Structural and contextual model of a concept

https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS4.1761

Authors

  • Yaroslav Yaremko Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Drohobych, Ukraine
  • Natalia Luzhetska Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Drohobych, Ukraine
  • Oksana Kushlyk Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Drohobych, Ukraine
  • Petro Matskiv Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Drohobych, Ukraine
  • Svitlana Senkiv Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Drohobych, Ukraine

Keywords:

cognitive aspect, communicative personality, lingual, political culture, term, verbalization

Abstract

The central notion of the cognitive linguistics “concept” has been defined in a number of ways thus the authors suggest the unique way to treat its structure and content. The article provides the interpretation variability of a concept taking into account two approaches – lingual and cultural and semantic and cognitive one which construct cognitive and discourse vector lying in the dimension of both cognition and communication. Whereas the content of a concept is carried out via multidimensional (thinking and speaking in the first place) activity of a person the work considers its structure (imaginary, notional, axiological and adorative (secret) components being in a harmonious unity with the structure of a communicative personality (pragmatic-motivational, cognitive, verbal-semantic, transcendental levels). Concept is a coherent ethnic and mental unit possessing complex four-level structure. It implies interaction and interrelation between a concept and communicative personality, their two-side hierarchical connection particularly using spiritual halo. The following research methods were used in the work: observation, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, modelling method, which are necessary for the objective scientific definition of the subject in question; cognitive and discourse analysis. The article provides stratification of a concept in connection with the structure of communicative personality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alefirenko, N. F. (2005). Controversial problems of semantics [Spornye problemy semantiki].

Bagan, O. (2008). Philosopher-war.

Batsevich, F. (1997). The divine-human nature of language in the concept of Alexander Potebnya. Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, ??????V, 297-303.

Bilodid, I. K. (1971). Glossary of the Ukrainian language in 11 volumes. Volume 2. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.

Bondarko, A. V. (1978). Grammatical Meaning and Significanse. AV Bondarko–L.: Nauka.

Derkach, S., Melnyk, M., Fisher, V., Krypchuk, M., & Chystiakov, O. (2021). Development of students’ communicative culture in the context of artistic practices. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 1070-1084. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS4.1747

Faye, P., Brémaud, D., Daubin, M. D., Courcoux, P., Giboreau, A., & Nicod, H. (2004). Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings. Food quality and preference, 15(7-8), 781-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.009

Franko, I. (1991). Collection of works. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.

Golovin, B. N. (1987). Lingvisticheskie osnovy ucheniya o terminakh [Linguistic foundations of the doctrine of terms]. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola.

Heidegger, M. (2007). By a Road to the Language. Litopys, Lviv.

Hoc, J. M., & Leplat, J. (1983). Evaluation of different modalities of verbalization in a sorting task. International journal of man-machine studies, 18(3), 283-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(83)80011-X

Ilyin, I. A. (1993). The path of spiritual renewal. The path to evidence. Moscow: Respublika.

Ivashchenko, V. (2006). Kontseptual'na reprezentatsiya frahmentiv znannya v naukovo-mystets' kiy kartyni svitu (na materiali ukrayins' koyi mystetstvoznavchoyi terminolohiyi): Monohrafiya (The Conceptual Representation of Fragments of the Knowledge in the Scientific and Artistic Picture of the World (Based on the Ukrainian Art Studies Terminology): The Monograph). Kyiv: Vydavnychyy Dim Dmytra Buraho.

Karasik, V. I., & Sternin, I. A. (2008). “Anthology of concepts” as an attempt to create a linguistic and conceptological encyclopedia. Lingvoconceptology, 1, 33-39.

Karaulov, Y. N. (1987). Russian language and language personality. Science, Moscow.

Kashkin, V. B. (2007). Communication Theory Basics. AST: Vostok-Zapad, Moscow.

Kim, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Lee, H. S., & Park, J. A. (2007). An underlying cognitive aspect of design creativity: Limited Commitment Mode control strategy. Design Studies, 28(6), 585-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.04.006

Kostenko, L. (1989). I use a violin clef. Kyiv: Dnipro.

Kubryakova, E. S. (2004). On the installations of cognitive science and actual problems of cognitive linguistics. Issues of cognitive linguistics, (1), 6-17.

Lee, P. C. B. (2000). Turnover of information technology professionals: a contextual model. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(2), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-8022(99)00016-8

Licorish, S. A., & MacDonell, S. G. (2015). Communication and personality profiles of global software developers. Information and Software Technology, 64, 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.02.004

Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition?. Design Studies, 16(2), 237-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00011-2

Macintosh, N. B. (1981). A contextual model of information systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(81)90021-0

Marseille, G. (1999). Homo viator. Kyiv: Academiya.

Maturana, U. (1995). Biology of cognition [Biologiya poznaniya]. Yazyk i intellekt.–M.

Nalimov, V. V. (2003). Verojatnostnaja model’jazyka: o sootnoshenii jestestvennykh i iskusstvennykh jazykov [A probabilistic model of language: about the correlation of natural and artificial languages]. Tomsk-M.: Vodolej Publishers.

Nikitin, M. F. (1988). The fundamentals of linguistic theory of meaning. M.: Higher School.

Pimenova, M. V. (2004). Soul and spirit: features of conceptualization. Kemerovo: KSU.

Pitt, L. F., Opoku, R., Hultman, M., Abratt, R., & Spyropoulou, S. (2007). What I say about myself: Communication of brand personality by African countries. Tourism Management, 28(3), 835-844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.06.003

Popova, Z. D., & Sternin, I. A. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics. Moscow: AST: Vostok—Zapad.

Potebnya, A. A. (1993). Thought and language. Kiev: Nauka [in Russian].

Ramos, R. I. A., Mata, R. R. M., & Nacar, R. C. (2021). Mediating effect of ethical climate on the relationship of personality types and employees mindfulness. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 1480-1494. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS1.1722

Reformatsky, A. A. (1969). What is the term and terminology. Moscow: Nauka.

Rinartha, K., Suryasa, W., & Kartika, L. G. S. (2018). Comparative Analysis of String Similarity on Dynamic Query Suggestions. In 2018 Electrical Power, Electronics, Communications, Controls and Informatics Seminar (EECCIS) (pp. 399-404). IEEE.

Schunk, D. H. (1986). Verbalization and children's self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90030-5

Setyastrini, N. L. P., Subekti, I., & Prastiwi, A. (2021). Corporate governance and political connection towards the tax aggressiveness of manufacturing companies in Indonesia. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 8(1), 102-109. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v8n1.1118

Stepanov, O. M. (2006). Psychological encyclopedia, Kyiv, Akademvydav.

Suputra, I. D. G. D. ., & Widhiyani , N. L. S. . (2020). Types of personality, audit structure and transformational leadership styles moderate the effect of organizational commitments on auditor performance . International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 7(6), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v7n6.1005

Ufimtseva, M. V. (2005). Power and authority in the linguistic consciousness of Russians. Russian Language in a Multicultural World: Collection of Scientific Articles of the III International Symposium, 11, 12-21.

Vamat, T., & Madarulzaman, S. (2020). Translation of imperative sentences and its mistakes: strategy analysis in pragmatic studies. Applied Translation, 14(1), 23–28. Retrieved from https://appliedtranslation.nyc/index.php/journal/article/view/1099

Vereshchagin, E. M., & Kostomarov, V. G. (2005). Yazyk i kul'tura [Language and Culture]. Moscow: Indrik Publ. 1040 p.

Vezhbitskaya, A. (1992). The semantics of grammar. Moscow: Yazyky russkoy kultury.

Vinokur, G. O. (1939). On some phenomena of word formation in Russian technical terminology. Proceedings of the Moscow Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature, 3-54.

Zhaivoronok, V. V. (2006). Znaky ukrainskoi etnokultury: slovnyk-dovidnyk [Signs of Ukrainian ethnoculture: dictionary-reference book]. Kyiv: Dovira.

Zourbanos, N., Tzioumakis, Y., Araújo, D., Kalaroglou, S., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Papaioannou, A., & Theodorakis, Y. (2015). The intricacies of verbalizations, gestures, and game outcome using sequential analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 18, 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.12.003

Published

2021-11-13

How to Cite

Yaremko, Y., Luzhetska, N., Kushlyk, O., Matskiv, P., & Senkiv, S. (2021). Structural and contextual model of a concept. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 1352-1364. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS4.1761

Issue

Section

Research Articles