Contradictions in interpreting the conceptual apparatus of cognitive linguistics (cognitive analysis)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

CONTRADICTIONS IN INTERPRETING THE CONCEPTUAL APPARATUS OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS (cognitive analysis)

Slabouz V.V.

PhD in Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages, SHEI “Donbas State Pedagogical University”

Abstract

The article presents an interpretation of the main processes of cognition of the world and units representing the results of these processes to analyze the reasons for significant contradictions associated with the interpretation of the conceptual apparatus of cognitive linguistics. A clear, consistent distinction between the three main stages of mastering the world - categorization, conceptualization, and language consciousness, as well as the structures representing the results of these processes, will make it possible to qualify many grammatical phenomena studied by traditional linguistics in a new way. It is noted that the current discrepancies in the interpretation of the main cognitive terms are associated with ignoring the presence of conceptual (mind) categories that belong to the sphere of consciousness operating with innate or acquired categories that have nothing to do with the ontology of the world. Many linguists, based on certain ontological features, identify these categories with the classifying ones, only reflecting extra-language reality, and assign them the role of a phenomenon that is insignificant for describing a language. It is concluded that conceptual categories play a decisive role in the presentation of situational knowledge, within which people can think of the same event from different angles without violating the nominative identity of lexical units. These conceptual categories find their realization in human consciousness through a variety of universal frame structures, which, in turn, are interpreted at the level of language consciousness through propositions as intra-language interpretations of the universal frame. The specificity of language consciousness is manifested in a set of essential grammatical formations that are individual in nature and inherent in a particular language.

Keywords: categorization, conceptualization, language consciousness, conceptual categories, classifying categories, semantic- syntactic relations, significative interpretation.

Анотація

knowledge conceptual category

Протиріччя у трактовці понятійного апарату когнітивної лінгвістики (когнітивний аналіз). Слабоуз В. В.кандидат філологічних наук, доцент кафедри іноземних мов Донбаський державний педагогічний університет

У статті представлено інтерпретацію основних процесів пізнання світу та одиниць, що представляють результати цих процесів, з метою аналізу причин суттєвих протиріч, пов'язаних з інтерпретацією понятійного апарату когнітивної лінгвістики. Чітке, послідовне розмежування трьох основних етапів оволодіння світом - категоризації, концептуалізації та мовної свідомості, а також структур, що представляють результати цих процесів, дозволить кваліфікувати багато граматичних явищ, які вивчає традиційна лінгвістика, по-новому. Зазначається, що наявні на сьогодні розбіжності в трактуванні основних когнітивних термінів пов'язані з ігноруванням наявності концептуальних (розсудливих) категорій, що належать сфері свідомості, що оперує вродженими або набутими категоріями, які не мають нічого спільного з онтологією світу. Багато лінгвістів, виходячи з певних онтологічних ознак, ототожнюють ці категорії з класифікаційними, лише відображаючими позамовну дійсність, і відводять їм роль явища, незначного для опису мови. Зроблено висновок, що концептуальні категорії відіграють вирішальну роль у поданні ситуаційного знання, в межах якого люди можуть думати про одну й ту саму подію з різних сторін, не порушуючи номінативної тотожності лексичних одиниць. Ці концептуальні категорії знаходять свою реалізацію у свідомості людини через різноманітні універсальні фреймові структури, які, у свою чергу, інтерпретуються на рівні мовної свідомості через пропозиції як внутрішньомовні інтерпретації універсального фрейму. Специфіка мовної свідомості виявляється в сукупності сутнісних граматичних утворень, що носять індивідуальний характер і притаманні конкретній мові.

Ключові слова: категоризація, концептуалізація, мовна свідомість, концептуальні категорії, класифікаційні категорії, семантико-синтаксичні відношення, сигніфікативна інтерпретація.

Introduction

Modern linguistic science is largely determined by a relatively young direction - cognitive linguistics. The experience accumulated, indisputable achievements and advantages in comparison with traditional linguistics make it possible to analyze the significant contradictions existing in the interpretation of its conceptual apparatus and basic provisions, associated, first of all, with certain difficulties in the transition to a new scientific paradigm. The main provisions of cognitive linguistics are that languages are based on the perception of the surrounding reality, language and thinking influence each other and form together embodied experience. The processes of perception and thinking are controlled by parts of the brain and can be interpreted adequately through all kinds of psycholinguistic categories. Perceived objects of the external world and their mental representation set different prerequisites for language expression. Both displayed objects and their mental representations have different levels and units of presentation. Ignoring this thesis is, in our opinion, the main reason for the contradictions in cognitive linguistics. Nowadays, in many cognitive studies, there is no clear distinction between the processes of cognizing the world as a source of knowledge about the world, thinking as a process of comprehending the knowledge gained, and language consciousness as the result of these two processes. The delimitation of these processes of human assimilation of the world postulates differences both in the nature of the processes of assimilation of extra-linguistic reality and differences in the structures representing the results of these processes.

The analysis of recent studies and publications

Correlation and interconnections of different stages of cognition of the world, their results, structures of knowledge representation, and interpretive human activities still remains an urgent task of cognitive linguistics and attracts the attention of many researchers (Boldyrev N. N., Demiankov V. Z., Makarova E. A., Pavlova A. V., Sharandin A. L., etc.). Considering the process of cognition of the surrounding reality, many scientists distinguish real reality, projected reality that is formed in the mind of a person in the process of mastering the world, and linguistic reality, which is directly related to the linguistic representation of the world by man. The primary, generating mental units, and fundamental process is categorization, during which a person, based on ready-made conceptual schemes, generalizes individual situations into categories-classes (scenes). Conceptual schemes consist of features that qualify both the participants in the situation and the events underlying the scene. At the same time, categories in the objective world are not presented a priori, but are the results of human thought processes. How a person perceives and “understands” the external world is essentially determined by internal categories (conceptual systems). On the one hand, they facilitate the classification of the perceived, on the other hand, they carry information about the state of affairs and the relationship of objects with each other. Important factors influencing these processes are physical interaction, imaginative perception, mental images, and the role of realities in culture (Lakoff G., Langacker R. W., Wierzbicka A., etc.).

The categorization is carried out on ontological grounds and covers all kinds of physical phenomena, as well as comparison and differentiation of objects, actions, and phenomena. At this stage, there is a perception of the surrounding world, selection, and generalization of the knowledge gained about it (the basis of knowledge). In cognizing the reality around us, we do not limit ourselves to isolating a specific event from the external world. Organizing the mental world is a complex process that begins with “registering experience” and leads to higher levels of cognition. This is confirmed by the ideas of L. Talmi [3], R. Langacker [5]. The next stage in the development of cognitive processes, where processed information about the external world is interpreted in human consciousness, is conceptualization. Conceptualization is interpreted as mental modeling of a separate concrete situation [6]. If categorization is associated with the knowledge of the world and is based on its ontological features, then conceptualization refers to the level of consciousness (mind), which is based on abstract conceptual categories. The speaker can represent the same fragment of reality in different ways each time, communicate about it with the help of various structures of language and ways of expression. It is the conceptual categories that play a decisive role in the interpretation of the external world, the significance of which in the cognition of reality has been pointed out by the representatives of different linguistic directions (Apresian Iu. D., Arutiunova N. D., Likhachev D. S., Stepanov Iu. S., Wierzbicka A., etc.). A distinctive feature of the conceptualization process is its complete abstraction from the class of objects. The external world is continuous, chaotic, and, as a result, in our consciousness, there is no unambiguous fixation of objects for one specific category. Referring to the same ontological class, objects can be thought of in different ways (in different semantic relationships). This fact clearly illustrates the interpretation of semantic predicates and their roles as consciousness categories [1].

The main disadvantage of traditional linguistics was the ignorance of the presence of consciousness (mind) categories. Conceptual categories were interpreted as classes and were always identified with classifying categories that formed the basis for describing a language. In contrast to the classifying categories, which “read” the world, conceptual categories interpret, comprehend the already “read”. Depending on the chosen perspective on the denotative situation (semantic perspective), they allow interpreting the same event in different ways without violating the nominative identity of the word.

The purpose of the study is to analyze contradictions in interpreting the conceptual apparatus of cognitive linguistics and to present the cognitive analysis as a method of studying language phenomena.

The results and discussion

The categories of a consciousness (mind) nature should include parts of speech (traditionally considered in linguistics as classes of words) and semantic predicates that allow the same event to be interpreted as an action, state, process, property (they are identified in traditional grammar with lexical classes of words, united by their nominative entity). A similar picture is observed when interpreting semantic-syntactic relations (semantic cases), which are replaced by the concept of a class of objects, although, as studies of the factual material show, these semantic-syntactic relations can be thought differently within the framework of different semantic predicates. Frame structures, which are universal alternative ways of reflecting categorized reality, also belong to the level of conceptualization. Each person from his/her memory selects a certain data structure (frame) to represent a certain stereotypical situation. Information is organized and stored in the form of frame structures. Therefore, frames are closely related to the interpretation of events in extra-linguistic reality, they show how “a person organizes his/her knowledge of the world and uses it to interpret new information, events, experiences and relationships associated with them” [4; 7, p. 6]. Frame structures are not associated with a situation ontology and can be used to reflect many situations in the real world. One of the distinguishing features of frames is the high adaptability of frames: they are designed to nominate an infinite set of situations (scenes), effectively fulfill their purpose due to their ability to rebuild, modify in accordance with the implemented focus concerning the described situation [1].

The process of cognition (associated with the acquisition, processing, and systematization of knowledge about reality) and consciousness (a system of consciousness (mind) categories) are closely interrelated and represent the prerequisites for the generation of a specific language consciousness as a result of the selection from the general set of consciousness (mind) categories of a set of frame structures that is specific and relevant for a certain language community and allowing a given community to perceive categorized reality in a peculiar way (which explains the specificity and typology of natural languages). The nature of language consciousness is determined not only by the features of the realized frame structures but also by the features of their significative interpretation. For instance, since at the level of language consciousness conceptual categories are subject to a certain influence of ontological categories, the same semantic-syntactic relation can receive a different semantic reading. It depends, first of all, on the presentation of information through a specific system of lexical-grammatical means of a particular language (depending on the belonging of the language to a certain grammatical structure). That is why the central object of the semantics of a particular language is the significative reading of the frame structure since it is the content of the utterance, which highlights a certain separate “frame” of the linguized reality.

Conceptualizing the surrounding reality, each language community selects the most significant for it, which is taken into account when interpreting language phenomena and is reflected in the grammatical structure of a particular language. Thus, representatives of languages of the active system subdivide all events, conceptualized as a sign in time, into active and static, and speakers of ergative languages - into agentive and non- agentive events. A similar picture is observed when interpreting the nominative vocabulary as a noun. In Ukrainian, it is represented by lexical-grammatical classes of animate and inanimate nouns, in German - by classes distinguished by genus, etc. In this regard, it is considered appropriate once again to point out the essential difference between parts of speech understood as conceptual categories and lexical-grammatical classes of words, interpreted as units representing parts of speech at a superficial level. In our opinion, their belonging to different levels of world acquisition is the main argument against their identification. The same part of speech (as a conceptual category) can be represented in the language by several lexical-grammatical classes of words. All objects, properties, and events are conceptualized through the system of parts of speech and appear at the level of language consciousness as lexical- grammatical classes of words. A similar picture is noticed with the mental comprehension of individual situations (scenes). Each specific situation is represented at the level of consciousness by a characteristic set of frame structures. These structures are based on the semantic predicate and its inherent set of arguments (semantic cases). So, for instance, for a situation thought of as an action, the following semantic roles are typical: Agent, Objective, Resultant, Addressee, Instrument, Recipient, Deliberative and Mediative. Other roles are provided for the process predicate, in contrast to the action predicate, namely: Patient, Recipient, Resultant, etc.

The interaction of two structures of mental representation of situational content (scene and frame) generates propositions (as structures belonging to a specific language consciousness). At the level of language consciousness, any frame structure is realized through the corresponding propositional structures of its variants. All sorts of significative readings of any of the frame structure arguments depend on the interpretation of the frame through the morphological paradigm of each individual language and are conditioned by the influence of certain ontological characteristics of the reflected scenes. The presence of several grammatical forms for the actualization of a single semantic case was pointed out in the works by Ch. Fillmor [4].

Another argument in favor of our thinking is the grammatical phenomenon of the verb control. The same unit conceptualized as a verb can have different grammatical forms for the same semantic-syntactic relation. To prove this statement, it is convenient to present the example with the German verb sich freuen, in which the Deliberative argument has three forms of its realization: ьber Akk, auf Akk, an Dat, which, in turn, is associated with three different significative interpretations. The same Deliberative can be interpreted in different ways from the point of view of comprehending a single ontology class-scene: a) when conceptualizing mental events as actions (denken, glauben), it is realized by the prepositional form an Akk; b) this semantic-syntactic relation within the framework of events of speech activity (sprechen, berichten, reden) is actualized by the prepositional form ьber Akk, or von Dat [2].

Conclusions and prospects for further research

The differentiation of cognition, thinking and language consciousness necessarily means a distinction between the structures representing the results of the named processes. Investigating the results of cognition and thinking embodied in language consciousness in their interconnection, it is consistently necessary to take into account the non-identity of the processes of categorization, conceptualization and their “products”, structures of knowledge representation and reflection of the world in consciousness, cognitions and their significative interpretations in language consciousness. Categorization results in ontological categories, and conceptualizations result in consciousness categories. The leading role in interpreting the external world and describing the facts of language consciousness belongs to conceptual (consciousness) categories. Their confusion with classifying categories when describing a language means ignoring their abstraction from ontological features and their interpretive character and leads to serious errors. Cognition and consciousness create the prerequisites for the generation of a specific language consciousness, the nature of which is determined by a set of consciousness categories specific to a given language community and their significative interpretation. Conceptual categories at the level of language consciousness are influenced by ontological categories and can receive different semantic readings. The consistent application of the above postulates leads to the interpretation of parts of speech, semantic predicates, semantic cases, and verb control as conceptual categories. To overcome many contradictions in the interpretation of the provisions of traditional linguistics from the standpoint of cognitive linguistics is possible only with a clear delineation of the three above-mentioned stages of cognition of the world.

Literature

1. Генералова Л. М. Транспозиция как способ языковой репрезентации перехода к альтернативной концептуализации события через систему семантических предикатов (на материале немецкого языка): автореф. дис.... канд. филол. наук. Волгоград, 2007. 22 с.

2. Генералова Л. М., Ребрина Л. Н. Когнитивный статус Делибератива и парадигма средств его выражения в немецком языке. Культура и цивилизация. 2017. № 4. С. 324-333.

3. Талми Л. Отношение грамматики к познанию. Вестник МГУ. 1999. № 31. С. 19-25.

4. Fillmor Ch., Atkins В. Frames: cognitive structures, knowledge of which is presupposed for the concepts encoded by the words. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization. A. Lehrer, E. Kittay (Eds.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992. P. 75-102.

5. Langacker R. W. A overview of cognitive grammar. Topics in cognitive linguistics. B. Rufzka-Ostyn (Ed.). Leiden, 1988. P. 5-55.

6. Lutzeier P. R. Syntaktisch-semantische Relationen: ein Versuch fьr das Deutsche. Deutsche Sprache. 1988. S. 131-143.

7. Tannen D. “The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Rower and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance” in Tannen, D. (Ed.). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

References

1. Generalova, L. M. (2007). Transpozitsiya kak sposob yazykovoy reprezentatsii perekhoda k alternativnoy kontseptualizatsii sobytiya cherez sistemu semanticheskikh predikatov (na materiale nemetskogo yazyka) [Transposition as a way of linguistic representation of the transition to alternative conceptualization of an event through a system of semantic predicates (based on the German language)]. Extended abstract of Candidate's thesis. Volgograd.

2. Generalova, L. M., & Rebrina, L. N. (2017). Kognitivnyy status Deliberativa i paradigma sredstv ego vyrazheniya v nemetskom yazyke [Cognitive status of the Deliberative and the paradigm of its means of expression in German]. Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki, 4, 324-333.

3. Talmi, L. (1999). Otnosheniye grammatiki k poznaniyu [The relation of grammar to cognition]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, 31, 19-25.

4. Fillmor, Ch., & Atkins, В. (1992). Frames: cognitive structures, knowledge of which is presupposed for the concepts encoded by the words. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization. A. Lehrer, E. Kittay (Eds.), pp. 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

5. Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. Topics in cognitive linguistics. B. Rufzka-Ostyn (Ed.), pp. 5-55. Leiden.

6. Lutzeier, P. R. (1988). Syntaktisch-semantische Relationen: ein Versuch fьr das Deutsche: [Syntactic and semantic relations: attempt at analysis for German]. Deutsche Sprache, 131-143.

7. Tannen, D. (1993). The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Rower and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance. Tannen, D. (Ed.). Gender and Conversational Interaction, pp. 165-188. New York: Oxford University Press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru