiences of human spatial orientations give rise to orientational metaphors, so our experiences with physical objects (especially our own bodies) provide the basis for an extraordinary wide variety of ontological metaphors, that is, ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980: 25). The list and the examples provided by Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 26 – 27) give some ideas of the kinds of purposes of the uses of these metaphors: 1. Referring The middle class is a powerful silent force in American politics. 2. Quantificational There is so much hatred in the world. 3.Identifying Aspects The brutality of war dehumanizes us all. 8
  • 9. 4. Identifying Causes The pressure of his responsibilities caused his breakdown. 5. Setting Goals and Motivating Actions I’m changing my way of life so that I can find true happiness. 2. 3. 2. 3. Metonymy Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Langacker (1993) emphasize the conceptual nature of metonymy. Radden and Kövecses (1999: 21) define metonymy in the following manner: “Metonymy is a cognitive process in which one conceptual entity, the vehicle [also often called the ‘source’, …], provides mental access to another conceptual entity, the target, within the same cognitive model.” Moreover, Ungerer & Schmid (1997: 140) mention these conceptualizations as major metaphors found in the works of Kövecses: “THE EMOTION COMES SUDDENLY FROM THE OUTSIDE,” “THE EMOTION IS A NATURAL FORCE,” “THE EMOTION IS A LIVING ORGANISM,” “PRESENCE IS THE EXISTENCE OF EMOTION,” “EMOTION IS A FLUID IN A CONTAINER,” and “THE BODY / THE EYES / THE HEART / OTHER ORGANS ARE CONTAINERS FOR THE EMOTION.” 2. 4. Data 2. 4. 1. Judeo-Spanish Data The Judeo-Spanish data were gathered from the following book: De Punta Pie a Kavesa: Trezoro Sefaradi [From the Tip of Foot to the Head: Sephardic Treasure] (2006) of Beki Bardavid and Fani Ender. 2. 4. 2. Turkish and Cypriot Turkish Data The Turkish data of idioms and proverbs were gathered from ten Turkish and ten Turkish Cypriot university students at the undergraduate and graduate levels between the ages 18 and 30. They took a test of forty (40) questions where they were required to use idioms and proverbs where the organ of face was used in order to threaten one’s positive and / or negative face. The test lasted two hours. 2. 4. 3. Ladinokomunita as a Control Group The correct uses of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs were adjusted via the control of the uses of the idioms and proverbs in which the organ of face was used in messages sent to the list of the Yahoo Group called Ladinokomunita where people must use Judeo-Spanish in order to communicate. The idioms and proverbs that are used to threaten one’s negative and / or positive face were divided into groups in accordance with their use in the messages sent to this list. Ladinokomunita (the community of 9
  • 10. Judeo-Spanish) is a list founded by Rachel Amado Bortnick. The group is available on this website: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/Ladinokomunita. 2. 5. Statistical Technique The percentages of the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs that indicate a certain emotion referring to each act threatening one’s positive and negative face were calculated and confronted with a test of comparison of proportions with the statistical tool “MedCalc” available at the following website: http://www.medcalc.be. The statistical test significance test level is 5 percent in accordance with this tool. This tool performs a Chi-Square test for the comparison of proportions, expressed as percentages from independent samples with Yates’ correction for continuity and a p-value. When the p-value is less than 0.05, the two proportions differ significantly. If one uses the tool, a box appears on the computer screen. In the box, one must write the proportion (expressed as a percentage) and the total number of cases of the first sample on the part reserved for the first set of data, and the proportion (expressed as a percentage) and the total number of cases of the second sample on the part reserved for the second set of data. Later the TEST button is selected. The test results show the difference between the two proportions, a 95% confidence interval for this difference, the Chi-Square test, and the p-value. The sum of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs was 156, whereas the sums of the Turkish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs was 97. 3. Findings and Discussion We found the following results regarding the statistical significance level of the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish idioms and proverbs shown below in Table 5: Emotions Expressed via the Face Percentages Difference 95% CI Chi -Square df p - value Judeo-Spanish Turkish Face Threatening Event Type PFT1 Disgust / hate 14% 1% 13% 7.2 to 18.8 10.788 1 0.0010 Anger 1% 2% 1% -2.2 to 4.2 0.012 1 0.9135 Sadness 14% - 14% 8.6 to 19.4 13.141 1 0.0003 Shame 8% 17% 9% 0.4 to 17.6 3.932 1 0.0474 Love 1% - 1% -0.6 to 2.6 0.026 1 0.8713 10
  • 11. PFT2 Disgust / hate 12% 3% 9% 2.9 to 15.1 5.099 1 0.0239 Anger 1% -% 1% -0.6 to 2.6 0.026 1 0.8713 Sadness 6% 7% 1% -5.3 to 7.3 0.003 1 0.9586 Shame 7% 4% 3% -2.6 to 8.6 0.509 1 0.4758 Love 2% 3% 1% -3.0 to 5.0 0.007 1 0.9337 PFT3 / NFT3 Sadness - 1% 1% -1.0 to 3.0 0.042 1 0.8374 Shame 2% - 2% -0.2 to 4.2 0.665 1 0.4147 Love 7% 3% 4% -1.2 to 9.2 1.159 1 0.2817 Happiness 10% - 10% 5.3 to 14.7 8.681 1 0.0032 NFT1 Disgust / hate 3% 5% 2% -3.1 to 7.1 0.224 1 0.6363 Anger 20% 1% 19% 12.4 to 25.6 17.780 1 P < 0.0001 Sadness 1% 1% 0% -2.5 to 2.5 0.422 1 0.5158 Shame 5% 5% 0% -5.5 to 5.5 0.088 1 0.7667 Love 6% 3% 3% -2.0 to 8.0 0.607 1 0.4359 Happiness 2% - 2% -0.2 to 4.2 0.665 1 0.4147 NFT2 Disgust / hate - 5% 5% 0.7 to 9.3 5.516 1 0.0188 Love 1% - 1% -0.6 to 2.6 0.026 1 0.8713 Table 5. Results of the Test of Proportions of the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish Idioms and Proverbs Expressing Emotions via the Uses of the Organ of Face Furthermore, the following results concerning the statistical significance level of the Judeo-Spanish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs were found, as shown below in Table 6: Emotions Expressed via the Face Percentages Difference 95% CI Chi -Square df p - value Judeo- Spanish Cypriot Turkish Dialect Face Threatening Event Type PFT1 Disgust / hate 14% 1% 13% 7.2 to 18.8 10.788 1 0.0010 Anger 1% 2% 1% -2.2 to 4.2 0.012 1 0.9135 Sadness 14% - 14% 8.6 to 19.4 13.141 1 0.0003 Shame 8% 27% 19% 9.2 to 28.8 15.240 1 0.0001 11
  • 12. Love 1% 15% 14% 6.7 to 21.3 17.384 1 P < 0.0001 PFT2 Disgust / hate 12% - 12% 6.9 to 17.1 10.880 1 0.0010 Anger 1% - 1% -0.6 to 2.6 0.026 1 0.8713 Sadness 6% - 6% 2.3 to 9.7 4.477 1 0.0344 Shame 7% - 7% 3.0 to 11.0 5.503 1 0.0190 Love 2% - 2% -0.2 to 4.2 0.665 1 0.4147 PFT3 / NFT3 Shame 2% - 2% -0.2 to 4.2 0.665 1 0.4147 Love 7% - 7% 3.0 to 11.0 5.503 1 0.0190 Happiness 5% - 5% 1.6 to 8.4 3.471 1 0.0625 NFT1 Disgust / hate 3% - 3% 0.3 to 5.7 1.543 1 0.2142 Anger 20% - 20% 13.7 to 26.3 20.318 1 P < 0.0001 Sadness 1% 1% 0% -2.5 to 2.5 0.422 1 0.5158 Shame 5% 5% 0% -5.5 to 5.5 0.088 1 0.7667 Love 6% 3% 3% -2.0 to 8.0 0.607 1 0.4359 Happiness 2% - 2% -0.2 to 4.2 0.665 1 0.4147 NFT2 Love 1% - 1% -0.6 to 2.6 0.026 1 0.8713 Table 6. Results of the Test of Proportions of the Judeo-Spanish and Cypriot Turkish Idioms and Proverbs Expressing Emotions via the Uses of the Organ of Face In the subsequent sections, we will discuss our statistical findings via the Conceptual Metaphor Theory of Lakoff and Johnson (1980). 3. 1. Acts Threatening One’s Positive Face Want As previously explained in Table 3, the acts threatening one’s positive face include negative evaluation and inattention to the hearer’s positive face, and the acts that show the desire of the speaker towards the hearer or the hearer’s goods can threaten both the positive face want and the negative face want of the hearer. The idioms and proverbs depicting the acts falling into these three categories are analyzed in this section with the negative and positive emotions they imply. 12
  • 13. 3. 1. 1. Negative Evaluation 3. 1. 1. 1. Disgust / hate We found that 14% of the Judeo-Spanish, 1% of the Turkish, and 1% of the Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs were indicating Disgust / hate via the employment of the organ of face, threatening the speaker’s positive face via negative evaluation. The difference of 13% between the percentages of these two groups of idioms and proverbs is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.0010. In (1) we encounter the conceptual metaphors of “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR BADNESS” and “BADNESS IS BEING ROTTEN.” As a rotten apple smells bad and seems terrible, a bad person can do everything terrible. Therefore, it is not just to talk to this person. As this proverb is a disapproval of a bad person’s character, it is used to threaten the positive face want of a person who must not be a friend of a bad person. (1) No veyas la kara, aryentro esta pudrido komo la mansana. Don’t look at the face, the inside is rotten like an apple! Moreover, in the idiom in (2) which is present both in Turkish and Cypriot Turkish we see these conceptualizations: “THE FACE IS A STOP” and “DISGUST / HATE IS A JOURNEY.” This idiom is used to disapprove a person’s positive approach to a bad person. (2) Yüzüne gelmemek Not to come to one’s face 3. 1. 1. 2. Anger 1% of the Judeo-Spanish, 2% of the Turkish and the Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs express anger threatening one’s positive face want with a negative evaluation with the uses of the organ of face. The difference between the percentages of the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish idioms and proverbs and Judeo- Spanish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.9135. The following conceptualizations underlie (3): “BEING OF HONEY IS BEING NICE,” “HONEY STANDS FOR BEAUTY,” “THE HEART IS A CONTAINER FOR THE BILE,” and “THE BILE STANDS FOR BADNESS.” This idiom involves the criticism of a bad person’s character. It is used to accuse a person of her / his bad behavior, just like the Turkish idiom in (4) and the Cypriot Turkish proverb in (5): (3) Kara de miel, korason de fiel. 13
  • 14. A face of honey, a heart of bile. (4) Yüz verince astar istemek To want the undercoat, as one gives face (5) Yüz buldu, n’apan? S/he found face, what are you doing? In (4) the conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A PRESENT,” “THE FACE STANDS FOR KINDNESS” and “UNDERCOAT IS EXCESSIVE DESIRE” are present. When a person gets angry with a shameless person who wishes more than a person offers her / him, this idiom can be used to depict this shameless person in an angry manner. (5) is cited when a Turkish Cypriot gets angry with a person who tries to exploit another. Here “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR KINDNESS” and “EXPLOITATION IS A RESULT OF EXCESSIVE KINDNESS” are active. Additionally, we can say that the idiom in (3) is based on the general metaphorical meaning of honey in the Jewish culture. Honey is regarded as a symbol of happiness, thus sweetness. As an example to the metaphorical use of honey in Judaism, during the blessing of the bread (Amotsi), Jews put the bread into honey celebrating the Jewish New Year, Rosh Ashana (Alalu, Arditi, Asayas, Basmaci, Ender, Haleva, Maya, Pardo, and Yanarocak, 2001: 43). 3. 1. 1. 3. Sadness None of the Turkish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs expresses sadness threatening one’s positive face via negative evaluation, referring to the organ of face. However, 14% of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs express this emotion in order to threaten somebody’s positive face want in this manner. This difference is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.0003. The conceptualizations “PEABEANS STAND FOR SADNESS” and “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR SADNESS” underlie the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (6). The idiom is used to criticize somebody who looks sad. (6) Kara de atramuz A face like peabeans 3. 1. 1. 4. Shame 14
  • 15. 8% of the Judeo-Spanish, 17% of the Turkish, and 27% of the Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs express shame via the face referring to negative evaluation. The statistical significance of the Turkish idioms and proverbs is due to a p-value of 0.0474, and that of the Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs is 0.0001. (7) is used to criticize a person who suffers, as s/he cannot reveal her / his love to another. The conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR SHAME,” “SHAME IS A SUBSTANCE IN THE FACE,” “THE HEART IS A CONTAINER FOR SADNESS,” and “SADNESS IS A SUBSTANCE IN THE HEART” underlie the Judeo-Spanish proverb in (7). (7) Mas vale verguensa en kara, ke dolor de korason. It is better to have shame on your face than to have pain in the heart. Besides, another idiom is used both in Turkish and Cypriot Turkish for criticizing a person about her / his shame. (8) Yüzü olmamak Not to have face The conceptualizations “THE FACE STANDS FOR SHAME” and “TO HAVE A FACE IS TO HAVE SHAME” underlie the idiom in (8). 3. 1. 1. 5. Love 1% of the Judeo-Spanish and 15% of the Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs indicate love for threatening somebody’s positive face by evaluating somebody negatively using an idiom or a proverb where the organ of face is used. This difference is statistically significant with a p-value less than 0.0001. None of the Turkish idioms and proverbs expresses this emotion with a positive face threatening strategy via negative evaluation with an idiom or a proverb where the organ of face is used. The Judeo-Spanish proverb in (9) criticizes a person, as s/he talks to a bad person, since this bad person works for another person who is loved. “THE DOG IS A BAD PERSON” and “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE FRIENDSHIP OF THE OWNER OF THE DOG” are the active conceptualizations in (9). (9) Da kara al perro por la kara del amo. Give face to the dog for the face of its owner. 15
  • 16. 3. 1. 2. The Speaker Does Not Consider the Hearer’s Positive Face 3. 1. 2. 1. Disgust / hate 12% of the Judeo-Spanish and 3% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs express Disgust / hate employing the organ of face by not taking into account the hearer’s face. This difference is statistically significant with a p-value of 0.0239. However, there is no Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb where the organ of face is used to indicate the speaker’s inattention to the hearer’s positive face. In the Judeo-Spanish proverb in (10) we see the personification of the word ‘lie’ and the underlying conceptualization of “A SHORT FACE STANDS FOR A SHORT TIME.” The proverb can be used to finish a relationship with a liar. (10) La mintira tiene kara kurta. A lie has a short face (it comes back easily) The conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR DISGUST / HATE,” “DISGUST / HATE IS A SUBSTANCE IN THE FACE,” and “THE BAYONET STANDS FOR FIGHT” underlie the Turkish proverb in (11) which implies the violent results of the emotion of Disgust / hate. (11) Surata bak, süngüye davran See the face and use the bayonet Moreover, the conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR GOODNESS” and “HAVING NOTHING INSIDE THE FACE STANDS FOR BEING HATED” are active in the Turkish Cypriot idiom in (12). This is used to raise conflict. (12) Suratında birşey yok There is nothing on her / his face 3. 1. 2. 2. Anger Regarding the emotion of anger, 1% of the Judeo-Spanish expresses this negative emotion with the organ of face, not taking care of the hearer’s face. However, none of the Turkish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs expresses this emotion with this organ, using a strategy not considering the hearer’s face. This percentage difference between the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs and those Turkish and those Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.8713. 16
  • 17. In (13) the stove is personified. In addition, the conceptualizations “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE BEST” and “THE ASS STANDS FOR THE WORST” underlie the proverb in (13). The proverb is used to make a violent criticism, using a slang word. (13) La ornaya kere kara, no kere kulo. The stove wants a face not an ass. Additionally, the conceptual metonymy “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE PERSON” appears in (14). The proverb is a curse used by an extremely angry person. (14) El Dio / el guerko ke te yeve la kara del espejo May God / the devil take your face off the mirror (a curse) 3. 1. 2. 3. Sadness 6% of the Judeo-Spanish and 7% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs express sadness without considering the hearer’s face via the use of the organ of face. This difference is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.9586. No Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb expresses sadness by not taking into account the hearer’s face. In the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (15), in the Turkish idiom in (16), and in the Cypriot Turkish idiom in (17) we encounter the conceptualization “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE PERSON.” (15) raises a violent emotion depicting the sadness of a person who may get angry when s/he hears the idiom. (16) and (17) are descriptions of a person who received bad news, and may get angry enough to attack, hearing the idioms. In (15) the phrase “I don’t know what” is used in order not to use foul language. (15) Kara de no se kualo “I don’t know what” face (16) Surat bir karış The face is a palm of the hand (17) Surat acı The face is bitter 17
  • 18. 3. 1. 2. 4. Shame 7% of the Judeo-Spanish and 4% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs indicate shame by showing disrespect for the hearer’s face. The difference of 3% between these percentages is not statistically significant (p=0.4758). There is no Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb expressing shame in the same way. Both (18) and (19) have the same meaning. In them the following conceptualization is found: “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE PERSON.” (19) is used by Turkish speakers. One depicts a shameless person with a violent dislike in the two proverbs. (18) Eskupele a kara, dize ke es luvya. Spit on his face, he will say it is raining. (19) Yüzüne tükürsen, yağmur yağıyor sanır. If you spit on her / his face, s/he thinks that it is raining. 3. 1. 2. 5. Love 2% of the Judeo-Spanish, 3% of the Turkish, and 0% of the Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs express love with the organ of face by not taking into account the hearer’s face. The 1% difference between the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish idioms and proverbs is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.9337. In the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (20) we see the concept of flower between two people as a means of expressing an inseparable couple. The speaker brings good news about her / his love to the hearer. (20) Yo i vos, kara de flor. You and me, face of flower The conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A BOOK” and “LOVE IS A STORY IN THE BOOK” underlie (21). The Turkish idiom is used to bring good news, as the person is loved. (21) Sevgisini yüzünden okumak To read one’s love from her / his face 3. 1. 3. Desire of the Speaker towards the Hearer or the Hearer’s Goods 18
  • 19. 3. 1. 3. 1. Sadness There is no Judeo-Spanish or Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb that expresses sadness via the organ of face indicating the desire of the speaker towards the hearer or the hearer’s goods. However, 1% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs express this emotion revealing the strong desire of the speaker towards the hearer or the hearer’s goods. The resulting 1% difference is not statistically significant (p=0.8374). In (22) the conceptualizations “COMFORT IS A PERSON” and “COMFORT’S FACE STANDS FOR HAPPINESS” are active. The idiom is used to express one’s envy for another’s hard work. (22) Rahat yüzü görmemek Not to see the face of comfort 3. 1. 3. 2. Shame 2% of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs with the organ of face indicate a desire for the belongings or qualities of the hearer; however, no Turkish or Cypriot Turkish proverb or idiom where the organ of face is used implies a shameful desire for being in place of a person. Regarding the 2% difference, as the p-value is 0.4147, this difference between the percentages of the idioms and proverbs of the two languages is not statistically significant. Besides, the following conceptual metaphor underlies the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (23): “BEING SHORT-FACED IS BEING SHAMELESS.” The speaker expresses her / his anger towards the shamelessness of the person. (23) Estrecho i de kara kurta Narrow and short face 3. 1. 3. 3. Love 7% of the Judeo-Spanish and 3% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs depict the emotion of love indicating a desire to be in place of another person, by using the organ of face. No Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb with the same organ expresses love showing a desire to be in place of somebody. The conceptualization “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER” is active in the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (24), and in the Turkish idiom in (25) “ROSEBUD / DEVIL HAIR / GENIE STANDS FOR ADMIRATION” is present as a conceptual metonymy. Both idioms express an admiration for a person’s ability to convince people. (24) En kada kara tener una “gondja” To have a rosebud on each cheek (a beautiful face) 19
  • 20. (25) Yüzünde şeytan tüyü var S/he has devil hair on her / his face 3. 1. 3. 4. Happiness 5% of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is used express happiness through a desire to have a person’s belongings and qualities. There is no Turkish or Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb using this strategy. However, the difference of %5 is not statistically significant (p=0.0625). In the Judeo-Spanish idioms in (27) and (28) we encounter the conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR HAPPINESS,” “THE HOLIDAY OF HAVING A REST AND THANKING GOD IS HAPPINESS,” “HAPPINESS IS LIGHT,” and “HAPPINESS IS A FEAST.” Shabat, Saturday is the most important day in Judaism. As God created the universe in six days, and dedicated the seventh day to having a rest, the precious day of having a rest is the Shabat (Alalu et al., 2001: 171). (27) Kara de bril / de brinzel Sparkling face (28) Shabat viene a la kara. Shabat comes to her / his face Moreover, “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE PERSON” and “SMILING STANDS FOR HAPPINESS” are the conceptual metonymies underlying (29). (29) Kara de riza Face of smiles All of these idioms express an admiration for the happy person. 3. 2. Acts Threatening the Addressee’s Negative Face Want In this section, we will analyze the idioms and proverbs in the three languages that are used to pose pressure on the hearer, acts predicating some positive future act of the speaker towards the hearer, i.e. offers and promises, and expressions of desire towards the hearer’s belongings and qualities. 20
  • 21. 3. 2. 1. Acts Posing Pressure on the Hearer 3. 2. 1. 1. Disgust / hate 3% of the Judeo-Spanish and 5% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs indicate the negative emotion of Disgust / hate posing pressure on the hearer by the employment of the organ of face. The difference of 2% between these percentages is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.6363. Besides, no Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb employs the face in order to pose pressure on the hearer. The conceptualizations “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR HATE” and “HATE IS A SUBSTANCE IN THE FACE” are found in the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (31) and the Turkish idiom in (32). These are used in giving advice to people in order to avoid an attack by an enemy. (31) Kara de oher Enemy face (32) yüz çevirmek To turn one’s face 3. 2. 1. 2. Anger 20% of the Judeo-Spanish and 1% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs express the negative emotion of anger via the uses of the organ of face in order to pose pressure on the hearer. There is no Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb indicating anger with the face in order to pose pressure on the hearer. The difference between the percentages of the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish idioms and proverbs is statistically significant with a p-value less than 0.0001. In the Judeo-Spanish idiom in (33) and the Turkish idiom in (34) the conceptualization “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR BADNESS” is present. In (33) “MUD STANDS FOR BADNESS” and in (34) “BEING OF DONKEY LEATHER STANDS FOR STUPIDITY” activate the emotion of anger in the hearer of the idioms, being warnings against the bad character of a person. (33) Kara lavada kon meados A face that has been washed with mud (34) Yüzü eşek derisi One’s face is of donkey leather 21
  • 22. 3. 2. 1. 3. Sadness 1% of the Judeo-Spanish and of the Turkish idioms and proverbs express sadness via the employment of the face for posing pressure on the hearer. As no difference exists between these percentages, the resulting p-value is 0.5158. The same percentage and the p-value are valid also for Cypriot Turkish idioms or proverbs which expresses sadness . In the Judeo-Spanish proverb in (35) the conceptualization “THE HEART IS A CONTAINER FOR ALL THE EMOTIONS” is active. “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE PERSON” is the metonymy underlying both this proverb and the Turkish and Cypriot Turkish idiom in (36). However, both (35) and (36) are advice and warnings about the existence of bad people. (35) Karas vemos, korasones no konosemos. We see faces, but we do not know hearts. (36) Yüzüne vurmak To hit one’s defect onto her / his face 3. 2. 1. 4. Shame 5% of the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs indicate shame with the face in order to pose pressure on the hearer. The inexistent difference between the percentages of the Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs is not statistically significant with a p- value of 0.7667. Both in (37) and (38) the conceptualization “THE FACE IS A TARGET FOR SHAMEFUL WORDS” appears. If one has the courage to say the truth, the shameless person may get ashamed and correct her / his bad behavior. The Judeo-Spanish proverb in (37) and the Turkish idiom in (38) which is used also in Cypriot Turkish consist of the advice to be courageous enough to say the truth. (37) Para dizir todo a la kara, se kere boka emprestada. You need a borrowed mouth (courage) to say everything to someone’s face. (38) Yüzüne vurmak To hit her / his faults on her / his face 3. 2. 1. 5. Love 22
  • 23. 6% of the Judeo-Spanish and 3% of the Turkish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs express love and affection by employing the organ of face for posing pressure on the hearer. However, the 3% difference between these percentages is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.4359. The Judeo-Spanish proverb in (39) implies that collaboration and affection are the two most important factors in creating nice work. It is an advice. In Turkish, the equivalent of the proverb is the following: “Bir elin nesi var, iki elin sesi var” (“What has a hand got? Two hands have got a sound”). (39) Una mano lava la otra, las dos lavan la kara. One hand washes the other, and the two wash the face. Besides, in the Turkish idiom in (40), the metaphor of ‘soft face’ alludes to the affectionate character of a person. This proverb is a suggestion, based on the description of the character of a nice person. (40) Yüzü yumuşak Her / his face is soft 3. 2. 1. 6. Happiness 2% of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs indicate happiness via the use of the organ of face in order to pose pressure on the hearer. No Turkish or Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb employs the face in order to express happiness by posing pressure on the hearer. This leads to a statistically insignificant difference of 0.4147 for the three groups of idioms and proverbs. In the Judeo-Spanish proverb in (41), we find the conceptual metonymy of “THE FACE STANDS FOR THE PERSON.” Besides, the person requests to encounter good people. (41) Kara buena veyamos. Let’s see a good face (be well received) 3. 2. 2. Acts Predicating Some Positive Future Act of the Speaker towards the Hearer 3. 2. 2. 1. Disgust / hate 5% of the Turkish idioms and proverbs express disgust or hate with the face in order to perform an act predicating some positive future act of the speaker towards the hearer, whereas no Judeo-Spanish or 23
  • 24. Cypriot Turkish idiom or proverb does the same. This leads to a statistical significance between the percentages of the Judeo-Spanish and Turkish idioms and proverbs (p=0.0188). In (42) the bad expression on the face of a person is depicted in Turkish. The proverb suggests that one should avoid an unfortunate sulky person. (42) Suratına bakanın kırk yıl işi rast gitmez. The one who looks at her / his face will not have encountered good events for forty years. 3. 2. 2. 2. Love 1% of the Judeo-Spanish idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is used imply the emotion of love by the employment of offers and promises, but none of the Turkish and Cypriot Turkish idioms and proverbs expresses love via the use of the organ of face. For both Turkish and Cypriot Turkish this leads to a p-value of 0.8713. The difference between the percentages of the numbers of the idioms and proverbs in the three languages is not statistically significant. In (43) and (44) the conceptual metonymy “THE FACE IS A CONTAINER FOR HAPPINESS” and “SMILING STANDS FOR HAPPINESS” are active. Both of the Judeo-Spanish idioms in (43) and (44) provide an offer predicating some positive future act of the speaker towards the hearer. (43) Pan i kezo i la kara riente. Bread and cheese, and a smiling face. On the one hand, in (43) it is explained that if one earns enough money to buy some food, this person is happy. On the other hand, in (44) a happy person’s face is resembled to the feast of Purim. The idiom has a tendency to underline the spirituality of the feast of Purim during which every Jew should enjoy the day. The feast of Purim is celebrated on 14th Adar in Tel Aviv and on 15th Adar in Jerusalem (Alalu et al., 2001: 72). Ahashverosh was the king of a large land and he got married with Esther, who never revealed that she was Jewish; Esther’s paternal uncle’s son, Mordehay prevented Ahashverosh to be assassinated; however, the vice consultant of the kingdom, Amman made Ahashverosh decide to kill all the Jews in the country on 14th Adar, as they were not obeying the rules he posed; meanwhile Ahashverosh decided to reward Mordehay for saving his life, and one day when he saw Esther sad, asked her what she wanted to be happy again. She wanted him not to kill the Jews, and depicted the bad actions of Amman, for which consequently Amman and his family were killed (Alalu et al., 2001: 72 - 73). Purim is celebrated against people who wish to oppress Jews. Therefore, Purim is a feast full of fun and joy. (44) Kara de Purim 24
  • 25. Purim face Purim is the feast where Jews celebrate their liberation from the Persians… 7. Conclusion This study shows that culture is an important factor in language and the Conceptual Metaphor Theory is a perfect example showing this. As our statistically significant results demonstrate, people speaking Judeo-Spanish, Turkish, and Cypriot Turkish use different idioms and proverbs even with the organ of face, expressing an act threatening one’s positive or negative face. This shows that the culture is crucial in our lives. In the future, more studies should be conducted on idioms and proverbs of all the three languages, and one should investigate the conceptual reasons of these conceptualizations. 8. Bibliography Alalu, Suzan, Arditi, Klara, Asayas, Eda, Basmacı Teri, Ender, Fani, Haleva, Beki, Maya, Dalya, Pardo, Ninet & Yanarocak, Sara (2001). Yahudilikte Kavram ve Değerler. Istanbul: Gözlem Basın ve Yayın A.Ş. Altabev, Mary (2003). Judeo-Spanish in the Turkish Social Context: Language Death, Swan Song, Revival or New Arrival? Istanbul: Isis. Amberber, Mengistu (2001). Testing Emotional Universals in Amharic. In J. Harkins & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 35 – 68. Ascher, Gloria J. (2001). "Teaching Ladino Language and Culture" and "Aspects of the Sephardic Tradition": Hopes, Fruits, Experiences. Shofar, 19 (4), 77-84. Bardavid, Beki & Ender, Fani (2006). Trezoro Sefaradi: De Punta Pie a Kaveza & Folklor de la Famiya Djudiya. Istanbul: Gözlem Gazetecilik Basın ve Yayın A.Ş. Besasel, Yusuf (1999). Osmanlı ve Türk Yahudileri. Istanbul: Gözlem Gazetecilik Basın ve Yayın A.Ş. Bozkurt, Fuat (2002). Türklerin Dili. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness – Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bugenhagen, Robert D. (2001). Emotions and the Nature of Persons in Mbula. In J. Harkins & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 69-114. Clewlow, David Frederick (1990). Judeo-Spanish: An Example from Rhodes. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, Hispanic and Italian Studies, British Columbia. Enfield, Nick J. (2001). Linguistic Evidence for a Lao Perspective on Facial Expression. In J. Harkins & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 149- 166. Goddard, Cliff (2001). Hati: A Key Word in the Malay Vocabulary of Emotion. In J. Harkins & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Emotions from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 167-196. Harris, Tracy (2005). What Language Did the Jews Speak in Pre-Expulsion Spain? In Sephardic Identity: Essays on A Vanishing Jewish Culture. Jefferson, North Carolina & London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 99–111. Hengirmen, Mehmet (1999). Dilbilgisi ve Dilbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: Engin. Kocaman, Ahmet (1994). Cumhuriyet, Dil Devrimi ve Ötesi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1-3. Koen-Sar ano, Matilda (2001). Ensenyando el Djudeo-Espanyol (Ladino) en la Universidad Ben-Gurion. Shofar, 19 (4), 53-57. Ladinokomunita. Available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ladinokomunita 25
  • 26. Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1993). Reference-point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics (4), 1 - 38. Lazarus, Richard (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Medcalc. Medcalc Statistical Tool. (January/16/2008). Available at: Medcalc: http://www.medcalc.be Moore, Andrew (2002). Pragmatics. Available at: http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/pragmatics.htm Radden, Günter & Kövecses, Zoltan (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17 - 59. Refael, Schmuel (2001). Current Methods and Methodology in Ladino Teaching. Shofar, 19 (4), 85-95. Sephiha, Haim Vidal (1977). L'Agonie des Judéo-espagnols. Paris: Entente. Shaul, Elie (1994). Folklor de los Judios de Turkiya. Istanbul: Isis. Tekin, Talat (1994). Cumhuriyet Döneminde Türkçe'nin Gelişmesi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 4-10. Turkish Cypriots. (March/05/2008). Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Cypriots Ungerer, Friedrich. & Schmid, Hans Jörg. (1997). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Longman. Yücel, Tahsin (2000). Türkçe'nin Kurtuluş Savaşı. Istanbul: Yeni Gün . 9. Appendix: Questionnaire of Forty Questions Use idioms and proverbs that include the word face in order to answer the following questions. 1. A person gets angry with another, as she realizes that s/he did not keep a secret. 2. A person describes an ugly person s/he hates. 3. A person wishes that something bad will happen to a person s/he dislikes. 4. You are very sad. How does your face look like? Criticize yourself. 5. When does your face become colorful? 6. How do you depict an old person with wrinkles. You hate her / his appearance. 7. Have you ever ‘kept a face of smile’? (“kara de riza” in Judeo-Spanish) 8. Which emotion does the color of yellow indicate in your language? Where do you use it? 9. Which emotion does the color of red indicate in your language? Where do you use it? 10. Do you use the names of feasts with the organ of face for indicating a certain emotion? When do you use this proverb or idiom? 11. How can you depict your enemy with idioms where the organ of face is used? 12. How can you depict your friend with idioms where the organ of face is used? 13. How can you depict your boyfriend / girlfriend with idioms where the organ of face is used? 14. Describe a frightened face with an idiom. Criticize this fear, ridicule this fear, and appreciate this fear. 15. Can you depict a face of honey? When? 16. Depict an ashamed person with idioms and proverbs with the organ of face. 26
  • 27. 17. Does the face of an angry person look like a plant? 18. Does the face of a happy person look like a plant? 19. Does the face of a loved person look like a plant? 20. Does the face of a proud person look like a plant? 21. Does the face of a relieved person look like a plant? 22. Does the face of a shameless person look like a plant? 23. Does the face of an ashamed person look like a plant? 24. Does the face of a hateful person look like a plant? 25. Can you depict a shameless person with idioms and proverbs with the organ of face? 26. Have you ever made your face black? When? What can it mean? 27. Have you ever made your face white? When? What can it mean? 28. Have you ever made your face red? When? What can it mean? 29. Has your face ever become green? When? What can it mean? 30. How can you describe a beautiful, but bad friend? 31. Does face stand for the emotion of shame in your culture? Give an example to the idioms and proverbs where the face stands for the emotion of shame. 32. Can you depict any negative emotions with the face of an animal? 33. Can you depict any positive emotions with the face of an animal? 34. Who can have his face by / at / in the sun? 35. Can you depict a person who lives a forbidden relationship with the idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is used? 36. Depict an unemployed person with the idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is used. 37. A friend criticizes your ugliness. Which idioms and proverbs should s/he use? 38. A mobster threatens a millionaire for getting some money from him. Which idioms and proverbs should s/he use? 39. You wish to express your anger with some slang words. Which idioms and proverbs where the organ of face is employed can you use? 40. Thank, apologize, and forgive somebody using a proverb or idiom with the organ of face. 10. List of Abbreviations 27
  • 28. PFT1: positive face threatening act – type 1 in accordance with Table 3. PFT2: positive face threatening act – type 2 in accordance with Table 3. PFT3: positive face threatening act – type 3 in accordance with Table 3. NFT1: negative face threatening act – type 1 in accordance with Table 3. NFT2: negative face threatening act – type 2 in accordance with Table 3. NFT3: negative face threatening act – type 3 in accordance with Table 3. 28