The structural-semantic field of dichotomy “one’s own – alien” in the English language world picture

https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS4.1557

Authors

  • Yuri Shepel Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Olena Panchenko Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Vira Zirka National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Olena Fedina Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology, Kamyanske, Ukraine

Keywords:

cognitive linguistics, mentality, nominative field, opposition, typical verbalizers

Abstract

The article deals with the study of the value content of the dichotomy “one’s own – alien” in the English linguistic world picture. The novelty of the proposed study lies in the fact that the researcher does not proceed from a predetermined model of description construction, but the model is deducted from the material researched. The lexical units that can act as direct objectifies (keywords, cohyponyms and typical verbalizers) of the concepts “one’s own – alien” which are based on the idea of a stereotypical situation that explains the value content of the opposition in the English language consciousness, are analysed. The modern linguistic interpretation of the conceptual opposition “one’s own – alien” and verification of the research results is performed on the basis of analysis of dictionaries and media texts to compare associations with the concepts “one’s own – alien” of English speakers, to clarify the links of language units – representatives of the concepts “one’s own – alien” with the structures of knowledge about their denotations and with extraverbal reality, highlighting their mental characteristics and principles of functioning in English.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ammon, M. S., & Slobin, D. I. (1979). A cross-linguistic study of the processing of causative sentences. Cognition, 7(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90007-6

Bondarko, A. V. (1996). Teoriya funktsionalnoy grammatiki: Lokativnost. Bytiynost. Posessivnost. Obuslovlennost [The Theory of Functional Grammar. Locativity. Being. Possessivity. Conditionality].

Browning, W. R. F. (2009). A Dictionary of the Bible. OUP Oxford.

Chitra, F. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Collins, H. (2006). Collins English dictionary. Glasgow: Harper Collins.

Dubchak, I.P. (2012). Linguistic features of English noun constructions in monologue speech. Bulletin of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series: Pedagogy and Psychology, 21, 161-170.

Dyachenko, G. (2002). Complete church slavonic dictionary. Moscow: Otchiy dom.

Gürer, A. (2020). Karachay–Balkar relative clauses: Implications for a special type of genitive/nominative alternation. Lingua, 243, 102875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102875

Hameroff, S. R. (1998). Funda-Mentality': is the conscious mind subtly linked to a basic level of the universe?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2(4), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01157-7

Holman Bible Editorial Staff. (2001). Holman concise Bible dictionary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Hornby, A.S. (2000). O?ford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keohin, H. C. ., & Graw, N. J. . (2017). Linguistic and cognitive ability of children before five years old on their effort to communicate action. Linguistics and Culture Review, 1(1), 50-59.

Kertész, A., Schwarz-Friesel, M., & Consten, M. (2012). Introduction: Converging data sources in cognitive linguistics. Language Sciences, 34(6), 651-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.006

Kleinke, S. (2010). Speaker activity and Grice's maxims of conversation at the interface of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Journal of pragmatics, 42(12), 3345-3366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.008

Ko?-Januchta, M., Höffler, T., Thoma, G. B., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures–An eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028

Kollöffel, B. (2012). Exploring the relation between visualizer–verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material. Computers & Education, 58(2), 697-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.016

Krasnobayeva-Chorna, Zh.V. (2006). An integrated approach to the interpretation of the concept (philosophical and linguistic and cultural vectors). Linguistic studies: a collection of scientific papers, 14, 27-31.

McIntosh, C. (2009). Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Melekesceva, N.V. (2012). Possessive presence/absence predicates in modern Ukrainian. Scientific notes of the Tavrichesky National University named after V.I. Vernadsky. Series “Philology. Social communications”, 1(25(64)), 116-120.

Otakhonova, K. (2021). Cognitive principle of foregrounding in the mass-media. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 7(4), 194-200.

Pelageykina, V. A., & Shepel, Y. O. (2017). Conceptual Opposition" His/Alien" In The English Languege Picture Of The World. Linguistics. Lingvoculturology, (10), 405-443.

Popova, Z.D., Sternin, J.A. (2007). Cognitive linguistics. Moscow: AST.

Preston, J., & Epley, N. (2009). Science and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 238-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.013

Procter, P. (1999). Cambridge international dictionary of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seidl, J., McMordie, W. (1978). English Idioms and how to use them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seliverstova, O.N. (2004). Works on semantics. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kultury.

Shvedova, N.Ju. (1989). Russian existential verbs and their subjects. Word and grammatical laws of language. Verb. Moscow: Nauka.

Sudakova, V.V. (2005). Conceptualization of the “alien” in the linguistic picture of the world: thesis of the Candidate of Philosophical Sciences. Moscow: Moscow City Pedagogical University.

Summers, D. (2002). Longman dictionary of English language and culture. Harlow: Longman.

Suryasa, I.W., Sudipa, I.N., Puspani, I.A.M., Netra, I.M. (2019). Translation procedure of happy emotion of english into indonesian in k???a text. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(4), 738–746

Sushkova, I.M. (2007). Belonging in the semantic-functional field of possessiveness (based on the material of Russian and English languages): thesis of the Candidate of Philosophical Sciences. Voronezh: Voronezh State University.

Tameryan, T. Y., Zheltukhina, M. R., Ponomarenko, E. B., & Buzinova, L. M. (2021). Ethnic language in the polylingual space of the region: linguophilosophical approach. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 1173-1182.

Taylor, J. (1996). Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tendahl, M., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of pragmatics, 40(11), 1823-1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001

Wang, H., Wu, Z., Rahnamayan, S., Liu, Y., & Ventresca, M. (2011). Enhancing particle swarm optimization using generalized opposition-based learning. Information sciences, 181(20), 4699-4714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.03.016

Webster, N., Porter, N. (1913). Webster's revised unabridged dictionary. Springfield: C. & G. Merriam Co.

Published

2021-10-23

How to Cite

Shepel, Y., Panchenko, O., Zirka, V., & Fedina, O. (2021). The structural-semantic field of dichotomy “one’s own – alien” in the English language world picture. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 84-101. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS4.1557

Issue

Section

Research Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)