Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Language and Culture
Vol. 11:1 (2024) ► pp.95–122

Women have no honour of their own

Conceptualizations of honor in Indian English and Pakistani English

| Develop Diverse
| University of Copenhagen
This article presents a corpus-based Cultural-Linguistic study of the usage of the word honour in Pakistani and Indian Englishes, addressing underlying cultural conceptualizations of the notion of honor. Honor emerges as a complex cultural model which involves several cultural schemas, cultural categories and other cultural conceptualizations, in which women are cast as responsible protectors and upholders of the honor of men, families, and communities, their bodies being the very locus of men’s honor. The study is based on a relatively simple qualitative and quantitative analysis of two specialized corpora representing discourse on honor and related phenomena in Pakistani and Indian Englishes.
Keywords: concretizing conceptualizations, corpus linguistics, Cultural Linguistics, gender, kinship models, semantic preferences, World Englishes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Honor as a cultural phenomenon
  • 3.Theoretical background
    • 3.1World Englishes and linguistic glocalization
    • 3.2Culture as a complex adaptive system of conceptualizations
      • 3.2.1Cultural schema
      • 3.2.2Cultural category
      • 3.2.3Cultural metaphor
      • 3.2.4Cultural model
  • 4.Data and method
    • 4.1Description of data
    • 4.2Concordance analysis
    • 4.3Collocational analysis
  • 5.Honor
    • 5.1The cultural model of honor in IE and PE
    • 5.2The complex kinship system in the cultural model of honor
    • 5.3Concretizations of honor
    • 5.4Towards a cultural model of honor
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Declaration of interest statement
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00057.ebe
References (50)
References
Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baroni, M., & Barnardini, S. (2004). BootCaT: Bootstrapping corpora and terms from the web. In M. T. Lino, M. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, R. Silva, C. Pereira, F. Carvalho, M. Lopes, M. Catarino & S. Barros (Eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2004 (pp. 1313–1316). Lisbon: Universidade Nova de Lisboa.Google Scholar
Bates, L. (2017). Honour-based abuse in England and Wales. Who does what to whom? PhD-dissertation: University of Bristol.
Begagić, M. (2013). Semantic preference and semantic prosody of the collocation make sense . Jezikoslovlje, 14(2–3), 403–416.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chakravarti, U. (2005). From fathers to husbands: Of love death and marriage in North India. In L. Welchman & S. Hossain (Eds.), ‘Honour’: Crimes, paradigms and violence against women, (pp. 308–331). London: Zed Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Churchill, P. (2018). Women in the crossfire: Understanding and endling honor killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Taoka, C., & Wood, E. (2001). Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese. Language Sciences, 231, 579–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 112–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, P. (2020). Euphemism, rhetoric and prosody. London: New Central Book Agency.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2022). Corpus of contemporary American English. URL: [URL]
D’Lima, T., Solotaroff, J., & Pande, R. (2020). For the sake of family and tradition: Honour killings in India and Pakistan. Indian Journal of Women and Social Change, 5(1), 22–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dousset, L. (2011). Australian aboriginal kinship. Marseille: Manuels du Credo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ermers, R. (2018). Honor related violence. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evison, J. (2010). What are the basics of analysing a corpus. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. (pp. 112–135). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finzel, A. (2021). Innate or acquired? Homosexuality and cultural models of gender in Indian and Nigerian English. In H.-G. Wolf, D. Lati, & A. Finzel (Eds.), Cultural-Linguistic Explorations into Spirituality, Emotionality, and Society (pp. 186–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. (2015). A future agenda for research on language and culture. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 593–612). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gegeo, D., & Watwon-Gegeo, K. (1999). Adult education, language change, and issues of identity and authenticity in Kwara’ae (Solomon Islands). Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(1), 22–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gill, A. K., & A. Brah. (2014). Interrogating cultural narratives about ‘honour’-based violence. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 21(1), 72–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glushko, R., Maglio, D., Matlock, T., & Barsalou, L. (2008). Categorization in the wild. Trends in cognitive science, 12(4), 129–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunjan, S., & Towson, S. (2007). “Virginity is everything”: Sexuality in the context of intimate partner violence in the South Asian community. In S. Dasgupta (Ed.), Body evidence: Intimate violence against South Asian women in America (pp. 53–67). Chicago, IL: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamir, O. (2019). Betraying Dignity: The Toxic Seduction of Social Media, Shaming, and Radicalization. Oxford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaushal, K. (2020). No honour in honour killing. Comparative analysis of Indian traditional social structure vis-á-vis gender violence. Indian Journal of Women and Social Change, 5(1), 52–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. vii–xxvii). Chicago, IL: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelbaum, D. (1988). Women’s seclusion and men’s honor: Sex roles in North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Martsa, S. (2013). Conversation in English: A cognitive semantic approach. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nishida, H. (1999). A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(5), 753–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H.-G. (2021). Culture-specific conceptualisations of corruption in African English: Linguistic analyses and pragmatic applications. In M. Sadeghpour & F. Sharifian (Eds.), Cultural linguistics and world Englishes (pp. 361–399). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polzenhagen, F., Finzel, A., & Wolf, H.-G. (2021). Colonial cultural conceptualizations and World Englishes. In A. Onysko (Ed.), Research Developments in World Englishes (pp. 199–230). London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, N. (1987). Convergent evidence for a cultural model of American marriage. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 173–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövesces, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Advances in Cultural Linguistics. In M. Yamaguchi, D. Tay & B. Blount (Eds.), Approaches to language, culture, and cognition: The intersection of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology (pp. 99–123). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
(2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, C. (2015). Language and culture in cognitive anthropology. In F. Sharifian (ed.), Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 593–612). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tonsing, J., & Barn, R. (2016). Intimate partner violence in South Asian communities: Exploring the notion of ‘shame’ to promote understandings of migrant women’s experiences. International Social Work, 60(3), 628–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, L., Augoustinos, M., & Donahie, N. (1995). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. (1993). Classifying the world in an aboriginal language. In M. Walsh & C. Yallop (Eds.), Language and culture in aboriginal Australia (pp. 107–122). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Wikan, U. (1984). Shame and honour: A contestable pair. Man, 19(4), 635–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, H.-G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2009). World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar