Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Вопросы современной лингвистики и методики обучения иностранным языкам в школе и вузе. Материалы X Международной конференции FEELTA «Раздвигаем горизо
.pdf
Linguistics
41
It should also be pointed out that the corporate principle in professional
communication is not the only one – the choice of communicative principle depends on the
sphere of communication and very often can be combined with other principles. In some
social spheres its functioning is restricted. This takes place, for instance, in medical discourse
where narrow specialization and the necessity of obeying one person‘s directives in many
cases take place.
So, the analysis of the role structure of corporate professional discourse has shown that
corporate identity is always reproduced in the roles of the Corporate Leader and the Corporate
Subordinate. The discursive principle of Corporativity mutes the principle of power – people
refuse open indications of power in their speech and do not let others be powerful with them.
But that doesn‘t mean that the principle of power totally disappears in professional
communication – it just obtains new forms, probably less open ones.
References:
1. Cotton, D. Market Leader (D. Cotton, D. Falvey, S. Kent). – London: Longman, 2001.
2. Grice, H.P. Utterer‘s meaning and intentions // Studies In The Way Of Words. Ed. H.P.
Grice. – Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989. – pp. 86-116.
УДК 81
FRAMING THE CONCEPT
(WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE WORD “SCHOOL”)
Lungu I. A.
The Sholom-Aleichem State University,
Birobidzhan, Russia,
e-mail: glorialou@mail.ru
Summary:
This paper touches upon some aspects of the development of the conceptual picture of
the world in a man‘s consciousness. Cognitive linguistics suggests that all the phenomena in
our everyday life are reflected in the form of various mental representations in people‘s
minds. They are structured and formed into the elements of a person‘s picture of the world,
Linguistics
42
for example, into concepts and frames. The paper also considers the question of frame and
concept‘s correlation as key notions of cognitive linguistics and presents the description of the
experiment of structuring the concept ―school‖ with the help of a frame.
Keywords / phrases: frame; framing structure; slot; concept; modeling of concept;
structuring of knowledge; semantic field.
We know that a person in his or her lifetime actively interacts with the surrounding
world. Elements of the experience of the interaction are interpreted and structured in a variety
of mental representations: images, ideas, propositions - special items of knowledge in one‘s
consciousness. They form the structure and content of future frames, scripts, scenarios, and
other elements. All these elements are closely connected with certain relationships that form
the conceptual system - "the result of schematization and idealization of our subjective
experience" [5, p. 12]. As a result of the individual's mental activity there is formed a
projected world represented in a human mind in the form of a conceptual picture of the world.
It is known that a conceptual picture of the world of a man is a set of representations/concepts
of different types expressed by various structures of knowledge, such as schemes, images,
scripts, scenarios, plans, and so on.
One of the key elements of the conceptual picture of the world as well as one of the
most controversial interpreted basic categories of cognitive linguistics is the frame. Frame
means construction, structure, skeleton, body, frame work and system. The very concept of
the frame is quite homonymous. According to A. N. Baranov, "ontologically frame is part of
the human cognitive system‖ [2, p. 18]. Taking into account the instrumental aspect of the
frame, this structure is for declarative knowledge representation. In this case, the frame is
more related to the units of the conceptual picture of the world, representing the individual
objects of reality, such as the concepts and images.
The category of "frame" was first introduced by Marvin Minsky, whose work "Frames
for knowledge representation», which describes the basic theory of frames may have had the
greatest influence on the development of artificial intelligence and cognitive science. In his
paper Minsky presents a frame as "a system of structured data to represent stereotyped
information" [11, p. 224].
In this paper the term "frame" is used as "the structure of knowledge presentation,
organized around some notion, which contains data on the material, a typical and potential for
this notion" [5, p. 19].
Linguistics
43
The core of the structure of the frame is its focus or nucleus that includes typical
characteristics of the frame. The frame as a data structure has slots or terminals that are
cognitive components of our understanding the typical phenomena, events and objects
around us.
Speaking about the conceptual picture of the world, it is impossible not to mention the
concept itself. As a basic category of linguistics the concept has semantic field more extensive
than the frame‘s. The concept has a number of definitions presented in special dictionaries and
scholarly works. For example, the English-Russian dictionary of linguistics and semiotics,
edited by A. N. Baranov gives the following definition of the concept: "in text linguistics
concept is seen as part of a model of the world of the text, which includes besides the
concepts, relationships linking the concepts in the range of meaning" [1, p . 118].
The concept has a complex, multi-dimensional structure. Besides the conceptual
foundations it comprises socio-psycho-cultural part that contains the associations, emotions,
evaluations, national images and connotations inherent in a culture. Most definitions of the
concept as a semantic unit stress its linguo-cultural peculiarity, allowing it to label ethnic
linguistic world. As a multidimensional and "layered" mental complex concept has both
rational and emotional, abstract and concrete, general and individual. Concept appears directly
from the meaning of the word and is also the result of generalization of the vocabulary word
meaning with personal and social experience of a man.
So, the concept has a complex structure due to its character, that‘s why such traditional
units as frames, scripts and scenarios having more distinct and clearer structure than the
concept, can be used by researchers for modeling the concept. For example, many of the
concepts may be ―folded "into the frame, that is, be represented by frame structures.
This paper describes the linguistic experiment the purpose of which was to build the
frame-based structure that represents the semantic field of the concept "school" as a secondary,
educational institution in the ordinary type of consciousness of the English language native
speakers. There was conducted the association experiment, which involved fifty students of
different majors and ages, studying at the University of Arizona, the USA. The students were
given the following task: to write down on a sheet of paper at least 10 words associations (only
nouns) with the word "school", (Table 1). It was decided to leave seven positions or places in
the general table, as a sufficient quantity to determine the semantic field of the concept
"school" at this stage of the research. The nucleus of the future frame of the semantic field of
the concept "school" in this paper is considered the dictionary meaning of the word "school" "educational institution" [7].
44
This table shows the numbers corresponding to the quantity of mentions of a certain
word
Quantity
of
mentions
of the
word
1
position
2
position
3
position
4
position
5
position
6
position
7
position
1. Professor
27
8 1 4 3 3 5 3
2.Homework
19
4 2 2 5 4 1 1
3.Friends
18
1 5 4 - 1 6 1
4.Study
17
7 2 1 3 2 - 2
5.Textbooks
15
6 2 2 3 - 2 -
6.Papers
12
1 1 1 - 3 6 -
7.Classes
12
1 2 3 2 3 - 1
8.Sport
11
- 4 1 1 1 3 1
9.Lunch
9
- 1 2 1 3 1 1
10.Test
7
- 2 - 1 - 4 -
word in the students‘ questionnaires.
Table 1. The association field of the concept ―school‖.
Linguistics
Blank spaces in the table mean that none of the respondents put the word on this
position in his/her personal list. Now let‘s see how this table "works" by the example of the
word "homework": the total number of mentions in the questionnaires of the word
"homework" is 19, four respondents put "homework" on the first place in their individual lists,
two - on the second, two - on third etc. It would seem the more the total number of
occurrences of the word, the more its semantic value in the frame structure. How to calculate
the whole amount of the semantic value of each word? The following formula has been
suggested to solve this problem:
(10: A) * B = C
(C1 + C2 + C3 + ... .. C7): 7= D
Let‘s decide that the first position in the list is the most significant, as it usually is. We
equate it to around number, for example 10. In this case, the components of the equation have the
following meanings: A – the number of word position in the overall table, B - the quantity of such
Linguistics
45
Total quantity of the
word‘s mentions.
Semantic value of the
word.
1. Professor 27
1. Professor 18
2. Homework 19
2. Study 14
3. Friends 18
3. Textbooks 11
4. Study 17
4. Homework 11
5. Textbooks 15
5. Friends 8
6. Papers 12
6. Classes 6
7. Classes 12
7. Papers 5
8. Sport 11
8. Sport 5
9. Lunch 9
9. Lunch 4
10. Test 7
10. Test 3
positions, C – the amount of the semantic value of a word according to the position, D - total
exponent of the semantic value of the word in the frame of the concept ―school‖ (Table 2).
For example, let‘s take the word "homework" and calculate its total semantic value in
the table of word associations of the respondents.
(10: 1) * 4 = 40
(10: 2) * 2 = 10
(10: 3) * 2 = 6
(10: 4) * 5 = 12
(10: 5) * 4 = 8
(10: 6) * 1 = 2
(10: 7) * 1 = 1
(40 + 10 + 6 + 12 + 8 + 2+1): 7 = 11
Thus, the exponent of the semantic meaning for the word "homework" in the
associative field of the concept "school" is 11 points.
Having worked the same way all the words, we get the following picture: frame
structure of the semantic field of the concept "school" is represented by ten slots, where all
slots except the first and the last three ones changed their original positions (Table 2).
Table 2. The frame of the semantic field of the concept "school".
multidimensional mental complex can be structured with the help of a frame. The purpose of
Thus, there is the result of experiment that shows us how concept as a complex and
Linguistics
46
the experiment was to model and provide a frame-based structure of the concept "school" in
the ordinary type of consciousness of the English language native speakers (Table 2).
In the first stage there were found out the word-associations with the notion of
"school", representing the associative field of the future concept of "school". In the second
stage there was calculated the total exponent of the semantic value of each word-association
within this frame.
Thus, the frame structure of the concept "school" brings together ten slots (mental
knots of frame structure): professor, study, textbooks, homework, friends, classes, papers,
sport, lunch, and test. The frame of the concept "school" in the minds of the former
schoolchildren reflects both lingua-cultural peculiarity of the concept and the common and
individual. It can be assumed that the frame structure of the concept "school" is the result of
generalization of the vocabulary word meaning and personal experience of these respondents.
References:
1. Баранов, А. Н. Англо – русский словарь по лингвистике и семиотике. / Баранов А. Н.,
Добровольский Д. О. – М.: Институт русского языка им. В.В. Виноградова РАН,
2003. – 642 с.
2. Баранов, А. Н. Введение в прикладную лингвистику: новый лингвистический
учебник / Баранов А. Н. – 3-е издание. – М.: ЛКИ, 2007. – 360 с.
3. Бутерина, О. В. Фреймовая структура концепта ЛЕС, отраженная в текстах
филологических словарей русской лингвокультуры / Бутерина О. В. // Молодой
ученый № 1, 2011. – С. 126-128.
4. Гак, В.К. К проблеме семантической синтагматики // Проблемы структурной
лингвистики. М.: Наука, 1972. – С. 368 – 394.
5. Гурина, Р. В., Соколова, Е. Е. Фреймовое представление знаний: монография. /
Гурина Р. В., Соколова Е. Е. – М.: Народное образование, 2005. – 175 с.
6. Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов / под общей редакцией Кубряковой Е. С. –
М.: Филол. ф-т МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова, 1997. – 245 с.
7. Ожегов, С.И. Толковый словарь русского языка. / Ожегов С. И., Шведова Н. Ю. – 4-е
издание. - М.: Азбуковник, 1997. – 846 с.
8. Филлмор, Ч. Фреймы и семантика понимания / Филлмор Ч. // НЗЛ, Вып. 23:
Когнитивные аспекты языка. М.: Прогресс, 1988. - С. 24-25.
9. Философия: Энциклопедический словарь / под ред. Ивина А. А. Москва: Гардики,
2004. –1072 с.
Linguistics
47
10. Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language. Origins and
Evolution of Language and Speech, eds. S.R. Harnad, et al.,pp. 20-32. New York: New
York Academy of Sciences.
11. Marvin Minsky. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston, Ed.,
The Psychology of Computer Vision, pp. 211 – 277. McGrawHill, NewYork.
12. Petruch, M. (1996). Frame Semantics. Handbook of Pragmatics, eds. J. Verschueren, J-O
Ostman, J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen, pp. 1-13. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
УДК 811.111’27
ENGLISH FOR NEGOTIATION, NONKILLING LINGUISTICS,
AND COMPROMISE
Maximova Yu.S.
Far-Eastern State Transport University,
Khabarovsk, Russia,
e-mail: juliamaxprof@gmail.com
Summary:
This paper aims at sharing ideas of the newly introduced nonkilling paradigm. The
paper dwells on the relationship between the English language and the concepts of
negotiation, nonkilling, and compromise.
Keywords / phrases: nonkilling paradigm, negotiation, compromise, interaction
Language permeates most facets of human experience: we use different forms of
language and literacy to establish contact with one another, to communicate our thoughts and
feelings, to make sense of the world around us, and ultimately to realize our destiny as social
beings. Nonkilling speaks both to the goal of preserving the physical lives of individuals,
communities, other species, the environment as well as the more metaphorical but also
extremely important survival of languages, cultures, histories (oral and written), literary
manifestations, etc. The nonkilling mentality can be applied to all these realms and lives.
In Nonkilling Global Political Science, Glenn D. Paige, the founder of the Center for
Global Nonkilling and the originator of the nonkilling concept, explains that a nonkilling
Linguistics
48
society is ―a human community, smallest to largest, local to global, characterized by no
killing of humans and no threats to kill; no weapons designed to kill humans and no
justifications for using them; and no conditions of society depend upon threat or use of killing
force for maintenance or change‖ [1, p. 21]. He raises the question of whether or not a
nonkilling society is possible and what it would take to build such a society. Paige
acknowledges that the answer to the first part of his question is a product of one‘s ―personal
experience, professional training, culture, and context‖ [1, p. 22]. The answer to the second,
in case one agrees that such a society is possible, would depend upon a collective effort in
which each member of the society employs their expertise and special skills to contribute to
the nonkilling paradigm.
Our contribution to a nonkilling society would involve the use of languages and the
social power derived from such use. In our nonkilling linguistics we can express our desire for
languages to be employed in all of their peace-making potential. It is easy enough to observe
that languages can be employed as instruments of harm; one can, for example, hurt with the
words he or she chooses or yet segregate and exclude those who share a different linguistic
background. Language users need to be empowered, and constructive dialogue needs to
replace violence. Several elements related to language are central to the establishment of a
nonkilling society. While these elements relate to linguistics in its more abstract form, which
means that they do not refer to any one particular language and at the same time include all
languages, examples of their applicability are given vis-а-vis existing languages and the
dynamics of power that unite and unfortunately also divide them [2, p.17].
While many of our examples come from English, we do not in any way mean to imply
that the use of English is more ―harmful‖ than the use of any other language. We truly believe that
the power to change a language as a vehicle of peace and nonkilling power lies within the realm
of the users. Therefore, the list which includes many instances of uses of English is simply an
acknowledgement that we share English with the readers and thus can rely on an understanding of
our examples. Whereas the list is not exhaustive, it is guided by two encompassing, fundamental
principles and two general pleas as follows. The First fundamental principle is ―Language is a
system for communicating in nonkilling ways.‖ The Second fundamental principle is ―Language
users should have the right to learn to communicate nonkillingly for the good of humankind.‖ The
First plea reads as ―Let us be communicative Humanizers, treating all language users with
compassion and dignity.‖ The Second plea reads as ―Let us opt for communicatively nonkilling
uses of language‖ [2, pp. 20-21].
Linguistics
49
An awareness of or conscientization about the need for a Nonkilling Society not only
helps shed light on an equally needed Nonkilling Linguistics but also provides insights on
actions to be implemented which can contribute to the rise and development of an Applied
Peace Linguistics.
Among the implications which could be drawn, derived from an initial study of
Nonkilling Linguistics as presented here, five stand out: a) Nonkilling Linguistics prioritizes
nonkilling, peaceful, humanizing uses of languages at the individual, group, community,
national, and international levels. b) Nonkilling Linguistics needs to interact with many other
fields so as to help build an interdisciplinary approach to Nonkilling communication, in varied
types of societies. c) The preparation of Nonkilling linguists calls for a keen perception and
thorough analysis of both constructive and destructive ways of interacting intra- and
internationally, in face-to-face or online situations. d) Nonkilling Linguistics can also be
thought of as a humanizing realization of an Applied Peace Linguistics. As such, it should be
able to join other interdisciplinary areas within the ever-growing macro-field of Applied
Linguistics. e) A steady, universal increase in the number of killings and homicides—
sometimes deplorably labeled ―justifiable‖—calls for immediate nonkilling action by all
individuals and organizations committed to protecting and preserving human linguistic health
and life [2, p. 32].
According to P. Friedrich, negotiation refers not only to diplomacy or conflict
resolution, but also and more importantly the kind of compromise that takes place every day
as we engage in conversation, education, and peace-building. It is assumed that all forms of
interaction require negotiation, be it negotiation of meaning, role, or power [3, p. 3].
As a phenomenon, compromise can be characterized as both struggle and cooperation
realized by means of ―givings and takings‖ which are not always equal but are always mutual.
Thus, compromise is ―an agreement made between two people or groups in which each side
gives up some of the things they want so that both sides are happy at the end‖ [4, p. 249]. It
can be regarded both as a result and a process or a strategy of achieving success in
communication. As a communicative strategy compromise helps interlocutors to either
eliminate or minimize their disagreements or contradictions, and converts a conflict situation
into a cooperative one, as the research shows [5].
The first step of my research was to investigate the linguistic means of compromise
manifestation in or via English [5]. It is important here to specify that the English language
possesses various linguistic means to express compromise in order ―to be able to
Linguistics
50
communicate successfully‖ [6, p.25]. My rubrics for all these means included verbal, nonverbal and combined linguistic forms of expression.
Being used by an enormous number of people all over the world – it is spoken
approximately by 1.5 billion people [7, p. 5] and in the next 10-15 years is expected to be
used by around 2 billion [8, p. 14], English has developed, as we assume, a unique property. It
does not only possess a great variety of means to express compromise for the sake of
successful communication from the linguistic point of view.
The English language has become a means of compromise itself, being able to operate
as a tool to achieve understanding in communication regarding its role in cross-cultural
contacts, according to our perspective here. As a lingua franca, English creates ‗nobody‘s‘
area, a so called neutral zone, in which users of it as ESL/EFL can abstract themselves from
their cultural identity. As Professor Z. Proshina puts it, English ―is a neutral language in the
context of multi-ethnic hostility. It is able to make relative peace in a multilingual country
with struggling national languages, as it happened, for example, in India‖ [9, p. 25]. It has
become ―denationalized‖, according to Yasukata [10], which as well contributes to the
property in focus.
In this function English does not belong to any communicant‘s personal background, it
creates tertiary, or mediated space for intercultural communication, and the mechanism of
compromise works, under such conditions, as follows: Entering intercultural communication
in English, every participant of communicative interaction, on the one hand, represents their
culture, and on the other, each interlocutor has a clear picture of the role this language
performs in this interaction because it is not a mother tongue of anybody‘s in this particular
communicative process. Possible mistakes of both linguistic and behavioral nature may not
necessarily lead to misunderstanding or misattribution since every participant can a priori be
excused for misusing the language in self-representation or self-expression. This
understanding can minimize the damage to the communication outcome which is the goal and
true result in case of compromise.
English as a lingua franca has become as such due to certain reasons or factors which
Z.G. Proshina categorizes as follows: historical; political and economic; informational;
cultural; linguistic [9, p. 19]. The latter is of great value for the purpose of this article since,
we believe, nowadays English as a link-language creates a new type of domain in the sphere
of intercultural communication.
We attribute such a function of English to some of its qualities. The most significant
are the following, to our mind. English is widespread due to several factors, as we mentioned
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]