Colour terms in Turkish, Estonian and Russian: how many basic blue terms are there?

Abstract

Brent Berlin ja Paul Kay loodud põhivärvinimeteooria sai alguse ideest, et teatud värvinimed on universaalsed. Nad eeldasid, et igas keeles on olemas piiratud arv sõnu värvi tähistamiseks. Neid universaalseid värvinimesid nimetasid nad põhivärvinimedeks. Kas keeles võib olla vaid üks sinine? Eelnevad uurimused kinnitavad, et sinine võib jaguneda kaheks: vene keeles on omaette kategooriad kahele sinise kategooriale, SINIJ ‘sinine’ ja GOLUBOJ ‘helesinine’. Järelikult on ka teisi võimalusi peale üheainsa sinise kategooria. Sinise jagunemine toetab keelelise relatiivsuse teooriat.

Kas ka eesti sinine jaguneb (ala)kategooriateks? Kas türgi keeles on samuti kaks sinise kategooriat, nagu eelnevad uurimused (vt Özgen ja Davies 1998) kinnitavad?

Vastuse saamiseks küsitleti türgi (N=56), eesti (N=39), ja eestivene (N=30) keelejuhte. Neilt küsiti loetelukatses kõikide värvide kohta, mida nad teavad. Nimeandmiskatses esitati neile ükshaaval värvipaberiga kaetud tahvlikesi küsides: „Mis värvi see stimul on?“. Eesti ja eestivene keelejuhid osalesid loetelu-ja nimeandmiskatse vahe peal ka sorteerimiskatses, kus nad sorteerisid sarnasuse alusel tahvlikesi gruppidesse ja pärast sorteerimist andsid neile gruppidele nimed.

The theory of basic colour terms by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay (1969) started with an idea that certain colour categories are universal. They proposed that in every language there is a small, limited amount of words for designating colour. They called these universal colour names basic colour terms. From the theory of basic colour terms and previous research into Turkish, Estonian and Russian basic colour terms arise the questions of whether the behaviour of one blue is universal, and how the category of blue might be divided. There being only one blue category reinforces the universalist view of colour terms, while the appearance of more than one blue category, especially in the sorting task, supports a weak relativist approach.

Russian is exceptional because both SINIJ ‘blue’ and GOLUBOJ ‘light blue’ mark blue equally. Are Turkish terms MAVI ‘blue’ and LACIVERT ‘dark blue’ similar? Is Estonian SININE ‘blue’ influenced by Russian and therefore also divided into more than one blue category?

Turkish (N=56), Estonian (N=39) and Estonian Russian (N=30) participants were questioned to find an answer to those questions. The participants were asked about all the colours they knew in the list task. In the naming task the participants named coloured stimuli one by one answering the question: “What colour is it?”. Estonian and Estonian Russian participants also completed a sorting task between the list and naming tasks. They sorted coloured stimuli into groups by similarity and after sorting named the groups.