A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CULINARY TERMS BETWEEN ZAAR AND
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
BY
JOHN, CHRISTOPHER
U15EN2014
A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND
LITERARY STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR
OF ARTS (B.A. HONS) IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
October, 2018.
i
DECLARATION
I, John Christopher, declare that this project is the result of my own research. It has never
been submitted and accepted anywhere for Bachelor Degree. All literature cited have been
acknowledged in the reference. To the best of my knowledge, no part of this project was
previously presented for another degree or diploma at any university.
___________________
_______________
John, Christopher
Date
ii
CERTIFICATION
This project, “The Comparative Analysis of Culinary Terms between Zaar and English
Language” by John Christopher meets the regulations governing the award of Bachelor of Arts in
English Language, at Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State.
____________________
Dr. S. A. Abaya
Project Supervisor
___________________
____________________
Mal. Aliyu Abdullahi
Project Coordinator
____________________
____________________
Prof. T. Y. Surakat
Head of Department
_____________________
______________________
External Examiner
______________________
Date
Date
Date
Date
iii
DEDICATION
This research work is dedicated to my Gracious God who has guided me through all hard and
challenging times in the course of my studies and to my late kid brothers, Lura and Vibani, John
and Jeremiah Nehemiah respectively. Though gone but not forgotten. May you continue to rest
in peace with the Lord.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To God who does exceedingly above all are all glory, honor and adoration forever.
My sincere gratitude goes to my project supervisor, Dr. S. A. Abaya, a veritable intellectual from
whom I have imbibed inquisitive disposition. His unwavering commitment and objective
criticism as I struggled with ideas, concepts and methodological quandaries brought this project
to a success- it has been an honor to work with him.
I am also filled with heartfelt gratitude to my wonderful and loving parents Mr. John Sammako
Molmol and Mrs Mary John. Your support and encouragement has been unquantifiable. At many
points when all hopes seemed despondent, you never hesitate to light a candle through the dark
path(s). Words cannot express your effort towards me and I am indebted to you. My prayer is
that God will bless you abundantly and that you would live to eat from the fruit of your labor
(Amen).
To my beloved siblings, Mr. John Madalla (and his darling wife and beautiful kids; Afiniki,
Manyar and Chongda in a particular order), Grace, Joseph, Esther and Raymond, your prayers,
love, cooperation and support is second to none. May God bless you in all your endeavors.
I must not conclude without acknowledging my friends whose keen words and advice has always
point one useful direction or the other. Thank you for making impact in my life. God bless you
all.
v
ABSTRACT
This study focuses on Comparative Analysis of Culinary Terms between Zaar and English
Language. It aims at comparing overt semantic features of culinary terms and the objectives are
to identify the lexico-semantic components, distinguish these, owing to how they point to culture
variation between Zaar and English. The Semantic Field and Componential Analysis Theories
serve as descriptive models for the analysis. Through unstructured interview, introspection and
written literature, the research methodology explicates the predicted variation between Zaar and
English lexical semantic features of culinary terms. The study reveals that both the Zaar and
English culinary arts exhibit common semantic components with respect to boil, broil, and
charcoal, parboil, roast, and simmer whereas bake, burn, cook, fry and rot disclose different
features of semantic components in the two languages. Similarly, boil, broil, burn, charcoal, roast
and simmer have equivalent sense relations in both Zaar and English as opposed to bake, cook,
fry and rot in which case reveal significant differences of sense relations in the two languages.
Therefore, since the uniqueness of any language is implicit in its structures and may not be clear
until researches are undertaken to reveal them, more researches should be conducted on other
linguistic levels such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of Zaar
language.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page……………………………………………………………………………………...…..i
Declaration …………………………………………………….....………………………..……..ii
Certification………………………………………………….……………………………...……iii
Dedication……………………………………………………..……………………………….. iv
Acknowledgements……………………………………………..………………..……………….v
Abstract……………………………………………………………….………………………….vi
Table of Contents……………………………………………….………………………………..vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..…….1
1.1
Background to the Study……………………………….…………………………..…….2
1.2
Statement of the Research Problem….................................................................................6
1.3
Research Questions …………………………….………………………………………..7
1.3
Aim and Objectives of the Study ….……………………………………………………7
1.4
Justification of the Study....………………….…………………………………………...7
1.5
Scope and Delimitation of the Study……..……..………………………………………..8
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.0
Introduction ………………………………….…………...…………………………….9
2.1
Culinary Art ……………………………………….…………………………….……..9
2.2
Lexical Semantics ……………………….……..……………………………..………11
2.3.0
Sense Relation…………………………………….………………….……………..…12
2.3.1
Synonymy ……………………………………………………………………….….…13
2.3.2
Antonymy …………………………………………….……………………………….13
2.3.3
Hyponymy ………………………………………….………………………………….13
2.3.4
Polysemy ……………………………………………….……………………..……….14
2.4.0
Semantic Cuisines……………………………..……………………………………….14
2.4.1
The Field of Culinary Terms …………………………………………………………..15
vii
2.4.1.1
Boil, Specific Sense …………………………..…………………………………….17
2.4.1.2
Poach and Stew ……………………………………………………………………..17
2.4.1.3 Braise ……………………………………………………..….………………………19
2.4.1.4 Parboil ………………………………………………………………………………..19
2.4.1.5
Broil …………………………………………….……….…………………………...21
2.4.1.6
Barbecue ………………………………………………………….………………….22
2.4.1.7
Bake ……………………………………………………….….……………………...22
2.4.1.8
Brown ………………………………………………………….…………………….23
2.4.1.9
Burn ……………………………………………………………….…………………24
2.5
Culinary Triangle …………………………………….…………………………......25
2.6.0
Whorfian Hypothesis…………………………………………………….…………..26
2.6.1
Formal Structures of the Hypothesis
2.7
The Relationship of Cuisine and Culture……………………….….………………..27
2.8
Cuisine and Place Identity …………………………………………………………..29
2.9
Theoretical Framework ……………...…………………….………………………….30
………………………………………….27
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.0
Introduction ……………………………………….………………………………..32
3.1
Method of Data Collection ……………………….…………………………….…..32
3.2
Sources of Data Collection …………………………………………………………32
3.3
Sampling Procedure …………………………………..………………………...….33
3.4
Method of Data Analysis ………………………………………..……………….…33
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.0
Introduction ……………………………………………………………….………..34
4.1
Data Presentation ……………………….……………….……………………..…..34
4.2
Data Analysis and Discussions …………………….……………………………....36
4.3
Findings ……………………………………………..……………………………...43
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
viii
5.0
Introduction ………………………….………………………………………….……..45
5.1
Summary ………………………………………………………………………….……45
5.2
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………...……45
5.3
Recommendation …………………………………………………...…………………..46
References …………………………………………………………………………….………xlvii
Appendixes …………………………………………………………………………………..…lii
ix
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
This study is about comparative analysis of culinary terms between Zaar and English language. It
draws from the sweeping generalization that there is no culture without the art of cooking and
language. Therefore, cooking, i.e. the transformation of raw materials provided by the nature
with heat into food dishes typical for specific cultures is the core of human action, (Levi-Strauss,
1966). In Levi-Strauss’ structural approach, cooking symbolically marks transition from nature
to culture and from nature to society given that while raw is natural in origin, cooked implies a
step that is both cultural and social. Issues embedded herein focus around lexico-semantics
approach of culinary identity perceived as one of the main components of linguistic and ethno
cultural distinctiveness, of two geographical remote communities namely, the Zaar and the
English communities. The subject of analysis is the linguistic cum cultural perception of Zaar
and English cuisines.
Dating back to the beginning of mankind, human nourishment, deeply rooted in culture and
tradition, has carried a strong community aspect. Man, like any other specie on the cosmos has
interacted with nature from the earliest time according to one overriding imperative: survival.
For a very long time, this imperative was based not only on the need to protect himself from
what, at times, were highly adverse environmental conditions, but above all on his ability to win
the challenge of ‘eating or being eaten’ (Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition, 2009). The ways of
making, storing and consuming one’s own food are the result of particular historical, sociocultural and axiological processes, the essence of which is in creating, maintaining and ensuring
the conditions needed for development of social communities; such behavior is defined as
culinary act, i.e. a conscious choice evolving as the consequence of an evolution of perception,
10
ethical and aesthetic norms and behavioral pattern of a given community. It is built on two
concepts: culinary arts and gastronomy. Both lexical entries are perceived from two perspectives;
preparing the food and consuming it. It is clearly seen in Culinarius –the Latin adjective for
culinary (“kitchen”- attributive), being a derivative of Culina- the noun meaning cuisine/food.
A century ago, culinary-related behaviors appeared rarely as subject of scientific research.
Roland Barthes (1997: 21) rightly commented on such approach in the following way: “we do
not notice our own food, or, what is worse, we assume that it is insignificant”. The increase of
interest in culinary issues became observable in 1960s as cultural anthropologists first of all
Claude Levi-Strauss, Mary Douglas, Norbert Elias and Pierre Bourdieu started to work with this
subject.
In culinary triangle Levi-Strauss presents a model of semantic field of cooking looking at things
from the outside. He presents an abstract model of cooking which is independent of any
particular culture, Adrienne (1972). The purpose of this work is to comparatively examine the
lexico-semantic structure of culinary/cooking terms in Zaar and English language using the
semantic field theory.
1.1 Background to the Study
The work seeks to examine two languages with overt linguistic, cultural and geographical
distinctiveness with a view of determining whether or not they share common use of culinary
vocabulary. The study may reveal the semantic components of Zaar and English culinary terms
and at the same time relates these componential features to potential culture variation in the duo.
It may also illustrate the differences in the culinary terms of the two languages.
11
The science of linguistics shows that like humans, animals and other biological structures,
languages in like terms exhibit a provable relation. This relationship will best be found
embedded in the characteristic qualities of sounds which convey subcategories of word classes
and will be phonologically traceable without overdue strain to shared origin. While some
languages are closely related, some maintain a long distance relationship. Zaar and English do
not sprung from common ancestral or parent or proto language. In essence, both do not belong to
the same family tree. Zaar belongs to the West Chadic group of the Afro-asiatic phylum whereas
English is a sister language in the Germanic branch of the Proto Indo European (PIE) language.
Konstanz (2012) observes that the tree shows genetic relation of the individual languages by
making a simplified assumption that each language derives from a single ancestor. Nevertheless,
it is usually possible to single out one of the language’s ancestors as being more important than
others. We define this one as its genetic ancestor, Kortmann & Van Der Auwera (2011). The
linguistic evidence for this classification is usually based on epigraphic witnesses, without which
the evidence can be linguistically determined only indirectly on the basis of ecological and
cultural lexicon and mutual borrowing from and into substrata, adstrata and superstrata, Blezek,
(2002).
Zaar, also known as Saya, is spoken by about 150,000 speakers in the South of Bauchi State
(Nigeria), in the Tafawa Ɓalewa and Ɓogoro Local Government Areas. Together with 30 or so
other related languages first identified by Shimizu (1975), Zaar forms a sub-branch of West
Chadic languages named the South-Bauchi languages. Apart from the dominant languages, i.e.
English (official national language) and Hausa (dominant all over Northern half of Nigeria),
South Bauchi languages are surrounded by Niger-Congo languages in the West
(Izere, Birom); in the East (Jarawan Bantu); in the South (Tapshin, Fyem, Kwanka) and further
12
South-East (Tarok). Two isolates inside South-Bauchi languages are Bankal in the North and Ɓoi
in the South.
The names derived from the root "Saya" (i.e. Bàsáyè:, pl. Sáyá:wá:, for the speakers, and
Sáyáncì: for the language) are the names used by the Hausa. The speakers call themselves Zaar
meaning 'human being', and call their language vìk Zaar (literary, 'Mouth of men'). As they
consider the term "Saya" derogatory, we use the term Zaar to refer both to the people and to the
language.
According to their oral tradition, the Zaar originate from the Lake Chad area. They started
migrating southwestwards about four hundred years ago because of the deterioration of farming
conditions, or because of the proliferation of slave hunting that developed in the Hausa and
Borno kingdoms. After stopping in Duguri, they moved again southeastwards. Shimizu (1975:
10) notes that: ‘’The homeland of the speakers of southern Bauchi group of Chadic was around
the three hills, Tala, Kir and Buli which are located just to the south of Bauchi Township.’’
They moved again further south to take refuge in the hills on the east side of Plateau area. A
large part moved down to the present location in the plain at the foot of those hills when the area
was specified under British colonization.
Newman (1980), posits that Zaar, (which he calls Saya) belong to the West-B3 group of Chadic
languages. Greenberg (1967) first proposed the concept of Chadic family as a distinct unit in the
Afro-asiatic phylum. The branches of the West Chadic include Hausa (A.1), Bole-Angas (A.2),
Bade Warji (B.1/B.2) and Barawa (B.3). The latter is where Zaar, comprising Dass, Geji, Polchi,
Saya, Zari and Zeem belong. (See appendix for West-Chadic family tree)
13
Four dialects can be distinguished within Zaar, named after the main villages or towns where
they are spoken: Ɓogoro (formerly called the Lusa dialect), Gambar Lere, Marti and Kal. The
Kal dialect is very close to what is generally called the Sigidi or Guːs language (cf. Caron 2001),
so much so that Gu:s can be considered a dialect of Zaar. Most Zaar people of the younger
generation are bilingual in Zaar-Hausa. They are schooled in Hausa in primary school, before
learning English. The Zaar are Christians and use English and Hausa translation of the Bible.
The older generations are not sure of themselves in Hausa, whereas the younger educated elites,
who often hold positions in the administration, police and education, switch comfortably
between Zaar, English and Hausa.
On the other hand, English as an Indo-European language belongs to the Germanic family.
Germanic is a group of languages including modern German, Dutch and English which
developed from the Proto-Germanic which itself developed from Proto-Indo European, Byrne
(1993). Hoads, (2006) lists five significant features which demarcate Germanic languages from
other Indi-European languages: the distinction between strong and weak verbs, the distinction
between strong and weak adjectives, the existence of only two basic verbal tenses, the evidence
that consonants have been shifted and the use of stress on the first syllable of most words.
Germanic languages are spoken as native language by several hundred million people in Western
Europe, North America and Australasia. They share many features with other Indo-European
languages because they have developed from same reconstructed parent language. They
therefore represent a branch of the Indo-European phylogenic tree (Nakleh & Warnow, 2005).
Roland (2006) confirms that the Germanic languages are classified into three branches: West
Germanic, North Germanic and East Germanic. Prasad (2014) presents the tree (See appendix).
The genetic distinction in the family tree of the two languages (Zaar and English) points to
14
possibility of linguistic and cultural variations, yet, there is possibility of universalism in concept
formation, in which case here, culinary cuisines between the two languages under consideration.
1.2 Statement of Problem
Though considerable research efforts have been made by different linguists and researchers on
culinary terms from linguistic points of view in one hand, and developing automated an accurate
methods in understanding the grammar of Zaar language in the other hand, most of these studies
have either been typically grammar-based or comparatively studied culinary terms using two or
more languages other than Zaar and English. For instance Caron (2018) in his work
Macrosyntactic Annotation: the Case of Zaar examines minimal annotation representing a
simple and concise interface between information structure and syntax. Earlier, Caron (2013) had
investigated in his work Zaar Grammatical Sketch, the phonological and grammatical features of
Zaar language. Another research was carried out by Kimsa (2017) on the Contrastive Analysis of
Plural Formations between Zaar and English. Their idea of exploiting (a) specific type of
grammatical level(s) and categories is highly feasible.
However, the present work exploits semantic analysis of Zaar and English culinary
lexicons/terms. It would apply Triers semantic field theory alongside Katz and Fodor’s
Componential Analysis Theory. This is because their componential semantic approach to lexical
decomposition may more appropriately serve in bringing out the basic semantic components of
the culinary terms. This research is important because it may add to the existing literatures where
an attempt to compare the culinary terms of Zaar and English may explicitly reveal the
similarities and differences in the culinary terms along a dimension of registers and culture
variations in both languages.
15
1.3 Research Questions
The following are the research questions;
1. What are the lexico-semantic features of the culinary terms of Zaar and English
language?
2. How different are the Zaar lexical semantic features of culinary terms from those of
English?
3. To what extend do the lexico-semantic features of culinary terms of Zaar and English
languages point to culture variation?
1.4 Aim and Objectives
The aim of this study is to identify, analyze and compare the lexico-semantic features of Zaar
and English culinary terms and how they point to cultural variation. The objectives of the study
include, to:
1. Identify the lexico-semantic features of culinary terms of Zaar and English.
2. Distinguish the lexico-semantic features of culinary terms between Zaar and English.
3. Highlight the extent to which the lexico-semantic features of culinary terms point to
culture variation between Zaar and English language.
1.5 Justification of the Study
This study is significant because lexical semantics play an utterly important role in all linguistic
sub discipline ranging from Language Engineering to Field-Linguistics. The former generally
deal with the main languages whereas the latter records minority and endangered languages.
Since lexis form an essential component in describing all relevant information that can be
associated with the structural units of a language, e.g. a word, morpheme or even whole
16
sentence, a study of this nature will be significant because it may reveal the semantic
components of these structural units. For the limited if not absence of written literature on Zaar
culinary terms let alone comparison with those of other languages, particularly English, the result
may also contribute to the literature by revealing the language use in culinary arts of Zaar and
English language. The study may serve as reference for any comparative linguistic studies on
Zaar lexical semantic structures. It may also provide insights for practitioners, researchers and
instructors in the field of cooking since cultural perception of a people plays a role in
determining food choice. The study may also reflect the synchronous paradigm shift in
linguistics with enquiry into several new but mutually interrelated disciplines.
1.6 Scope of the Study
This study focuses on the lexical elements and their semantic components of Zaar and English
culinary terms. This is to enable a thorough investigation into the subject matter. The semantic
theories adopted for the analysis are Kats and Fodor Componential Analysis and Trier’s
Semantic Field Theories.
Four dialects can be distinguished within Zaar, named after the main villages or towns where
they are spoken: Ɓogoro (formerly called the Lusa dialect), Gambar Lere, Marti and Kal. The
Kal dialect is very close to what is generally called the Sigidi or Guːs language (cf. Caron 2001),
so much so that Gu:s can be considered a dialect of Zaar. For the purpose of this comparison, the
Bogoro/Lusa dialect and the Standard British English have been selected for the study.
17
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter contains the review of related literature and the theoretical framework of the study.
Zaar and English works related to this study were reviewed. The English literatures reviewed
included the works of (Adrienne, 1972; Levi-Strauss, 1965; Katz & Fodor, 1966; Zarki, 2008
etc.). The Zaar equivalents were gathered from works of (Caron, 2008: 2012: 2013 & Dauda,
2008). They discuss issues that boarder around culinary art, lexical semantics and the
complication in its decomposing , sense relation, the field of culinary terms, culinary triangle,
relationship of cuisine and culture and cuisine and place identity respectively. The chapter also
discusses the Semantic Field and Componential Analysis theories as the theoretical framework of
the study.
2.1 Culinary Art
Culinary art is the art of preparing food which is based on cultural and/or professional
knowledge. Marta, (1904) has proposed a definition of culinary arts as follows:
It is the art of preparing and applying nourishment, – the ability of choosing
nourishing substances, namely products, – the art of distinguishing their
advantages and disadvantages, including harmful sides – fairly, there is the
mystery of studying and being acquainted with transformations that all the dishes
have to go through; skillful and reasonable flavoring of dishes with various spices
and aromas – fragrances that result in a pleasant taste, satisfying the relevant
hygiene requirements, being suitable for maintaining health, and looking
wholesome on a permanent basis.
Thus, culinary terms may be seen as sets of lexical elements used in the art of cooking. This
involves oppositions that are capable of describing the items, process and skills involved in
cooking.
18
A century ago, eating and other nutrition-related behaviors appeared rarely as a subject of
scientific research. The topic had been considered as trivial and perceived as having very little in
common with science until the mid-20th century. Roland Barthes (1997: 21) rightly commented
on such approach in the following way: “we do not notice our own food, or, what is worse, we
assume that it is insignificant’’.
Zarki, (2008) observes that the majority of researchers investigating the history of national
cuisines do not view the object of their study as homogeneous. There have always been
differences in time, region, class, religion and customs hence, the question of Zaar and English is
not different. Little wonder the history of mankind and its culture is closely connected with
changes related to ways of eating. Culinary identity connects material and spiritual spheres that
determine cultural, social, mental and economic perspectives perceived diachronically and
synchronically, (Stanislaw, 1981). The culinary code is among the most long-lasting exponents
of a group and its social and national identity patterns. The concept of the borderland cuisine is
complex; it results from the type of social awareness in which historical reality in individual and
group reception takes on a different dimension. Opinions about the given cuisine are generally
diversified. For example, emigrants tend to mythologize family and ethnic cuisine most
frequently. Identity and ethno cultural issues play the key role… (Konwicki, 1970). The subject
matter oscillates around linguistic, religious and cultural identity of the members of these
communities. The issues are connected with national/community identity on one hand, and
focusing on the products of culture on the other hand, but all of them usually aim at validating
previously made assumptions than making new ones.
The borderland is frequently described as a set of peripheral geographical areas that are not in
direct contact with each other. The term ‘borderland culture’ treated as a collection of features of
19
different origin and, forming a functional unity appears to be more accurate than the notion of
multiculturalism (Barbara, 1992).
2.2 Lexical Semantics
Language as a means of communication has been graded into different levels ranging from
phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics etc. This study focuses on comparative lexical
semantics analysis of culinary terms. Semantics according to Nweze (2011) is a preferred term
to other such terms as semasiology, semiotics, semology, sememic, etc that were previously in
use by scholars and authors not so long ago. It is a term principally concerned with meaning.
Bierwisch (1970) captures the goal of semantics; the semantic analysis of a given language
“must explain how the words (or sentences) of this language are understood, interpreted, and
related to states, processes and objects in the Universe” (p.60). The general task of semantics
may be summarized by the question: ‘what is the meaning of the word or sentence of a
language? The answer to this question may not be tackled directly. More basic questions may
also have to be asked to break down its complexity. The question in this case, is what is the
meaning of the lexical elements that constitute the syntactic structure and the interrelatedness
between or among them?-Lexical semantics. By asking this question, we are therefore
confronted with yet another difficult one which is understanding meaning. Meaning has been a
very controversial term. The views expressed by Ndimele (1999), Collinge (1991), Cherry
(1957) among others paint a picture of the controversies surrounding the concept of meaning
owing to its several functions. Ndimele (1999) posits that meaning is a chameleon changing the
color of its effects, with the change of speaker, hearer, context or setting. Collinge, (1991) notes
that the problem is to ascertain what meaning means as meaning serves many functions. Cherry
(1957) on his own, remarks that meaning is a harlot among words, it can seduce the writer or
20
speaker from the path of intellectual chastity. Though fraught with controversies, its centrality in
communication has consequently brought an array of approaches to its definition notable among
which is lexical semantic approach. The central idea in lexical semantics is the use of meaning as
a parameter for the distinction between some lexical items and others which ‘forces’ such items
to be highly selective in their occurrence with others. This selective nature of certain related
items yields them into semantic fields. Semantic field is ‘an area of meaning containing words
with related sense’ (Finch, 2000 p.6). Sense refers to common linguistic meaning of an
expression. The sense of word according to Palmer (2000, p.86) “is revealed through the
relations of meaning which the word contracts with other lexemes in the language.” These
relations include synonymy, antonymy, hyponym etc.
2.3.0 Sense Relations
The relationship that exists between one word and another within a language system refers to
sense relation. Not only can words be traced as “containers” (container theory of meaning) or as
fulfilling ‘roles’ (semantic roles); they can also have relationships. In considering the
relationships, we are characterizing the meaning of a word not in terms of its component
features, but in terms of its relationship to other words. The common thread that runs through the
views of scholars about sense relations is that it examines various relationships words or lexemes
share among them. Anagbogu, Mbah and Eme (2010, p.223) view that sense relation is “the
meaning relation between words; it refers to how the meanings of individual words are either
different or similar.” Similarly, Ndimele (1999), postulates that in every language, words not
only bear meaning relation to each other but have no meaning properties in isolation. Finch
(2000) refers to sense relation as the semantic relationships which words contract with each other
within the linguistic system on the basis of their senses. From the foregoing, one understands
21
sense relation as a term that examines relationships between words in a language and
characterizes words belonging to same area of meaning hence same semantic set. Onwukwe,
Anagbogu, Mbah & Eme (2010) posit that the following lexeme sense relations are in existence;
synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, polysemy, etc.
2.3.1 Synonymy
Synonyms are those ″lexical items whose senses are identical in respect of ′central′ semantic
traits, but differ, if at all, only in respect of what we may provisionally describe as ′minor′ or
′peripheral′ traits″ (Cruse, 1986, p. 267). This indicates that absolute synonyms are perhaps not
likely to occur in language such as Zaar and English. Example include simmer and boil which
are said to be partial synonyms.
2.3.3 Antonyms
Antonyms are recognized of ″their dependence upon dichotomization″ (Lyons, 1977, p. 271) in
which binary opposition can be revealed in the form of contradictory pairs. It must be mentioned
that the ″oppositeness of meaning between lexemes″ (Lyons, 1977, p. 271) is relative than
absolute in most cases. In the culinary field, antonyms would include cooked and raw, oil and
water etc.
2.3.3 Hyponyms
Cruse (1990) cited in Igbeaku (2012) agrees that the concept of hyponymy involves inclusion
and exclusion. Similarly, Palmer (2000) notes that when we consider hyponymous relations, we
are essentially looking at the meaning of words in some type of hierarchical relationship. For
instance, in culinary terms, the word brown-burn as a superordinate term(s) has hyponyms as
parch, toast, sear, rissoler and flamber.
22
2.3.4 Polysemy
A polysemous word is ″a pattern of distinct but related senses of a lexeme″ (Saeed, 2016, p.70).
Lyons (1977) tried to present three different methods that may help draw distinctions between
polysemy and homonymy by ″virtue of the etymological criterion″ (p. 550) that depends on the
knowledge of the historical derivation of the word. The second pays much interest to the ″native
speaker′s intuitions of relatedness of meaning″ (p. 552). The third one involves the application of
″a componential analysis of the senses of lexemes″ (p. 553). Nevertheless, it seems to be that
there is no definite and reliable method that we can rely on in our effort to differentiate between
polysemy and homonymy.
2.4 Semantic Cuisines
Lehrer (1969) uses the term semantic cuisines to refer to the components and relation of lexical
elements in the field of culinary arts.
Structural semantics seeks to discover certain relationships among the words in the vocabulary
of a language.' This area of linguistic analysis has received relatively little systematic study by
most linguists until recently (Gleason, I962:86), and the vocabulary has been considered a rather
unorganized set of items.
One approach which has been successful in semantic analysis, however, is the FIELD THEORY.
According to this view the vocabulary of a language is organized into lexical or conceptual
fields, and the items within each field are tightly structured with respect to each other. The field
approach has been successfully applied to some semantic areas, for example, kinship terms, color
terms, plant taxonomies and other fields with clear denotational referents. In some semantic
analyses, the field theory is implicit, although the term FIELD is not used, but a set of
vocabulary items which are related are analyzed together (Bierwisch, I967; Bendix,I966).
23
However, syntagmatic presuppositions and productive or partially productive word-building
processes also constitute an important part of the lexical field and should be studied along with
the paradigmatic sets (Lyons, I963: 78, I968: 428). Lehrer,(1969) applied this approach to the
lexical field of cooking terms in English, which includes a basic set of verbs and formally and
semantically related nouns and adjectives. The analysis shows that the items in the culinary field
are highly organized and that the semantic analyses tend to support each other. The assumptions
and conclusions agree in general with those of Lyons (I963) concerning transformational
grammar as developed by Chomsky (I957, I965, etc.) and others which provide the basis for the
statement of the semantic relations that hold between lexical items. The notion of 'universe of
discourse' is relevant to semantic analysis in that certain lexical items contrast paradigmatically
in some fields but not in others. The reference is distinguished from meaning (or sense), but it is
accepted that reference may be appealed to in establishing the meaning of a lexical item. The
meaning of a lexical item is described in terms of the relations (of incompatibility, antonymy,
hyponymy, synonymy, etc.; cf. Lyons, I968: 443-170) that hold between it and other lexical
items.
2.4.1 The Field of Culinary Terms
Lehrer,(1969) notes that the field of culinary terms in English is most conveniently treated by
taking verbs as basic in describing the paradigmatic contrasts, although in a few cases, lexemes
may be synchronically derived from nouns. The set of verbs is as follows: cook, boil, simmer,
stew, poach, braise, parboil, steam, reduce, and fry; sauté', pan-fry, French-fry, deep-fry, broil,
grill, barbecue, charcoal (or charcoal-broil), plank, bake, roast, shirr, scallop, brown, rissoler,
sear, parch, toast, burn and flamber.
24
In addition, a number of semantically compound terms are found: steam-bake, pot-roast, ovenpoach, pan-broil and oven-fry. Lexemes such as smoke and thaw are used in food preparation,
but they do not belong to this narrow field. The more general field of food preparation would
include not only the subset of cooking lexemes, but subsets for mixing, chopping, coating,
adding ingredients, separating substances, preserving, etc. According to Lehrer, (1969) the word
cook has three levels of generality. In its most general sense (cook,) it means to 'prepare a meal'
(cook1), belonging to the field of household tasks along with dust, wash, vacuum, etc. (cook2),
and belonging to the field of occupations, with repair electrical appliances, sweep chimneys, etc.
(cook3). Lehrer’s use of SENSE is somewhat different from what is often meant by this term, but
not to suggest that these three senses are necessarily distinct. In fact, there is great overlap. The
first sense is the least marked and the third sense is the most marked
For Lehrer, (1969), a slightly less general sense of cook1 contrasts with bake. Bake has a general
and specific use, too, but the one here is general. The semantic distinction is that baking refers to
the preparation of cakes, cookies, breads, pastries (bake1) and other things which are sold in
bakeries and prepared by professional bakers (bake2) while cooking refers to the preparation of
most other kinds of foods. Therefore, Cook and bake are the only lexemes in the culinary field
which occur intransitively with an animate subject. I can cook or I sauté mushrooms is
acceptable, but not *I sauté'.
The most marked sense of cook (cook3) involves the application of heat which produces an
irreversible change in the object (food) cooked. The most specific use is incompatible with cool
and chill, whereas cool and chill are included in the more general sense of cook because the
preparation of some foods, e.g. puddings, requires both heating and cooling, and we would still
wish to apply the term cook to the preparation of such foods, Lehrer, (1969). The lexical field
25
covered by cook3 can be divided into four main categories headed by the lexemes boil, fry, broil
and bake2 (the specific sense). The terms constitute an almost closed set and are largely
incompatible with one another. These four lexemes, then, are hyponyms of cook3. Of this set
boil has the most complex subset of terms included in it. Boil has a general and specific
meaning. Both senses involve cooking with liquid, usually water or a water-based liquid (stock,
wine, milk), but oil (grease, fat) is excluded Lehrer, (1969). The phrase boiling in oil is
semantically acceptable in many contexts because oil, like other liquids, has a boiling point, can
have things immersed in it, etc. But in the culinary field this phrase is unusual.
2.4.2 Boil Specific Sense
The specific sense of boil, boil2 adds the component of vigorous action (occasionally referred to
as a full boil, though the modifier need not be present for this meaning), and this sense contrasts
with simmer. Simmer (Ɓәәmgәn) means 'to cook just below the boiling point' without the rolling
bubbles which characterize boil2. Boil1, the general sense, is unmarked with respect to the vigor
of the process and includes both simmer and boil2. Simmer and boil2 collocate with both liquids
and solids. However, if what is boiled is a solid, it is presupposed that some liquid is present,
Croft-Cooke, (1960). The meat boiled in a dry pan is anomalous, although one might boil
tomatoes without addition of liquid since the natural juices provide enough liquid.
2.4.3 Poach and Stew
The lexemes poach and stew are hyponyms of simmer (and therefore of boil1 since the
relationship is transitive).To poach is 'to cook by surrounding with simmering (not boiling) water
or other liquid using care to retain shapes'(Betty Crocker, I956: 14). Foods which are typically
poached are eggs, fish and fruit. Stewing is 'a long slow method of cooking in a liquid which is
kept at simmering point' (Good House -keeping Cooking Encyclopedia, I964: 407), and applies
26
to meat, vegetables and fruit. Since fruit can be poached or stewed, and since poaching and
stewing are extensionally identical, the possibility arises of treating poach and stew as synonyms,
used in free variation with fruit and in complementary distribution with other foods. This
proposal is not satisfactory; however, though the purpose of these cooking processes is
semantically relevant, the purposes are different. The purpose of poaching is to retain the shape
of the food, while that of stewing is to make the food softer, and a long cooking time achieves
this purpose. In the case of fruit, where poaching and stewing seem to be the same, the difference
in meaning still exists. One would poach a fruit to preserve its shape and stew it to make it soft,
although these ends can often be accomplished simultaneously. We speak of stewed tomatoes but
hardly of poached tomatoes because tomatoes do not usually retain their shape when cooked in
water. Here is a case where we can separate reference and meaning;
(Poached eggs and boiled eggs differ in their reference in that the former are cooked without
shells while the latter are cooked with them. While it would be possible to define poach and boil
to account for this difference, the semantic description would be complicated to a point of
diminishing returns. It is therefore preferable to treat poached egg and boiled egg as unitary
lexemes. Another term, coddle, seems to collocate only with egg, so that coddled egg may be
considered a lexemic unit, Lehrer, (1969). Since cook books sand dictionaries disagree as to
exactly how to coddle an egg, it is difficult to abstract any precise meaning for coddle). Poach
and stew collocate only with solid (or solidifiable) foods, which is logical, given the purpose of
the processes. One cannot preserve the shape of a liquid by boiling it in water or make a liquid
softer.
27
2.4.4 Braise
Braise refers to two processes carried out sequentially. Braised food (meat and vegetables) is
'browned in a little fat, then cooked in a little liquid over a low heat in a covered pan'
(Gastrononmique, I960: 303) cited in Lehrer (1969). After the first process (browning), the rest
of the cooking is done by stewing. The semantic overlap of stew and braise is paralleled by
identical collocational preferences.
Most cook books agree that braising is done in a tightly covered pot, and therefore the use of a
lid is probably to be specified in a semantic description of braise. This further component makes
braise a partial hyponym of stew rather than a synonym: Braise=stew and [+Lid] Braise is also a
partial hyponym of brown.
2.4.5 Parboil
Lehrer, (1969) notes that parboil is 'to partially cook food in boiling water'. The term is used only
with solids, and the simmer-boil distinction does not apply. Parboil contrasts with stew with
respect to the length of time involved (short v. long). Parboil brings up a presupposition that
should perhaps be incorporated into the semantic description- that at least some of the other
cooking lexemes assume that food will be thoroughly cooked. The sentence these cooked
potatoes are half raw is rather anomalous unless stress and intonation patterns suggest an
ironical use of the word cooked.
The two remaining lexemes in the boil set are steam and reduce, which are incompatible with
simmer. In order to steam a food, 'the water must not be allowed to go off the boil' (Good Housekeeping, I964: 406) and the food is not submerged in the liquid as it is in the other boiling
processes. To reduce is 'the process of boiling a mixture... in an uncovered pan . . . to evaporate
surplus liquid and give a more concentrated result (Pocket Guide to Good Cooking, 1955: 234)
28
in Lehrer (1969). The purpose of the process- to reduce the bulk- is a relevant component, and a
vigorous boil and an uncovered pan accomplish this more efficiently than simmering a liquid in a
covered pan. Although there may be some doubt as whether to include [- Lid] and [+ Vigorous
boil] as components of the meaning of reduce, I will do so since these components occur in the
analysis of other lexemes subsumed under boil1. Reduce collocates with liquids and steam with
solids.
Figure i summarizes the terms which are hyponyms of boil. This chart is arranged with respect to
the vigor of the boiling action while one arranged according to collocations preferences or
restrictions would look somewhat different.
Boil1 (unmarked)
Simmer
Poach Stew
Boil2 (marked)
Parboil
Steam
Reduce
Braise
Figure1
(A lexeme is a hyponym of a term above it; lexemes on the same line are incompatible if
separated by a vertical bar.)
The set of cooking words headed by Fry includes fry, sauté, pan-fry, French fry and deep-fry.
Frying is characterized by the use of fat (oil, grease) in cooking, although the fat may be present
in the food being fried, Lehrer, (1969). The invention of nonstick frying pans requires a
modification of this analysis. For some speakers, fry is characterized by cooking a food in a
frying pan or similar utensil above the heat source. Water, however, must not be used. Such an
analysis requires disjunct components. The culinary condiments of Zaar term fry (wutlar or
29
tlwaas) extends the semantic components of fry from oil to other culture specific components.
These components include sand, ash, and leaf.
[+ Fat] v. [+ Cooking in frying pan above heat] A further complication is that for some speakers,
fry contrasts with deep-fry; although they will admit that deep-frying is a kind of frying. This
case suggests that fry may have a general and specific use. Pan-fry is sometimes used for the
specific sense. Pan-fry is partially synonymous with sauté', but sautéing requires fat while panfrying need not. French-fry and deep-fry are synonymous, involving a relatively large amount of
fat, that is, enough to cover what is being fried, and both are incompatible with sauté, which is
characterized by a small amount of fat. Fry collocates with solids.
2.4.6 Broil
The term broil (va:ghәn) and its hyponyms-grill, barbecue, charcoal and plank bring up the
problems of dialect differences and range of reference, Claiborne, (1961). To broil is 'to cook
directly under a heating unit or directly over an open fire'. Although broil is a common American
term, grill is used in Great Britain instead. ('Broil is the older English word and was current in
British cookery books up to about I900': New York Times Cook Book, 685) cited by Lehrer
(1969). Broil and grill are partially synonymous, but grill has a slightly wider range of
application than broil. To grill is 'to broil on an open grill or cook on a griddle'. Cooking a food
(e.g. pancakes or hamburgers) on a griddle is referentially more like frying than broiling so that
grill may have to be considered a partial hyponym of fry as well as of broil. (We could establish
grill as the more general term, with broil a hyponym of it, but this is not satisfactory for
American English because broil is the commoner word, used at a rank equal to fry, bake and
boil. Grill is less common.)
30
2.4.7
Barbecue
The lexeme barbecue (va:ghәn á gәzәrәŋ wut) has two senses. The one that is relevant to cooking
is 'broiling over a bed of glowing coals'. The component added to those of broil is that the source
of heat is hot coals. The other sense of barbecue involves cooking a food with a special sauce,
usually containing tomato, vinegar and seasoning. By using such a sauce one can barbecue meat
by baking it as well as by broiling it.
Charcoal (wu:m) (or charcoal-broil) is synonymous with barbecue with respect to the method of
cooking, but the use of a sauce is not implied. The Zaar sense of wu:m implies a noun which
does not signal action. To achieve the culinary sense in the term, a descriptive statement is
necessary, as in va:ghәn á wum (charcoal-broil). To plank is 'to cook (usually meat or fish) on a
wooden board in a hot oven or under a broiler'. There is some semantic overlap with bake, but
plank can be considered a hyponym of broil contrasting with barbecue and charcoal. The set of
broil lexemes is restricted to collocations with solids, mainly meat, poultry, fish and occasionally
vegetables.
2.4.8 Bake
To bake is 'to cook by dry heat in an oven' such that the heat acts 'by conduction and not by
radiation'. That is, the source of heat is indirect rather than direct as for broiling. The general
sense of bake, as suggested above, bake1, refers to the preparation of bread, pastries, etc., and
English has a number of pairs of terms for these products before and after they are baked: doughbread, batter-cake. The specific use of bake, bake2, is another method of cooking, contrasting
with fry, broil and boil, and most bakery products are prepared by this method. (Doughnuts may
be fried, however.)Bake collocates primarily with solids.
31
The principal lexeme related to bake2 is roast, but there is a semantic difficulty in this
classification. 'In its true sense, roasting means cooking by direct heat in front of an open fire...
but the modern method of cooking in a closed oven, though normally called by this name, is
really baking' (Good Housekeeping Cooking Encyclopedia,364). We see that roast overlaps with
broil semantically in that some roasted foods (meat, marshmallows) are cooked over (or under)
an open fire. One alternative is to establish roast, as an equal member of the set of lexemes bake,
broil, boil and fry, but roast does not contrast with bake and broil and is not completely
synonymous with either term nor is there adequate motivation for establishing two senses of
roast, one synonymous with bake and the other synonymous with broil. It is more accurate to
attribute to roast a range of meaning which overlaps with bake and broil, making roast only a
partial hyponym of bake. Shirr and scallop are the remaining hyponyms of bake. Shirr, used
primarily for eggs, means 'to bake in a small shallow container'. To scallop is 'to cook and serve
in a scallop shell or a dish like one' (English Cooking, I960: 232), but the scalloped foods are
usually cooked in a cream sauce, and this sauce is a semantic component, perhaps more
important than the baking dish used.
2.4.9 Brown
Brown heads another subset of lexemes subsumed under cook. This set is related to the fry-broilbake-boil set but cannot be placed in a hierarchical relationship to it. To brown is 'to give a dish
... an appetizing golden-brown color by placing it under the grill or in a hot oven' (Good Housekeeping, 472) or by frying. Boiling is excluded because boiling a food does not brown it (unless
the water cooks out, in which case one is no longer boiling the food). Therefore, brown implies
not boil.
32
Burn
Burn/(gәәbkәn) in the culinary field is related to brown as a gradable member of a pair, Lehrer,
(1969). To burn is 'to brown too much'. One can burn a food by over frying, over baking or over
broiling. But burning in zaar collocates with tubers such as cassava (gyeɗi) or sweet potato
(lawur) and their likes. The broiling process of these has a semantic component of burning the
peels. Boiling, for the reason mentioned above, is excluded. Brown has four hyponyms: sear,
rissoler, toast and parch. To toast is 'to brown by direct heat', that is, by broiling; to parch is 'to
brown with dry heat', that is by baking, and to sear and rissole mean 'to brown by frying'. Searing
is done quickly, rissolering, slowly. The four hyponyms of brown collocate with solids, but
brown can be applied to things like butter (which would be in a liquid state) in addition to solids.
The lexeme flamer, meaning 'to flame with brandy or fortified wine', is another hyponym of
cook, but it is a comparatively rare word. Its rarity, of course, reflects American and British
culinary habits. Although flamer contrasts with fry, broil, bake and boil, it should be tentatively
classified with the brown set, since flaming food in this way browns and crisps the surface of the
food. Moreover, the thing to be flambéed is often previously cooked by some other method (e.g.
duck, steak).
Brown
parch
Toast
Burn
Sear
Rissole
Flamber
Fig.3
There are a number of compound lexemes in the culinary field: steam-bake, pot-roast, ovenpoach, pan-fry; and presumably many new ones can be generated: charcoal-bake, simmer-grill,
oven-brown, etc. How these compounds should be classified semantically depends on whether
priority is to be given to reference or formal signals, Lehrer, (1969). Pot-roasting, for example, is
33
almost the same as braising, although pot-roast has a narrower range of collocations than braise.
This would make pot-roasta hyponym of boil rather than of bake. Even if reference is selected as
the determining factor, it is difficult to classify a term like oven-poach, which is referentially like
baking in some respects and like boiling in other respects. The compound lexemes clearly show
the limitation of hierarchical analysis. The range of lexemes like roast and grill partially
extending over two other terms also reveals this limitation. A componential analysis might
handle these semantic relationships more conveniently. In a componential analysis one looks for
the smallest number of components which will provide all of the relevant information, and so the
most general elements are sought Katz, (1967). However, some definitions call for quite specific
and unique components, as 'in a small shallow container' in the case of shirr.
2.5 Culinary Triangle
Within a triangular semantic field whose three points correspond respectively to the categories of
raw, cooked and rotted, Levi-Strauss (1966) points out that in respect to cooking, the raw
constitute an unmarked pole, while the other two are strongly unmarked though in different
directions. Indeed, the cooked is a cultural transformation of the raw whereas ‘the rotted is a
natural transformation’. Levi-Strauss postulation cannot be generalized in this sense since rot in
Zaar is both a ‘cultural and natural’ transformation.
Levi-Strauss (1966) cited in Lehrer (1977) categorized the roasted on the side of nature, the
boiled on the side of culture: literarily because boiling requires the use of a receptacle, a cultural
object. Symbolically, in as much as culture is the meditation of the relation between man and the
world and boiling demands a meditation (by water) of the relation between food and fire is
absent in roasting.
34
Within the basic culinary triangle formed by categories of raw, cooked and rotted, Levi-Strauss
(1966) inscribed two terms which are situated; one, the roasted under the vicinity of the raw, the
other the boiled, near the rotted. The culinary triangle by Claude Levi-Strauss can be
diagrammed below;
Fig. 4
RAW
roasted
(-)
Air
(-)
Water
Smooked
Boiled
(+)
COOKED
(+)
ROTTED
Source: Lehrer, (1972)
2.6.0 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Language is not just a means of communication. Our culture and even our thought processes are
influenced by language to some degree. This ideology has become known as the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis. It starts from the premise that everyone has a fundamental need to make sense of the
world. We impose order on the world in order to make sense of it and language is the principle
tool available to us for organizing the world. Sapir (1956) expresses it thus,
... the real world is to a large extent built up on the language habits of the group. We
see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language
habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. The worlds in
which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels attached.
35
Whorf (1956) goes on to say,
We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do
largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an
agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the
patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one,
but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to
the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.
2.6.1 Formal Structure of the Hypothesis
1. We are, in all our thinking and forever, at the understanding of the particular language which
has become the means of expression for our society, we experience and practice our expression
by means of the characteristics, peculiarities, and sometimes literary words encoded in our
language.
2. The characteristics, peculiarities, and literary words encoded in one language system are
distinctive, typical, and unique to that system and they are dissimilar as well as incomparable
with those of other systems.
3. Since the culture of a particular place or nation is different from others, sometimes the
misunderstanding and misconception occurs when one from another nation uses the language of
that nation.
4. In order to understand the specific words, literary terms, and even sometimes the simple words
in one language, we must be familiar with the culture of that nation.
2.7 The Relationship of Cuisine and Culture
The English anthropologist, Taylor, (1821) points that “culture is that complex whole which
include knowledge, beliefs, arts, law, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habit
acquired by man as a member of society”. However, for Goodenough (1957) “a society’s culture
36
consist of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to
its members, and to do so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves”.
How, what, when, and why we eat is strongly tied to culture (Asp, 1999; Chuang 2009; Hjalager
& Richards, 2002; Jamal, 1996; Srinivas, 2007, Woolgar, 2010). Srinivas (2007) contends, “the
way in which [food] is caught, farmed, cleaned, processed, cooked, and eaten are symbolic of
different kinds of meaning at many different levels” (p. 85). Cuisine is a cultural artifact and a
central aspect of cultural learning (Cornejo Happel, 2012; Hegarty & O’Mahoney, 2001).
D’Sylva and Beagan (2011) refer to cuisine as “cultural capital”. Culinary rituals and customs
can be linked to religion as they bind people to their faiths and belief systems (Feeley-Harnik,
1995; Just, Heiman & Zilberman, 2007; Mintz & Du Bois, 2002). Culinary customs signify a
society where cooking and eating transcend mere functionality and symbolize rituals of a
developed society (Cornejo Happel, 2012; Harrington, 2005; Sengupta, 2009). Culture, divided
into “material culture” and “social culture” is in part, shaped by the type of foods consumed and
determines the methods of obtaining them, cooking methods used, and occupations associated
with the nature of the foods (Renaud, 1931). A destination’s local cuisine is “deeply rooted in a
particular place, space, and time, its culinary traditions reveal the character of the society and
mentality of its members” (Bessiere, 1998, p. 28). Cuisine represents an integral element of a
destination’s intangible heritage (Hassan, 2008). Atkins and Bowler (2001) maintain that “taste
is culturally shaped and socially controlled” (p. 5). Cuisine and religion are also immutable
because religion affects cultural traditions (Harrington, 2005; Jaitly, 2004). The practices of
fasting, feasting, relationship of food with values, beliefs, morals and virtue, taboos, etiquette,
methods and implements used for preparation, and nutrition are aspects of gastronomy that have
religious connotations (Woolgar,2010).
37
2.8 Cuisine and Place Identity
Cuisine is inextricably linked to the destination in terms of its cultural heritage, political, social,
and economic identity. It is an important marker of cultural distinctiveness and is as idiosyncratic
as music, dance, art, and other forms of expression (Dawson, 2012) and is therefore considered
to be an important dimension of a destination’s perceived image (Beerli & Martin, 2004).
According to Everett (2009), Food is increasingly regarded as a multidimensional artifact which
encompasses the very identity of a place or individual. Eating exotic and global foodstuffs has
become part of a new post-modern culture characterized by pluralized and aestheticized
experiences.
Culinary identity incorporates “influences of the environment (geography and climate) and
culture (history and ethnic influences) on prevailing taste components, textures, and flavors
(Harrington, 2005, p. 130). This relationship is depicted in a Figure (see appendix). The primary
influences in the evolution and consequently the identity of a cuisine are culture (which includes
the prevalent religions in an area), and climate and geography. Dawson (2012) alludes to the
centrality of food from a social perspective claiming that “food feeds our social existence and
defines social relationships in every domain of human activity” (p. 245). Whereas the correlation
between cuisine and culture has been discussed above, a discussion on the relationship between
cuisine and the environment is also pertinent. Before the import of food products from other
parts of the world became a common phenomenon, local cuisines were based on the agricultural
products (vegetables, fruits, grains, and spices) and types of meat available in an area. A
destination’s cuisine image forms through unique and memorable culinary experiences which if
perceived
favorably,
can
ultimately contribute
38
towards
the
destination’s
long-term
competitiveness (Fox, 2007; Lin et al., 2011). A cuisine’s image is a function of its identity,
which whilst constantly evolving, is affected by a number of factors (Harrington, 2005).
Kittler, Sucher, and Nelms (2012) coined the term food habits (also known as food culture or
food ways) to describe the manner in which humans use food, including everything from how it
is chosen, acquired, and distributed to who prepares, serves, and eats it. They stated that the
significance of the food habits process is that it is unique to human beings. Thus, the concept of
food as a cultural signifier and encompass fields as diverse as literature, anthropology, sociology,
and history. Social conscience and peer pressure impact food choices (Brown, 2011). It was
found that group approval or disapproval of a given food had an impact on food choices. If the
group favored the food choice, a person is more likely to accept that food as part of his or her
diet. On the other hand, when the group disapproves of a food choice, the person making the
selection generally rejects the food in question.
2.9 Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework is a conceptual model that is used as a guide for the study, Dale (2005)
or themes from the literature that are conceptually mapped and used to set boundaries for the
research (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
The Semantic Field and Componential Analysis Theories have been selected as the theoretical
frameworks of the study.
Semantic field theory holds that the meanings represented in the lexicon are interrelated, that
they cluster together to form ‘’fields of meaning’’, which in turn cluster into even larger fields
until the entire language is encompassed. Thus sprinting, trotting, and jogging cluster into a field
of running, which in turn clusters with many other verbs into a larger field of human motion, and
39
so on to a field of motion in general. Robins (1964) writes, “The field theory of meaning is
concerned to show that the lexical content of a language, its total vocabulary, or such of it as is
available to a speaker at any time, is not a mere conglomeration or aggregation of independent
items, and that the word meanings cannot be understood or adequately described as if it were. In
part, the meaning and use of most words are governed by their presence in the language or
availability in language to a speaker of other words whose semantic functions are related in one
or more ways to the same area of situational environment or culture”.
Katz and Fodor’s (1967) Componential Analysis Theory according to Prasad (2014), deals with
the structural approach of vocabulary in terms of relatively small set of general elements of
meaning called components, markers or sememes. In this total meaning structure, a word is
broken up into its basic distinct components. Each component is expressed by a feature binary
opposite symbol with a + or – mark to indicate presence and absence of a certain feature
respectively. Hence, the meaning of each word is described as the sum total meaning of these
ultimate contrastive elements.
Therefore, the Semantic Field Theory and Componential Analysis Theory complement each
other and together can do more than either one can alone. The results of field analysis show the
relationship of lexical items to one another and this in turn provide basis for a componential
analysis. In fact, the field theory provide excellent motivation for deciding whether or not to
include a component as a part of the meaning of an item since almost any commonly shared
piece of information is a potential semantic component
40
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter features a detailed explication of the research process beginning with an explanation
of the method of data collection, sources of data collection, sampling procedure and method of
data analysis.
3.1 Method of Data Collection
The researcher used an unstructured interview as a method for eliciting relevant linguistic data
from informants. Discussions were employed and questions were presented to the informants
who were elders and natives of Zaar language. This was done in an informal and relaxed
atmosphere where certain significant, reliable and valid information were obtained about the
Zaar language culinary terms and its structures; which could, however, be difficult in a formal
situation. Hence, qualitative method of data collection was used.
3.2 Sources of Data Collection
Data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources of data for
this research work was based on interview and ‘introspection’, the latter being the researcher’s
knowledge and personal acquaintance with both languages under study (a native speaker of Zaar
and a second speaker of English). The former was adopted to refrain from any artificiality and
weaknesses of latter. Hence, informants who were elders and native speakers of Zaar were
informally interviewed in order to supplement any potential inadequacies of the data gathered.
The secondary sources that complimented the primary data comprised dictionaries and written
literature of Zaar and English language.
41
3.3 Sampling Procedure
Since the possibility of making a comparative analysis of all culinary terms in Zaar and English
is not feasible, the researcher focused only on ten selected culinary terms which were used across
Zaar and English to aid the comparison. They include; bake, boil, broil, burn, charcoal, cook,
fry, roast, rot and simmer. These terms were selected by simple random sampling technique such
that every culinary term had equal chance of being a variable in the population sample.
3.4 Method of Data Analysis
A simple descriptive approach was employed in the analysis of the data collected for this
research. Thus, the procedure followed is the analytic model of Katz & Fodor’s Componential
Analysis and Triers Semantic Field Theories. The latter assumes that the lexemes that are
semantically (sense) related, within a given language-system belong to the same semantic field
whereas the former decomposes lexical elements into components. Hence, the theories could be
combined to effectively complement each other since componential analysis provides an explicit
technique for dealing economically with most, if not all, sense-relations holding between lexical
items in semantic fields. It may thus be seen as an attempt to put semantic field theory on a
sounder theoretical and methodological footing.
The analysis therefore focused on the description and comparison of Zaar and English culinary
terms with respect to features of componential analysis and sense relation so as to reveal (if there
are), the similarities and differences notwithstanding the culture variation in the use of culinary
terms in Zaar and English.
42
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter centers on the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data for the study. It
itemized the selected culinary terms in Zaar and English bringing out their overt semantic
components as well as the sense by which these components relate one another.
4.1 Data Presentation
The following common cooking terms were identified through random sampling for analysisbake, boil, broil, and burn, charcoal, cook, fry, roast, rot and simmer. Their dictionary meanings
and possible collocates are diagrammatically represented as follows:
Table one
Description of Zaar Culinary Terms
Culinary
Dictionary meaning
Possible collocates in
term(s)
Bake
Zaar
To cook by dry heat such that the heat acts by conduction Dung
and not by radiation.
Boil
Implies the component of vigorous action (occasionally Mbu:tl, kafa
referred to as a full boil, though the modifier need not be
present for this meaning), and this sense contrasts with
simmer.
Broil
To broil is to cook directly under a heating unit or directly Tlu:, dᾲm
over an open fire.
Burn
To intensively broil or cook such that dark spots are gyeɖi, lawu:r
obvious.
Charcoal
To radiate heat with glowing coal.
Mbalwa
43
Cook
Prepare (food) by mixing, combining, and heating the Nagh’әt, lu:r
ingredients.
Fry
Frying is characterized by the use of fat, sand, leaf and/or Chit, tlu:
ash to cook partially or vigorously.
Roast
Roasting means cooking by direct heat in front of an open Gya:s, wa: (vupkәn)
fire.
Rot
It’s the cultural transformation of a cooking item into an Mәlәm, nyinchi
ingredient.
Simmer
To cook just below the boiling point.
Kafa, kung-nagh’әt
Table two
Description of English Culinary Terms
Culinary
Dictionary meaning
Possible
term(s)
collocates
in English
Bake
To cook by dry and continuous heat, as food in an oven.
Cake, bread
Boil
To cook in liquid agitated by gaseous bubbles.
Potato, rice.
Broil
Cook (meat or fish) by exposure to direct heat.
Meat, fish
Burn
To burn is to exceed the normal cook point of an item.
Yam, plantain
Cook
To prepare for consumption by the action of heat as in Beans, yam
roasting or boiling.
Roast
To cook before an open fire or by placing in hot ashes or Meat, yam
embers etc. – heat to an excessive degree.
Rot
Decomposition of an ingredient by the action of bacteria and No collocate but
decayed foot that
fungi; decay.
cannot be eaten.
Simmer
A state or temperature just below boiling point.
44
Rice, tomatoes
4.2 Data Analysis and Discussions
Table Three
Semantic Features of Selected Culinary Terms in Zaar
Semantic features
Item
Liquid
Fat
Heat
Oil
Raw
Cooked Sand,
Odour
leaf,
Putrid
ingredient
ash
Bake
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
Boil
+
+/-
+
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Broil
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Burn
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
Charcoal -
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
Cook
+/-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+/-
+/-
-
-
Fry
-
+
+
+
-
+/-
+/-
-
-
Roast
-
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
Rot
+/-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
+
Simmer
+
-
+
-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Sand,
Putrid
ash,
ingredient
Table Four
Semantic Features of Selected Culinary Terms in English
Semantic features
Item
Liquid
Fat
Heat
Oil
Raw
Cooked Odour
leaf
Bake
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
Boil
+
-
+
+
-
+/-
-
-
-
Broil
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+
-
-
-
Burn
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
Charcoal -
45
Cook
+/-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Fry
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+
-
-
-
Roast
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+
-
-
-
Rot
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
Simmer
+
-
+
+/-
-
+/-
-
-
-
Discussion
Based on tables four and five, the componential analysis theory of lexical decomposition has
been used to reveal the semantic components in both Zaar and English culinary terms while the
field theory would provide the sense relation among them. The positive (+) and/or negative (-)
signs are used to indicate the presence or absence of a given semantic component in a particular
culinary term where (+) represents presence and (-), absence respectively. However, it is possible
for a given culinary term to possess a negative-positive (-/+) feature of a particular semantic
component. This means that a given semantic component X can be present or absent in a
particular culinary term Y yet, the meaning of Y is retained.
Deducing from the tables four and five, it is obvious that Zaar and English share instances of
commonality as well as overt semantic difference in their use of culinary terms. The terms
sharing common semantic components in Zaar and English are represented in the table below:
46
Table Five: Culinary Terms Common to Zaar and English
X
Liquid Fat
Heat
Cook
+
+/-
+
+/-
+/-
+
+
Boil
+
+/-
+
-
+/-
+
+
Roast
-
+/-
+
+
+
+
-
Broil
-
-
+
+
+
+
-
Charcoal -
-
+
+
+
+
-
Simmer
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
Direct heat
Solid
item
Container
Discussion
Table five above shows the semantic components of culinary terms that are common to both
Zaar and English language. However, while the sense of cook in English includes bake, boil, fry
and broil, the Zaar equivalence with particular reference to bake, fry and broil has a rather
indirect relationship with the superordinate term- cook. Therefore, a supplement but almost exact
culinary term for cook tuur (and would in English be referred to cook3) that is used with broader
lexical and componential range is nyang which denotes the degree of action involved in cooking
and defines whether the cooking process is done. The term nyang used outside the domain of
culinary art presupposes (anything) ripe, especially fruits. We may say therefore that nyang used
within culinary premise has the semantic property of any food which is ready to eat whether it is
partially or vigorously cooked.
Accordingly, the English culinary term cook can said to be a superordinate term comprising
bake, boil, broil and fry as hyponyms while the Zaar sense of cook is not in itself superordinate
term with the basic semantic components of bake, boil, broil and fry as would the case of
47
English. Bake and boil may be partial hyponyms of Zaar cook since bake, radiates heat in the
cooking action and boil involve cooking with liquid usually water but not oil. Fry and broil on
the other hand are relational opposite culinary terms with cook. This is because their sense of
opposite can only be understood in the context of use.
In true sense, roasting means cooking by direct heat in front of an open fire (but in English it is
possible in a closed oven). Hence, roast overlaps with broil semantically since roasted food can
be cooked over (under) open fire. Roast can also be an equal member of the set of lexeme bake,
broil, boil and fry but does not contrast with bake and broil and it is completely synonymous
with either term.
Broil has its hyponyms as grill, barbecue, charcoal and plank within which broil and grill are
partially synonymous.
Bake has general (bake1) and specific (bake2) sense. The semantic distinction remains that,
while bake1 collocates with cakes, breads, pastries etc., bake2 relates to (any) other thing(s)
which are prepared and sold by professional bakers. There is formal distinction of semantic sense
of the term bake in Zaar and English so that while English bake collocates with solid, the Zaar
equivalence collocates with half-liquid as oppose to the principle of excluded middle. The
process mixes an average quantum of liquid (water), salt and any other cultural relevant
ingredient to a grinded corn to a liquid mixture. This is poured in an un-blazing fireplace
prepared in a U-shape valley. The hot ash collected from the fireplace that gives the U-valley is
used to cover the liquid mixture so that the heat cooks the mixture by conduction than radiation.
A complicated semantic variation emerges with the cooking process which an item is cooked
through heat conduction (as in baking, especially in English) but necessarily termed roasting in
48
Zaar. The referents of this semantic collocates include groundnuts (vwalang), damm, lawur
(sweet potatoes) etc. Hence, bake in Zaar and English is similar but also different.
The lexical field covered by cook3 can be divided into categories including bake, boil, broil and
fry which are largely incompatible with one another and are co-hyponyms to the superordinate
term, cook, which is a partial synonym to the Zaar tuur.
Fry is also a superordinate term with sauté, pan-fry, French fry and deep-fry as hyponyms. Not
all these fit into the Zaar sense of wutlar. The Zaar hyponyms of fry therefore include oil-fry,
sand-fry, ash-fry and leaf-fry. As much as this reveals culture specific variables in both
languages, it unites the languages by the fact that fry is an opposite lexeme to boil since the latter
adds +water componential feature as oppose to the former.
The term broil in both Zaar and English is a superordinate term and its hyponyms include grill,
barbecue, charcoal and plank. Broil and grill are partial synonyms but grill has a wider range of
application than broil. Grilling/broiling processes/types in Zaar are vast and varied. In one of
such processes/types, the item, typically meat (tlu:) is skewered (a process known as dlwabkәn
tlu:) and put directly or indirectly on/above a heating unit. From time to time, its sideways got
turned until it is properly roasted. Therefore, the sense of broil in Zaar is an absolute synonym to
that in English.
Table Six: Zaar Fry (Wutlaar) and Rot (Rass)
X
Liquid
Fat
Heat
Oil
Raw
Cooked Odour Sand,
Putrid
ash, leaf
ingredient
Fry
-
+
+
+
-
+
-
+/-
-
Rot
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
49
Discussion
Tables five and six reflect overt semantic distinctions in terms of the culinary vocabularies- fry
and rot. The latter (i.e. the Zaar table of semantic components of the given culinary terms) with
particular reference to fry and rot has the semantic components of these as is in the table above.
However, it is obvious in table three that the Zaar sense of the terms under consideration (fry and
rot) extends to encompass more than the English componential features of these terms. In
essence, while the English componential features of say, fry comprises: -liquid, +fat, +heat, +oil,
-raw, +cooked, -odour, -sand, -putrid ingredient, the Zaar equivalence has rather distinctly
different componential properties. These include; -liquid, +fat, +heat, +oil, -raw, +cooked, odour, +sand/ash/leaf, -putrid ingredient. Therefore, unlike English fry which is exclusive to fat,
heat and oil, the Zaar fry extends to one or more, if not all of sand, ash and leaf. The sand and ash
collocate with groundnut (vwalang) and the leaf with atcha (chit) and/or rice (kafa) respectively.
Hence, fry in both Zaar and English is a gradable antonym to boil since there must be absence of
liquid-water and the latter, the absence of liquid-fat or oil. The phrase boiling in oil is
semantically acceptable in many contexts because oil, like other liquids, has a boiling point, can
have things immersed in it, etc. But in the culinary field this phrase is unusual.
The second culinary term that shows distinctively varied semantic components as illustrated in
table six is drawn from the third level of Levi-Strauss Culinary Triangle, rot. Unlike English
(which has +liquid, +heat, +cooked, +odour, -fat, -raw, -sand/ash/leaf, -putrid ingredient
componential features for rot), the Zaar componential features for rot include +liquid, +cooked,
+cooked, -fat, +heat, -oil, -raw, -sand/ash/leaf, +putrid ingredient, the significant difference
50
being the latter componential feature. Accordingly in Zaar culture, an item can be deliberately
allowed to rot to serve as ingredient. This is typical in the culinary ingredients as nyinchi
ruus/ginggәri, mәlәn and tagwakli among others. Therefore, the distinction in the sense of rot in
Zaar and English is necessarily incompatibility. This is because to say X is rotten in English is to
imply that X cannot be consumed, but this may be different in Zaar culinary art. However, this is
not to make or justify any generalization that all rotten food items in Zaar culinary culture are
consumable than the fact that the result might serve as variable for unveiling peculiar cultural
traits embedded in Zaar and English culinary arts which may signal culture difference.
Table Seven: Bake and Burn in English
X
Liquid
Fat
Heat
Oil
Raw
Cooked
Direct
Ash ,
heat
Indirect
heat
Bake
-
+/-
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
Burn
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+
+
-
-
Table Eight: Bake and Burn in Zaar
X
Liquid
Fat
Heat
Oil
Raw
Cooked Direct
Sand/ash Indirect
heat
heat
Bake
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
Burn
-
+/-
+
+/-
-
+
+
+
+
Discussion
Tables eight and nine reveal the componential features of the culinary terms bake and burn in
English and Zaar respectively. From the foregone tabular description of the given culinary terms,
Zaar and English can said to share common as much as different componential features of bake
and burn. First, the basic semantic components of bake in English include –liquid, +/-fat, +heat,
51
+oil, -raw, +cooked, -direct heat, -sand/ash and +indirect heat. The Zaar equivalence includes
+liquid, -fat, +heat, +/-oil, -raw, +cooked, -direct heat, +sand/ash and +indirect heat. The
significant semantic distinction between Zaar and English bake dwells on the overt formal
difference in semantic components so that the Zaar sense of bake adds liquid (specifically,
water), and hot ash. These features are necessarily absent in the English components of bake.
Though the end result may overlap, the processes are significantly different. Hence, from the
point of view of process, bake and roasting are partial synonyms in the sense that while the
former cooks by heat conduction, the latter, by heat radiation.
The second lexeme in the diagrams is burn. Via the representation of its semantic components in
both languages as reflected in the tables above, it can also be deduced that the culinary term burn
in Zaar is similar and slightly different to that in English. Based on its componential features in
both languages, it is obvious that the thin line of difference falls on the semantic component
+sand and ash in Zaar which is necessarily absent in English. The English sense of burn means
to brown a given cooking item too much. However, in Zaar, certain items need to overcook. For
instance, roasting cassava (gyeɖi), cocoa yam (mbung), and sweet potatoes (lawu:r) among
others may require that the peels get partly burnt before it is properly cooked.
4.3 Findings
Going by the foregone discussions, inference can be drawn that both Zaar and English have
certain defined culinary terms used in their culinary arts. These terms among others include boil
(tlәghәn), burn (gәәpkәn), charcoal (wu:n), cook (tuurghәn), dredge (fufutkәn), fry (wutlarghәn),
parboil (bәskәn), roast (va:ghәn), rot (raskәn), sift (tsәŋgaghәn), simmer (Ɓәәmghәn), slice
(ngyarghәn), soak (dlughәn) and stir (kaskәn) among others. The terms under consideration
52
revealed common as well as distinct componential features and lexical/sense relations owing to
the basis for which culture variation was drawn.
Both Zaar and English culinary arts exhibit common semantic components with respect to boil,
parboil, roast, broil, charcoal and simmer. However, obvious variation manifests in other terms
such as fry, bake and rot. This, points not only to overt formal difference of componential
feature(s) of culinary terms but also culture variation. Little wonder Mintz (1985) confirms
culture variation of culinary arts in terms of rot- that rottenness is “culturally specific” –one
culture’s rotten, inedible food is another’s fermented food. Still, boil, broil, burn, charcoal, roast
and simmer have similar sense relations in both Zaar and English as opposed to bake, cook, fry
and rot in which case reveal significant differences of sense relations in the two languages.
53
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.0 Introduction
This chapter contains the summary, conclusion and recommendation of the study.
5.1 Summary
This study is about Comparative Analysis of Culinary Terms between Zaar and English with
particular reference to their lexical and semantic features. It is an attempt to respond positively to
the current trends of intellectualism from the point of view of language, revealing the
similarities, differences as well as culture variation of two genetically unrelated languages, which
are concealed in their linguistic structures. The researcher carefully identified, compared and
contrasted their componential features alongside sense relations of the two languages bringing
out the similarities and differences therein using the simple descriptive models of Kats and
Fodor’s Componential Analysis and Trier’s Field theories. The study reveals that both languages
are remarkably similar in the components of the culinary terms as boil, roast, charcoal, broil and
simmer, but absolutely different in bake, fry, rot, burn and cook. Culture variables that set apart
the languages under investigation were triggered by one or more given peculiar semantic
component(s) and sense relation.
5.2 Conclusion
The work has revealed to a great extend how diverse, complex and similar languages are at
lexical semantic level. Based on the analysis of the data presented, this research proves the
existence of culinary terms in Zaar and English and shows the similarities and differences in
semantic components and sense relation of the identified culinary terms in both languages. The
54
study established the fact that Zaar and English share certain common semantic features in some
culinary terms but differ with respect to others. The researcher predicted and obtained in one
hand that the difference in the semantic components and lexical relation of rot, fry, burn, bake
and cook had the signaling components to linguistic relativity cum culture variation between
Zaar and English and in the other hand, the boil, roast, charcoal, broil and simmer componential
features and sense relation revealing the complex lexico semantic relationship that holds between
two genetically unrelated languages.
5.3 Recommendation
The significance of the comparative study of languages as the principal parameter for sociocultural conceptualization and variation can never be overemphasized. It explains how
genetically related or unrelated languages are similar or different in which case enables
theoretical formulations.
The researcher at this juncture wishes to admit that no single research can claim to be exhaustive,
so it is with this work. It is therefore recommended that further studies relating to this topic
should be carried out.
Since the present research is limited in scope to the comparative analysis of culinary terms
between Zaar and English. It is recommended that further studies should be done on syntax,
pragmatic, phonology, grammar etc. This is because the uniqueness of any language may not be
clear until researches are undertaken to reveal them. The researcher therefore wishes that more
researches would be conducted in addition to this work to discuss the uniqueness of Zaar
language and in relation to other languages.
55
REFERENCES
Anagbogu P., Mbah B. & Eme C. (2010).Introduction to Linguistics (2nd Ed.)Awka: Amaka
Dreams Ltd.
Asp, E. (1999). Factors affecting food decisions made by individual consumers. Food Policy,
24(2-3), 287-294.
Asher R (1994). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. London: Pergamon Press.
Atkins, P. & Bowler, I. (2001). Food in society: Economy, culture, geography. New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Barbara H. (1992. Przy wileńskim stole. [At the Vilnius table.] Białystok: Książka I Wiedza.
Barthes, Roland 1997. Toward a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption. In: C.
Counihan & P. Van Esterik (eds.) Food and culture. New York-London: Routledge,
pp. 20–27.
Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, “Alimentazione e Salute”, 2009
Beerli, A., & Martín, J. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(3), 657- 681.
Bessiere, J. (2009). Local development and heritage: Traditional food and cuisine as tourist
attractions in rural areas. European Society for Rural Sociology, 38(1), 21 -34.
Betty Crocker'sPicture Cook Book (1956). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bierwish B. (1970). Semantics and Translation. UK: SIL Britain.
Blažek, V. (2002) Some New Dravidian - Afroasiatic Parallels. Mother Tongue 7, 171 -199.
Brown, A. (2011). Understanding food: Principles and preparation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Byrne, F. and John H. (1993), Atlantic Meets Pacific. (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Caron, B. (2005). Za:r (Dictionary, grammar, texts). Ibadan (Nigeria), IFRA.
Cherry N (1957). On Human Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chuang, H. (2009). The rise of culinary tourism and its transformation of food cultures: the
national cuisine of Taiwan. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 27(2), 84-108.
lvi
Clark T. (1973) Prophets and Patrons, Harvard University Press.
Collinge N. (1990). An Encyclopedia of language. London: Routledge.
Copestake, A. & Briscoe, T. (1995): „Semi-productive polysemy and sense
extension“. Journal
of Semantics 12, 15-67.
Cornejo H. (2012). You are what you eat: food as expression of social identity and intergroup
relations in the colonial Andes. Cincinnati Romance Review, 33(1), 175-193.
Croft-Cooke, R. (I960). English Cooking. London: W. H. Allen.
Cruse D. (1990). Language, Meaning and Sense. In N.E, Collinge (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Language and Culture .Ibadan: Oxford University Press. P. 160 – 173.
D’Sylva, A., & Beagan, B. (2011). ‘Food is culture, but it’s also power’: the role of food in
ethnic gender identity construction among Goan Canadian women. Journal of Gender
Studies, 20(3), 279-289.
Dale, E., Oirouke, J. & Bamman, H. (1971), Techniques of Teaching Vocabularv. Palo Alto,
California: Field Educational Publications.
Dawson, A. (2012). Food and spirits: religion, gender, and identity in the ‘African’ cuisine of
Northeast Brazil. African and Black Diaspora: An International Journal, 5(2), 243263.
Everett, S. (2009). Beyond the visual gaze? The pursuit of an embodied experience through food
tourism. Tourist Studies, 8(3), 337-358.
Feeley-Harnik, G. (1995). Religion and food: an anthropological perspective. Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, 63(3), 565-582.
Finch G (2000). Linguistic terms and concepts. London: Macmillian pres.
Fox, R. (2007). Reinventing the gastronomic identity of Croatian tourist destinations.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 546-559.
Gleason, H. (I962). The relation of lexicon and grammar. In Householder, F. W. & Saporta, S.
(eds.) Problems in Lexicography, pp. 85-I02. Bloomington: Research Center in
Anthropology, Folklore &Linguistics.
Goodenough W. (1956): 'Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning', Language.
Good HousekeepingCookingEncyclopedia (I964). London: Ebury Press.
Greenberg, J. (1957). Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
lvii
___ (1960). An Afro-Asiatic pattern of gender and number agreement. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 80, 317–21.
Hassan, Y. (2008). Local cuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: the case of Kelantan.
Paper presented at ECER Regional Conference, Kelantan, Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.iefpedia.com
Harrington, R. (2005). Defining gastronomic identity: the impact of environment an culture on
prevailing components, texture and flavours in wine and food. Journal of Culinary
Science and Technology, 4(2/3), 129-152.
Hegarty, J. & O’Mahoney, G. (2001). Gastronomy: a phenomenon of cultural expressionism and
an aesthetic for living. Hospitality Management, 20, 3-13.
Hjalager, A. & Richards, G. (2002). Tourism and gastronomy. London: Routledge.
Hoad, T. (2006). ‘Preliminaries: Before English’. In Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.) 2006. The
OxfordHistory of English (pp. 7-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Humboldt W von. 1988. On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-Structure and Its
Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind. Transl. P Heath. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Igbeaku, B. (2012). A sense relational study of verbs of harvesting in Igbo.
Jamal, A. (1996). Acculturation: the symbolism of ethnic eating among contemporary British
consumers. British Food Journal, 98(10), 12-26.
Jaitly, M. (2004). Symposium 4: Food flavors: Ethnic and international taste preferences current trends in the foodservice sector in the Indian subcontinent. Journal of Food
Science, 69(4), SNQ191 -SNQ192.
Just, D., Heiman, A. & Zilberman, D. (2007). The interaction of religion and family members'
influence on food decisions. Food Quality and Preference, 18(5), 786-794.
Katz, J. (I967). Recent issues in semantic theory. FL 3. I24-174.
Katz, J. & Fodor, J. (I963). The structure of a semantic theory, Language 39.170-2I0.
Kittler, P., Sucher, K. & Nelms, M. (2012). Food and culture (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Konwicki, T. (1970) Sennik współczesny. [A dreambook for our time.] Warszawa: Czytelnik.
Kortmann, B. & Van der Auwera J. (2011) The language and linguistics of Europe: a
comprehensive guide- books.google.com
lviii
Lehrer, A. (I967). Fields and Categories: A Study in Structural Semantics. (Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Rochester).
Lehrer A. (1969) Semantic Cuisines, Journal of Linguistics 5.87-110.
Lehrer, A. (1974) Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam & London: North –
Holland.
Levi-Strauss C. (1965) Le Triangle Culinaire, L’Arc 26. 19-29. Also translated by Peter Books
(1966) partisan Review 33.586-95.
Lin, Y., Pearson, T. & Cai, L. (2011). Food as a form of destination identity: a tourism
destination brand perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(1), 30-48.
Lyons, J. (I968). Introduction to TheoreticalLinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marta, N. (1904) Najnowsza kuchnia wytworna i gospodarska. [The latest cuisine: refied and
economical.] Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff.
Mints, S. (1985) “The Anthropology of Food: Core and Fringe in Diet,” India International
Quarterly 12, no.2, Food Culture.
Mintz, S., Du Bois, & C. (2002). The anthropology of food and eating. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 31, 99-119.
Newman, P. (1980). The Classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Leiden, Universitaire Pers.
Ndimele, O. (1999). Semantics and frontiers of Communication. Port Harcourt: University of
Port Harcourt Publishing House.
Nweze, E. (2011). Lexical Semantics of verbs of Excretion in the Imiryike variety of
Igbo.Nsukka Journal of Humanities No. 18.Nsukka: university press.p.71-89.
Palmer, F. (2000). Semantics. Cambridge: University press.
Prasad, T. (2014) A Course in Linguistics. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd.
Renaud, E. (1931). Influence of food on Indian culture. Social Forces, 10(1), 97-101.
Robins, R. (1964) fourth edition 1989. General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. London and
new York: Longman. Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of
Speech. New York.
lix
Sapir E. 1964. (1931). Conceptual categories in primitive languages. Language in Culture and
Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, ed. DH Hymes, p. 128. New
York: Harper & Row.
Saeed, J. (2016). Semantics (4th ed.). West Sussex, UK:John Wiley & Sons.
Sengupta, J. (2010). Nation on a platter: the culture and politics of food and cuisine in colonial
Bengal. Modern Asian Studies, 44(1), 81 -98.
Shimizu, K. (1975). Boghom and Zaar: Vocabulary and Notes. Kano.
Srinivas, T. (2007). Everyday exotic: transnational space, identity and contemporary foodways in
Bangalore city. Food, Culture and Society, 10(1), 85-107.
Taylor, J. (1994): „The two-level approach to meaning“. Linguistische Berichte 149, 3-28.
Trier, J. (1931) Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992) Semantics, Culture, and Cognition. Universal Human Concepts in
Culture-Specific Configurations. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Woolgar, C. M. (2010). Food and the middle ages. Journal of Medieval History, 36(1), 1 -19.
Whorf BL. 1956a. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. See Carroll
1956, pp. 134–59.
Żarski, Waldemar (2008). Książka kucharska jako tekst. [The cookbook as a text.] Wrocław:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
lx
Model of culinary identity (Harrington, 2005)
Culture & society
Environment
History
Geography
Religion
Climate
Ethnic Diversity
Indigenous Productions
Innovation
Capabilities
Traditions
Beliefs and values
Gastronomic Identity
Flavour Profiles
Fig. 5
Etiquette
Beliefs and Values
lxi
Germanic Family Tree
Common Germanic
West Germanic
North Germanic
East Germanic
Prasad, (2014) further classifies West Germanic as follows within which English belongs;
WEST GERMANIC
Old High Germanic
High German
Old Saxon
Old Low Franconian
Low German
Dutch
Anglo-Frisian
Old English
English
lxii
Old Frisian
Frisian
Flemish
WEST CHADIC
Luri
A.2
A.1
A.3
Hausa
Gwandara
Fyer
Yiwom
Angas Proper
Fyer
Tambas
Ngas
Cakfem Mushere
Tangale
Bole
Bura
Bole
Dera
Proper
Proper
Jorto
Kotyar
Miship
Mwaghavul
Kushi
Bole
Kutto
Beele
Kwami
Deno
Pero
Galambu Piya-Kwanci
Gera
Tangale
Geruma
Giiwo
Kholok
Kubi
Maaka
Ngamo
Nyam
B.1
A.4
Goemai
Koemoem
Montai
Pyapun
Tal
B.2
Ron Proper
Ron
Duhwa
Kulere
Mundat
Sha
Bade Ngizim
Auyakawa
Mburku
Diri
Zumbun
Kariya
Miya
Pa’a
Siri
Ciwogai
Warji
Boghom
Boghom
Kir-Balar
Mangas
Zaar Proper
Geji
Polchi
Saya
Zari
Zeem
Guruntum
Duwai
Bade Proper
Bade
Ngizim
Teshenawa
Source: Newman, (1980)
liv
B.3
Guruntum-Mbaaru
Ju
Tala
Zangwal
Eastern
Jimi