Jotnar as "supernatural beings": a cognitive matrix of the old norse verbal representations

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Jotnar as "supernatural beings": a cognitive matrix of the old norse verbal representations

Kolesnyk O.S.

Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University

This article addresses verbal representations of the mythic concept JOTUNN (Engl. JOTUN) in Old Norse eddic texts. JOTNAR as supernatural beings inherent to the Nordic mythic space are regarded as a class of open systems marked by a set of hypertrophied features. Etymological analysis of the concep's names followed by broader analogue speculations allows identifying the basic “nano-myths” or “code-ons” that iconically outline the JOTUN-system's “preset” trajectories of behavior and interaction with other systems. The paper focuses on linguo-cognitive premises of language units verbalizing the said concept. Primary attention is paid to identifying sets of JOTUN's conceptualized features. The article suggests cognitive models and respective frame-like structures. The paper discusses different types of logical and semantic connections betweenthe said conceptual features and models. Our research employs a broad universalia-oriented interdisciplinary approach (M-logic) that focuses on the idea of irrational rationalization of reality (world-building) and encompasses the theory of myth-oriented semiosis. The identified semantic features and cognitive models are thus integrated into a model of a hierarchic plane of an open system therefore creating a “cognitive matrix ” of the JOTUN concept. The correlations between the sets of conceptualized features are discussed in terms of their complementary, determinative and causative correlations. The paper argues that the JOTNAR appeared as an imbalanced (chaotic) system capable of fractal expansion. The paper highlights the systemic premises of a paradox-type symbiosis between JOTNAR and the AESIR.

Key words: myth, Jotun, system, semantic feature, categorization, worldview, mythic space myth jotun semantic feature

Êîëåñíèê Î.Ñ. JOTNAR ÿê «íàäçâè÷àéí³ ³ñòîòè»: êîãí³òèâíà ìàòðèöÿ äàâíüîï³âí³÷íèõ ìîâíèõ ðåïðåçåíòàö³é

Ó ñòàòò³ ðîçãëÿäàþòüñÿ âåðáàëüí³ ðåïðåçåíòàö³¿ êîíöåïòó-ì³ôîëîãåìè JOTUNN (ÉÎÒÓÍ) ó äàâíüîñêàíäèíàâñüêèõ åäè÷íèõ òåêñòàõ. JOTNAR ÿê íàäïðèðîäí³ ³ñòîòè, íåâ³äºìí³ êîìïîíåíòè ñêàíäèíàâñüêîãî ì³ôîëîã³÷íîãî ïðîñòîðó, ðîçãëÿäàþòüñÿ ÿê êëàñ â³äêðèòèõ ñèñòåì, â³äçíà÷åíèõ íàáîðîì ã³ïåðòðîôîâàíèõ îçíàê. Åòèìîëîã³÷íèé àíàë³ç ³ìåí êîíöåïòó ç íàñòóïíèìè øèðîêèìè àíàëîãîâèìè ³íòåðïðåòàö³ÿìè äîçâîëÿº ³äåíòèô³êóâàòè îñíîâí³ «íàíî-ì³ôè» àáî «êîä-îíè», ÿê³ ³êîí³÷íèì ÷èíîì îêðåñëþþòü «ïîïåðåäíüî âñòàíîâëåí³» òðàºêòî𳿠ïîâåä³íêè é âçàºìî䳿 ÉÎÒÓÍ-ñèñòåìè ç ³íøèìè ñèñòåìàìè. Ó ñòàòò³ ðîçãëÿäàºòüñÿ ë³íãâîêîãí³òèâíå ï³ä´ðóíòÿ ìîâíèõ îäèíèöü, êîòð³ âåðáàë³çóþòü çàçíà÷åíèé êîíöåïò. Îñíîâíà óâàãà ïðèä³ëÿºòüñÿ ³äåíòèô³êàö³¿ íàáîð³â êîíöåïòóàë³çîâàíèõ ôóíêö³é ÉÎÒÓÍÀ. Ó ñòàòò³ çàïðîïîíîâàíî êîãí³òèâí³ ìîäåë³ òà â³äïîâ³äí³ ôðåéìîâ³ ñòðóêòóðè. Ó ñòàòò³ ðîçãëÿäàþòüñÿ ð³çí³ òèïè ëîã³÷íèõ ³ ñåìàíòè÷íèõ çâ'ÿçê³â ì³æ çàçíà÷åíèìè êîíöåïòóàëüíèìè îçíàêàìè òà ìîäåëÿìè. Ó íàøîìó äîñë³äæåíí³ âèêîðèñòîâóºòüñÿ øèðîêèé ì³æäèñöèïë³íàðíèé ï³äõ³ä, îð³ºíòîâàíèé íà óí³âåðñà볿 (Ì-ëîã³êà), ÿêèé çîñåðåäæóºòüñÿ íà ³äå¿ ³ððàö³îíàëüíî¿ ðàö³îíàë³çàö³¿ ðåàëüíîñò³ (ñâ³òîòâîðåííÿ) ³ îõîïëþº òåîð³þ ì³ôîîð³ºíòîâàíîãî ñåì³îçèñó. ²äåíòèô³êîâàí³ ñåìàíòè÷í³ îñîáëèâîñò³ òà êîãí³òèâí³ ìîäåë³, òàêèì ÷èíîì, ³íòåãðóþòüñÿ â ìîäåëü ³ºðàðõ³÷íî¿ ïëîùèíè â³äêðèòî¿ ñèñòåìè ³ óòâîðþþòü «êîãí³òèâíó ìàòðèöþ» êîíöåïòó ÉÎÒÓÍ. Êîðåëÿö³¿ ì³æ íàáîðàìè êîíöåïòóàë³çîâàíèõ îçíàê îáãîâîðþþòüñÿ ç òî÷êè çîðó ¿õ êîìïë³ìåíòàðíèõ, äåòåðì³íàòèâíèõ ³ êàóçàòèâíèõ êîðåëÿö³é. Ó ñòàòò³ ñòâåðäæóºòüñÿ, ùî ÉÎÒÓÍ ÿê íàäçâè÷àéíà ³ñòîòà º íåçáàëàíñîâàíîþ (õàîòè÷íîþ) ñèñòåìîþ, çäàòíîþ äî ôðàêòàëüíîãî ðîçøèðåííÿ. Ñòàòòÿ âèñâ³òëþº ñèñòåìí³ ïåðåäóìîâè ïàðàäîêñàëüíîãî ñèìá³îçó òèïó ì³æ ÉÎÒÓÍÀÌÈ òà ÀÑÀÌÈ.

Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: ì³ô, éîòóí, ñèñòåìà, ñåìàíòè÷íà îçíàêà, êàòåãîðèçàö³ÿ, êàðòèíà ñâ³òó, ì³ôîëîã³÷íèé ïðîñò³ð.

Introduction

Recent linguistic research has been gradually shifting towards digital phenomena generated and functioning in virtual environment. Applied value of the allegedly multidisciplinary studies and their distinct discourse-communicative vector correlate to the “hard pragmatics” of the modern civilization's model. The factor of irrationality in human categorization has mostly been acknowledged yet has not been incorporated in interpretations of professional and communicative activities. Therefore a number of phenomena that do not agree with the restrictions of the “common sense” are regarded as “mythic” i.e. irrational, unreal or “supernatural” at best. The methodology of cognitive linguistics has been employed to investigate phenomena of cultural memory (Nygaard 2021), the background of tropeic figures (Birgisson 2010, 2012) and designations of mythic creatures in the Old Norse explaining the “gods' semantics” (Mikolic 2013). I believe that this methodology may be implemented in a broader universalia- oriented approach that could target a class of SUPERNATURAL BEINGS (SB) in the Nordic mythic tradition or a specific SUPERNATURAL BEING.

The vast variety of systemic and inter-systemic relations realized at different planes of existence within numerous sets of coordinates rather often escapes empirical observations. However, the systems of diverse etiology and hierarchic affiliation impact transformations within the so called “real world” (i.e. empirically accessible and verifiable states of affairs). Human categorization based on primary and indirect experience allows including respective conceptualized entities into “alternative worlds” and “worldviews” via metaphoric personification and iconic- allusive designations. Hence most mythic systems encompass “supernatural” entities that are identified as unreal from the standpoint of the present-day axiomatic meta-rational conceptual matrix (either national or globalized one). Within the prior versions of the world / worldview, primarily those that we refer to as “linguo-demiurgic” and “reverberating” in regard to the involvement of the mythic space's content into categorization and verbal representation (Êîëåñíèê 2011), the “supernatural” entities appeared to be real.

We have addressed lingual representations of mythic creatures like DWARF (Kolesnyk 2015b), ELF (Kolesnyk 2015a) and DRAGON (Kolesnyk 2016a) that definitely fit the description of “supernatural” and represent ontologically different classes of objects. We extend the analysis toward the Old Norse designations of JOTUNN (further denoted as JOTUN).

2. Short notes on methodology. JOTUN-system through M-logic and numbers

We approach “supernatural” entities as systems sporting one or several enhanced parameters that provide their extra functionality. These features are perceived and identified as “hypertrophied” or “beyond common sense” from the vantage point of an anthrop observer / categorizer. A more generalized model based on the principles of fluid “neo-anthrop” salience, eco-centric categorization and fundamental principles of open systems' organization (as part of the suggested M-logic) (Kolesnyk 2019) targets the primary “hypertrophic” features that make the verbalized entities distinct.

We have priorly identified universal sets of features pertaining to verbalized concept GIANT in European languages (Kolesnyk 2016b, 124-129). It appears that the Scandinavian JOTUN manifests a number of specific features while the parameter of “size” is mentioned directly only once in the custom corpus of the Old Norse texts: En er wsirnir sa pat til viss, at par var bergrisi kominn, pa vard eigi pyrmt eidunum ok kolludu peir a por “Now that the ^sir learnt for sure that the mountain-giant had come, they disregarded their oaths and called on Thor” (Gylf, 42). The same concerns the designations ividja (pl. ividjur) and gygr (pl. gygjar) that are scarcely represented within the corpus and thus statistically ignored. However, this very micro-textual designation refers to a typical interaction pattern between two primary groups of SBs within the multiverse space. Therefore, in this paper we focus on the cognitive premises of the verbal representations of JOTUN as a class of supernatural living objects antagonistic to other systems and responsible for conflict-type scenarios in Scandinavian (Germanic) mythology and respective mythic space.

Generally, taxonomies of supernatural entities based on classic semantic dichotomies normally single out people and other non-human beings (animals, plants, gods etc.) (Lindow, 2002). Reconsidering these dichotomies in a universalia-oriented hierarchical sense, it is possible to fit the concept of JOTUN into the following taxonomy:

Figure 1. JOTUN in a hierarchical typology of SUPERNATURAL BEINGS

Thus, JOTUN is distinct at the macro-level of categorization i.e. appears as a fully functional system with specific features capable of both resonance-based clustering and intersystemic interactions with larger or contrarily organized systems.

Consequemtly, all supernatural beings (and respective concepts of a mythic space) fit the hierarchy structured around the dominant enhanced feature:

Micro level (1) - the physical parameter (“strong” / “big” / “fast” / “ugly” etc. where “strong” or “large” applies to a typical JOTUN)

Cata-1 level (2) - the emotive parameter (impactful / disturbing / scary, basically, any supernatural being triggering strong emotional reactions, as JOTUNN is mostly fearsome)

Cata-2 level (3) - the mental parameter (“stupid” or “wise”, including Jotuns Vafthrudnir and Mimir)

Macro level (4) - the social parameter (where a supernatural being appears as “the best / prototype representative” of a group, or a “leader”, for instance Odin for the Aesir or Surtur as the leader of the fire-giants; in case of the enhanced featrues'

being recognized as equi-ranking or significant enough, their carriers may be accepted and incorporated into a group which is exactly the case with Jotnar joining the Aesir);

Meso - 2 level (5) - the parameter of “inter-group interaction” (where a supernatural beingfunctions as “trickster” / “instigator” that sets large-scale scenarios in motion, e.g. Loki);

Meso - 1 level (6) - the parameter of “axiological orientation” (“shaper” / “creator” as Aesir or Volundar or “destroyer” / “eliminator” - Surtur, Jormungandr or “patron of a locus” like Hel)

Mega level (7) - the parameter of “time-space-energy configuration” (where a supernatural being defines algorithms and trajectories of large inter-systemic clusters' motion and development, e.g. “programmer”, the Norns

Thus, Jotnar are represented at various levels of inter-systemic relations and enter scenarios unfolding along trajectories determined by non-linear causative logic. They are not present at level 7 of the model and (like the Aesir) function within the coordinates set by larger systems (an oversystem encompassing the fundamental laws of nature that apply to realities beyond the nine world of the Old Norse mythic space or the “semantic space” of a present-day interpreter).

General configuration of the Nordic worldview and its dynamic transformations largely depend on the properties of SBs from the respective mythic spaces. The prominent role of JOTUN in the Old Norse mythic space manifests through numbers. We have chosen the five major types of the SBs designated in Old Norse texts for quantitative comparison. Other supernatural beings are significant semantically yet appear to be few and essentially irrelevant statistically within the the custom corpus which comprises 49 documents (prose Snorra Edda and songs of the Elder Edda) in Old Norse with 102,388 total words and 17,042 unique word forms (data processed via AntConc 3.5.8).

The following numeric representations testify that the Old Norse model of the world (and respective worldview) is ^sir-centric, as the designations of two races of gods (^sir and Vanir) dominate those of the other beings (Table 1).

On the othe hand, the number of verbal representations of the GODS' antagonists (jotunn and purs) is significant enough yet insufficient for the two contrary systems' parity thus providing ground for their continuous imbalanced and competitive coexistence.

Table 1. Quantitative distribution of Supernatural Beings'

designations in the custom corpus

Figure 1. Comparative distribution of Supernatural Beings' designations in the custom corpus

Therefore, we treat AESIR and JOTNAR as the primary AGONIST - ANTAGONIST pair that determines the dominating vector of the dynamics within the Old Norse mythic space (and respective worlview).

Quantitative distribution of the JOTUNN's designations within the corpus is represented in Table 2.

Table 2. JOTUNN's designations in Eddic texts

This distribution attests to the primary AESIR VS JOTNAR type of interactions in regard to the textually represented scenarios.

3. Discussion. Supernatural features of the JOTUNN-system through etymology

For instance, O.N. jotunn, O.E.eoten < Proto-Germ. *etunaz.~ Proto-Germ *etanan 'to eat' < Proto-Germ. etan “to eat” < Proto-Germ. * et- < Proto I.E. * ed- “eat, bite” (Sanskr. admi “I eat”, Avest. ad- “to eat”, Gr. Edo “I eat”, Lat. edere “to eat”, Lith. edu “I eat', edzioti “to devour, bite”, Hittite edmi “I eat”, adanna “food', Armen. utem “I eat” O. Ch. Slav. jasti “to eat', Checz. jidlo “food”, O. Ir. ithim “I eat”, Goth. itan, O. Sw., O. E. etan, O. H. G. essan “to eat”) (Pokorny 1959, 287, Levytskyi 2010, 157-159).

In this regard O.N. jotunn appears as a fractal iconic (personified) representation of the environment (outer space, CHAOS) ready to consume (“eat”)

and transform (“digest”) the material information carrier (a system of lesser physical mass, size or energy potential) thus ending its existence and therefore unstoppable, hostile and dangerous by default (cf. O.N. etall “consuming”, O.E. etol “voracious, gluttonous”, O.H.G. filu-ezzal “greedy”, L. G. eteninne “witch”) Levytskyi 2010, 159).

The designations O.N. purs, Icel. purs, Far. tussur, Norw. Nynorsk tuss, tusse, Norw. Bokmal: tuss, tusse, Sw. tuss, tusse (dialectal), O. Dan. tusse, tosse, Dan. tosse, Scot. Gael. tursa, O. E. pyrs, O. Sax. thuris, O. H. G. durs, duris. < Proto-Germ. *pursaz, *purisaz (“giant, name of the P-rune”) < ? *purjan with no clear etymology yet associating its semantics with “anger, quarrel” (Kroonen 2013, 552) < Proto-I.-E. *tur-, *twer- (“to rotate, twirl, swirl, move”) (Pokorny 1959, 1100) refer to the mythic creature's nature of “unstructured, uncontrolled, unchecked power resulting from movement” i.e. a quantum of energy associated with an element of Chaos. The version of etymological reconstruction that connects Germ. *pur(i)saz < Proto-Germ. *purenan, ~ Sanscr. turn- “strong, powerful, rich” explicates the dominant feature “strong, of power” though disregards the feature of “dynamic” which is essential for open unbalanced systems. The conceptualized ontological feature “powerful / energy bound” (=A01) is therefore considered a part of the inchoative proposition X00 (where A01eX00) that functionsas the irrational (mythic) interpretative basic operator.

Eventually, the O.N. purs (O.E. pyrs) designation of a destructive system capable of absorbing (“eating”) an opponent may hypothetically be motivated by the metaphorical sense of “absorbing liquid matter” as “thirst” (cf. purstu- “thirst” (Kroonen 2013, 553) ) turns the semantic feature “blood-thirsty” into a marker of a chaotic system's strife for obtaining resources from a target-system.

The idea of “unstoppable [consuming] force” correlates with the semantic feature of “growing” as the “[large] size” of a consumer-system is determined by the volume of absorbed resources. Hence the cognate of O.N. risi (O.H. G. riso, Icel., Far. risi, Norw., O. Sw., Sw., Dan. rise, G. Riese) < Proto-Germ. *wrisjon. ??? < Proto-Germ. *wrisja-, possibly, “top [of a mountain]” (Vries 1962, 447). An assumption of a “folk etymology” type might relate G. Riese and Germ. *reisan- “over, above” (cf. E. to rise, O.E. rlsan, G. reisen “to travel”, O. Sax. risan “move”, Dut. rijzen, O. Fris. risa, O.N. risa, Goth. ur-reisan “to elevate, appear” < Germ. *reisan- (<*reis-) “to move up, erect” (Levytskyi 2010, 431). Thus we identify the semantic feature “upward movement” which is seen as “the way of profiling by [excessive] upward expansion” which does not contradict the classic versions: O.N. risi, G. Riese < Germ. *wr(s-an- / *wrfsen , *r[(w]s-an- / *r[^w]s¸n < Proto-I.E. *wris- "mountain", as well as < l.E.*uer-s "elongated" (Pokomy 1959, 1151-1152) but rather implies the complementary connections between the features in jotunn, purs and risi as different aspects of the same natural phenomenon. Therefore, the features of “absorbing” (= BX01), “expanding” (= BX02) and “energy-wielding” (= BX03) are the dominant profiles that make the respective entity distinct to a degree of “outstanding” / “supernatural.” These features constitute the contetnt of the basic operator (quantor) X00, that functions as the categorizational filter for the derivative conceptual models and derivative senses.

4. Discussion. Linguo-cognitive premises of the JOTUN-system's designations

The derivative semantics of the analyzed units reflects the results of other systems' categorizational activities targeting the JOTUN-system in a number of stereotype scenarios.

Basic cognitive models reconstructed through the interpretations of the JOTUN's verbalizers are the following. The nature of the models themselves as discussed in (Lakoff 1990; Steen 2005) is considered secondary and is disregarded. We focus on the content of the “source domain” comprising ontological (a), functional (b), locative (d) and axiological (c) conceptualized features. The suggested inventorization of the cognitive models follows the above-mentioned universal model of an open system's hierarchical structure.

Level 1 models.

JOTUN - POWER / DEXTERITY, a basic ontological feature (=a01) attributed to level 1 of categorization with the frame representation of

{[J-SYS] exists SO [quality]}

For instance: inn prudmodga jotun “powerful (< “great juggler”*) jotun” (Harb, 19), Mikill pykkir mer Pjazi fyrir ser hafa verit “Thjazi was immensely powerful” (Skald, 4), pvt at engi jotun // ek hugda jafnramman sem VafprUdni vera “Among the jotuns I know of no one equal in might to Vafthrunir” (Vaf, 2), unz prjar kvamu //pursa meyjar // amattkar mjok // or Jotunheimum “until there came three thurs-maids, mighty, out of Jotunheim” (Vol, 8), en jotunn losnar “jotun breaks free” (Vol, 47) (a “despite” force-dynamic pattern (Talmy 1988), where JOTUN overcomes the resistance of an opposing system and sets in motion), Sundr stokk sula // fyr sjon jotuns “the beam broke at the glance of the giant” (Hym, 12), bad senn jotunn // sjoda ganga “the jotun ordered to boil them” (Hym, 14), Dro meir Hymir // modugr hvali “Mighty Hymir drew [two] whales” (Hym, 21), while POWER could extend onto the SOCIAL STATUS: Prymr sat a haugi, //pursa drottinn “Thrym sat on a hill, the lord of thurses” (Thry, 5).

The propositional representation of a level 5 structure which reflects a destructive outcome for the JOTUN-system and involves a designation of POWER (a qualifying descriptor) riding the level 1 cognitive structure: Ek drap Pjaza inn prudmodga jotun “[I killed Thjazi] that mighty jotun” (Harb, 19) refers to the fundamental capacity of open systems' (AGONIST vs ANTAGONIST) competitive imbalanced interaction as well as the positive axiology of “overcoming a worthy opponent”.

JOTUN - ELEMENT (=a13): “Or Elivagum // stukku eitrdropar, // sva ox, unz vard or jotunn;//par eru orar wttir // komnar allar saman; //pvt er pat æ allt til atalt” “out of Elivagar sprinkled poisonous drops that waxed till they were a jotun; there our crazy [fierce] kin came to be all the same” (Vaf, 31) where eitrdropar may relate to a liquid substance, the “energy of WATER” i.e. an all- encompassing field of energy-information quanta that may be configured / charged oppositely thus creating the effect of chaos, i.e. “poison”.

The set of energies and elements associated with the nature of the Jotunn- system hypothetically mirrors a specific “over-systemic program” (i.e. general natural laws of astro-physical scale). Although the respective properties appear “different” / “strange” > “hostile” > “dangerous” for an observer they still trigger scenarios where this system is categorized and treated as

JOTUN - RESOURCE (=a11): Or Ymis holdi // var jord of skopud, // en or beinum bjorg, // himinn or hausi // ins hrmkalda jotuns, //en or sveita s<xr “Out of Ymir's flesh the earth shaped, of his bones the mountains;the sky from the skull of the frost-cold jotun, and of his blood the sea” (Vaf, 21) where the JOTUN-system embodies the primordial container of elements that are engaged in the act of creation through the act of violence (that, possibly, fractally repeats in an endless cicle of war and murder due to a complex of allusive associations “enemy” / “hostile” < “disgusting” < “different” yet “life giving” / “basis of the world”) thus providing the initial point for the JOTUNN - TARGET level 5 structure.

Level 2 models.

JOTUN - EMOTION (=a09) with the frame representation of

{[J-SYS] manifests SUCH [emotion]}:

Oteitr jotunn, // er aftr reru “gloomy was the jotun as they rowed back” (Hym 25) and the subordinate model JOTUN - FEAR {[J-SYS] causes SUCH [emotional response]}: Pjazi ... sa inn amattki jotunn “Pjazi ... the terrible jotun” (Grimnismal, 11). A hypertrophied “emotive feature” may result from a superb ontological quality (level 1 sub-structure) [haughty] < [invincible] < [stone]: sa inn storudgi jotunn, // er or steini var hofudit a “a haughty thurs, he had a head of stone” (Harb, 15).

Level 3 models.

JOTUN - WISDOM / KNOWLEDGE (=a07) with the frame representation

{[J-SYS] possesse SUCH [mental quality]}:

pess ins alsvinna jotuns “jotun's wisdom” (Vaf, 5), inn frodi jotunn “you, wise jotun” (Vaf, 20), Wisdom manifests through a specific JOTUN-centered categorization and respective designation: igrwn jotnar “[as] Evergreen [known among] the Jotuns”(Alv, 10), uppheim jotnar “[as] the Upper World [known among] the Jotuns”(Alv, 12), skyndi jotnar “[as] the Goer [known among] the Jotuns”(Alv, 14), eyglo jotnar “[as] the Ever Glowing [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 16), Urvan jotnar “[as] the Watery Hope [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 18), wpi jotnar “[as] the Wailer [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 20), ofhly jotnar “[as] the Sultry [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 22), alheim jotnar “[as] the Home of Elves [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 24), frekan jotnar “[as] the Biter [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 26), eldi jotnar “[as] the Flame's [“food”] [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 28), oljos jotnar “[as] the Lightless [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 30), wti jotnar “[as] the Eaten [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 32), hreinalog jotnar, wti jotnar “[as] the Light Beer / Bright Drink [known among] the Jotuns” (Alv, 34), Asvidr jotnum fyrir “Aswith for the jotuns [did so = cut the runes]” (Hav, 143) implying that the JOTUN-system is basically engaged in the same patterns of energy-information exchange and is thus fundamentally equi-ranking to the systems of other etiology. Cf. also: Nu eru Hava mal... oporf jotna sonum “Here are the words of Hof... useless for the sons of jotuns” (Hav, 164) implying a fundamental orientational difference between systems operating the same knowledge; vid pann inn alsvinna jotun “with [against] that all-knowing jotunn” (Vaf, 1), &di per dugi, // hvars pu skalt, Aldafodr, // ordum mwla jotun “sharp in mind you should be, Allfather, as you the the jotunn speak” (Vaf, 4), implying the equiranking facilities of two contrarily configured systems in competitive interation or one system's intention to absorb the informational content of the other, where the JOTUN appears as the “target / donor” of potentially larger capacity rather than an “absorber” as his name and stereotype designations suggest: hitt vil ek fyrst vita, // ef pu frodr ser // eda alsvidr jotunn “and first I want to know, as you are wise, if you know everything [if you are all-knowing], jotunn” (Vaf, 6). Apart from the RESOURCE domain, the sphere of KNOWLEDGE / WISDOM also becomes an inchoative point of other sustems' aggressive impact upon the JOTUN-system at level-5;

JOTUN - MAGIC / ILLUSION (the correlated hypertrophied feaures are “magic” / “supernatural” (=a08) and “magic user” (=b08)) that morph within the frame {[J-SYS] possesses SUCH [quality] performs SUCH [action]}:

Einn madr er nefndr Agir eda Hler. Hann var mjok fjolkunnigr. Hann gerdi ferd sina til Asgards, en <xsir vissu fyrir ferd hans, ok var honum fagnat vel ok po margir hlutir gervir med sjonhverfingum. “A man was named ^gir or Hler; He was skilled in magic. He made his way to Asgard, but the asir knew of his journey in advance. He was well received, but many things were done with illusions.” (Skald, 1), Pa kemr par Pjazi jotunn ³ arnarharn “Then came Thjazzi the jotun in the shape of an eagle” (Scald, 2)

Level 4 as the “assembly point” of a dynamic conceptual construal hosts the models or the “social projections” of the models otherwise belonging to other levels of the system's organization:

JOTUN - LOCATION. It is primarily the space “inhabited by the generic species” (=d01, associated with a physical (level 1) space of a creature's habitat or HOME fractally projected onto social (level 4) space).

The frame model of the JOTUN-system is thus {[J-SYS] exists / owns / [SPACE]}

This location could be associated with geographic coordinates: flygr hann nordr ³ Jotunheima “[he] flies north to Jotunheim” (Scald, 3), or associated with a specific dweller: Prymheimr heitir inn setti, // er Pjazi bjo ... en nu Skadi byggvir fornar toftir fodur “Thrymheim the sixth is called where Ejazi lived... but now Skadi .lives in her father's ancient courts” (Grimn, 11), ollum asum //pat skal inn koma // Agis bekki a, // Agis drekku at “to the all the ^sir it will become known, on ^gir's benches, at ^gir's feast” (Grimn, 45) implying the role of an “event holder / moderator” which deserves specific attitude fitting the social status; en annarr stod a Okolni // bjorsalr jotuns,en sa Brimir heitir “another [hall] stood in Okolni, the beer-hall of the jotun called Brimir” (Vol, 37), Gnyr allr Jotunheimr “all Jotunheim groans” (Vol, 48), mwlta ek ³ minn frama // ³ Suttungs solum “I spoke and was successful in Suttung's hall” (Hav, 104). The said space is thus structured according to the focal system's settings: yfir ok undir stodumk jotna vegir “up and under were the jotun's ways (paths)” (Hav, 106), Sat bergbui // barnteitr fyr // mjok glikr megi //miskorblinda “sat the rock-dweller, happy as a child mich like the son of Miskorblindi” (Hym, 2) and is dangerous to other systems: fi er mer a // at ek vwra enn kominn // jotna gordum or “methinks, I would hardly have come from the jotun's world” (Hav, 108);

The JOTUN-space is descrete and delimited: hve su a heitir, // er deilir med jotna sonum // grund ok med godum “how is the river called that divides the land of jotuns'sons from the [realm of] gods'? ” (Vaf, 15)

It is noteworthy that the JOTUN-space is not enclosed or restricted, thus allowing the representatives of other spaces enter / invade / navigate / leave: ok fyr innan kom // jotna heima “he came to the land of Jotuns” (Thry, 4), Hv^ ertu einn kominn // ^ Jotunheima? “Why have you come alone to Jotunheim” (Thry, 5), unz fyr utan kom // jotna heima “he rushed out of the land of Jotuns” (Thry, 9), vit skulum aka tvau ^ Jotunheima "the two of us will go to Jotunheim (Thry, 12), Bjorg brotnudu, // brann jord loga, // ok Odins sonr // ^ Jotunheima “mountains shook and the earth was burning as Odin's son went to Jotunheim” (Thry, 21),

JOTUN - FAMILY / KIN / BIRTH (=a03): as the primal “systemic prototype” demonstrates hermaphrodite features: Undir hendi vaxa // kvadu hrfmpursi //mey ok mog saman “under the arms of the ice-thurs a boy and a girl were born” (Vaf, 33), Orofi vetra // adr vwri jord skopud, // pa var Bergelmir borinn, // Prudgelmir var pess fadir, // en Aurgelmir afi “Countless winters before the Earth was shaped Bergelmir was born, Thrudgelmir was his father and Aurgelmir his grandfather” (Vaf, 29), Alvalda sonar “[eyes] of Alvaldi's son” (Grimn, 11), Ol vlf Loki // vid Angrbodu, // enn Sleipni gat // vid Suadilfara; // eitt potti skars // allra feiknazst, //pat var brodur fra // Byleistz komit “Loki sired the wolf on Angrboda, and got Sleipnir on Svadilfari; the monster seemed most terrible the one that from Byleipt's brother came” (Hyndl, 40), Angrboda heitir gygr ^ Jotunheimum. Vid henni gat Loki prju born. Eitt var FenrisUlfr, annat Jormungandr, pat er Midgardsormr, pridja er Hel “Angrboda was the name of a giantess in Jotunheimr. With her Loki had three children. One was Fenrir, the second Iormungand the Midgard serpent, the third is Hel.” (Gylf, 34), Freyr atti Gerdi, //hon var Gymis dottir, // iotna wttar,// ok Aurbodu; // po var Piassi // peirra frwndi // skautgiarn iotun, // hans var Skadi dottir “Freyr had Gerd the daughter of Gymir of the race of jotuns, and of Aurboda. Thjazi was their kin, greedy jotun, Skadi was his daughter” (Hyndl, 30), Attnidr jotna “kinsman of jotuns” (Hym, 9).

JOTUN - SOCIAL STATUS (=a11): Inn kom in arma // jotna systir “then entered the jotun's poor [unlucky?] sister” (Thry, 29), Prymr, // pursa drottinn “^rym, the lord ofjotuns”(Thry, 30).

The JOTUN-system is capable of fractal auto-copying (BX02) thus making a transition from level 1 to level 4 as the ever-expanding system requires (social) structuring. The JOTUN-system thus appears a structured, adaptable and self- sustainable one, capable of expansion, the latter property being the reason of other systems' hostile attitude.

JOTUN - CREATOR / MAKER (=b02): Mgir, er odru nafni het Gymir, hann hafdi buit asum ol “^gir, who was also called Gymir, had prepared ale for the gods” (Lok, 1) where a created object is significant within the group to which JOTUN-system belongs, the latter example demonstrating a JOTUN-system's merging with the AESIR-system and providing a variant of level-5 interactions.

Level 5 models address the primary scenarios of the JOTUN-system's “intergroup relations”.

JOTUNN - ADVERSARY (=b01^X00) with the frame representation of

{[J-SYS] impacts / opposes [N-SYS]}. The model could unfold as “balanced interaction”: ladar purfi -// hef ek lengi farit - // ok pinna andfanga, jotunn “I seek welcome, as I have traveled far, and a greeting, jotun” (Vaf, 8) with a possible outcome of JOTUN - GODS' COMPLEMENT (=a12): Skadi ...skir brudr goda “Skadi, shining bride of the gods” (Grimn, 11), ok fyr jotna // ol fram borit “for the jotuns beer was brought” (Thry, 24).

The conflicting model may be specified as:

JOTUN - DESTROYER (=b05): adr Surtar pann sefi of gleypir “Surtr's relative will kill him soon” (Vol, 47);

JOTUN - TAKER (=b06): eda wtt jotuns Ods mey gefna “[who] to the jotun's kin Od's bride had given” (Vol, 25);

JOTUN - DOMINATOR (=b10): en jotunn losnar “the jotun breaks free” (Vol 47) as a system capable of determining its own trajectory of development or transition, dominating over the will of an antagonist system within a classic “despite”-pattern of force-dynamic scenarios. DOMINATION may also unfold as extending one's control over the other system's space: Pegar munu jotnar // Asgard bua “or else may the jotuns in Asgard live” (Thry, 18);

JOTUN - AGGRESSOR (=b03): En Skadi dottir Pjaza jotuns, tok hjalm ok brynju ok oll hervapn ok ferr til Asgards at hefna fodur sins. “Skadi the daughter of Thjazzi the jotun took her helmet and armor and went to Asgard to avenge her father” (Scald, 3) where the aggression appears as an act of retaliation to a prior act of violence;

JOTUN - HARM / TRICK (=b04): Ordheill pin // skal engu rada, //pottu, brudr jotuns //bolvi heitir “your spell shall do no harm, though [you] the kin of jotuns, threaten with evil” (Hyndl, 34).

Apart from the balanced or JOTUN-dominated interactions, the contrarily configured systems enter CONFLICT-type scenarios where the participants' roles are reversed:

JOTUN - TARGET (VICTIM / OBJECT OF VIOLENCE / MISTREATING) (= -b07) with the frame representation of {[N-SYS] impacts / hurts [J-SYS]}: Ek drap Pjaza “I felled hjazi” (Harb, 19), gornum fyrstr ok efstr // var ek at fjorlagi, //pars ver a Pjaza prifum “first and last I was at the killing that was hjazi's demise (quartering* ?)” (Lok, 50), ok duldak ekpann inn aldna jotun “and I deceived that old jotun” (Grimn, 50), Ek slw eldi // of ividju, //sva atpu eigi kemsk // a braut hedan “I will surround with fire the giantess so that you shall not get out” (Hyndl, 32), ill idgjold // let ek hana eptir hafa “an ill reward I let her have” (Hav, 105), er vit Hrungnir deildum,... po let ek hann falla // ok fyrir hniga “with Hrungnir I fought... though I felled him and brought him down” (Harb, 15), en ek velta hann or viti “and I took his [Hlebard's] wits away ” (Harb, 20), Ek var austr // ok jotna bardak // brUdir bolvisar, // er til bjargs gengu “I was in the eastand destroyed jotuns' ill-working women who had fled to the mountains” (Harb, 23), Onn fekk jotni //ordbwginn halr “a toil for the jotun the word-wielder designed” (Hym, 3), er hann sa gygjar gr&ti // a golf kominn “the giant-women's grief [=enemy] to the apartment came” (Hym, 14), brjotr bergdana “destroyer of rock-dwellers” (Hym, 17), purs radbani “destroyer of thurses” (Hym, 19), drep vid haus Hymis,// hann er hardari, // kostmods jotuns, //kalki hverjum “Strike Hymir's head, it is hard, heavy with food, [harder than the] chalice” (Hym, 30), Prym drap hann fyrstan, // pursa drottin, //ok wtt jotuns // alla lamdi “Thrym was the first to fall, lord of jotuns, then all the kin of jotuns was felled” (Thry, 31), Drap hann ina oldnu // jotna systr “then he killed the jotun's old sister” (Thry, 32), Pa varu wsirnir nwr ok drapu Pjaza jotun fyrir innan asgrindr “The Aesir were [close] there and felled Thjazzi the jotun inside Asgard” (Scald, 3).

Level 6 models.

JOTUN - RICH (a02^c+): Olvaldi het fadir hans... Hann var mjok gullaudigr. En er hann do... En pat hofum ver ordtak nU med oss at kalla gullit munntal pessa jotna, en ver felum ³ rUnum eda ³ skaldskap sva, at ver kollum pat mal eda ord eda talpessa jotna “His father's name was Olvaldi. He was very rich in gold. When he died. And now we have an expression among the aesir to call gold the “mouth-count of the jotuns” and we hide it in the secret language of poetry by calling it the speech of the jotuns” (Skald, 56-57), brimsvin jotuns “jotun's boar- of-waves [ship]” (Hym, 27), Ganga her at gardi // gullhyrndar kyr,// oxn alsvartir // jotni at gamni; // fjold a ek meidma, // fold a ek menja, // einnar mer Freyju // avantpykir “go here to the stables gold-horned cows, all-black oxen, the joy of the jotuns, many are the treasures, many are the gems, the only thing I lack was Freja” (Thry, 23) i.e. the JOTUN-system functions as both the container and accumulator of resources and consciously ascribes value properties to them.

The vis-a-vis system's categorization manifests through the model JOTUN - GREED (=a04^-c): skautgiarn iotun (Hyndl, 30);

JOTUN - STUBBORN / DURABLE: (=a06^c): Ok enn jotunn //um afrendi, //pragirni vanr ”And the jotun in power [competed], being stubborn” (Hym, 28), har5an jotun // ek hug5a Hlebar5 vera “a hard jotun that was called Hlebard” (Harb, 20);

JOTUN - AGE (=a05 ^c): ok duldak ekpann inn aldna jotun “and I deceived that old jotun” (Grimn, 50], Ek man jotna ar of borna “I know the jotuns born of yore” (Vol , 2), Inn aldna jotun ek sotta “The old jotun I sought out” (Hav, 104), en forn jotunn // sjonum leiddi // sinn andskota “the old jotun his gaze help upon his enemies” (Hym 13), "Orof vetra // adr vwri jord skopud, //pa var Bergelmir borinn “Countless winters before the Earth was shaped Bergelmir was born” (Vaf, 29). The axiological “coloring” of this model is teremined by the association of [extraordinary] / [wise] / [powerful] < [continuous accumulation] < [old].

JOTUN - SUSTAINING (=b09^X00), that unfolds as (1) the system's ability for self support, primarily in the form of expansion thus creating the pretext for other systems' hostile actions: mikil myndi wtt jotna, // ef allir lifdi // vwtr myndi manna // und Midgardi “huge would be the race of jotuns if all were alive, no man would there be in Midgard” (Harb, 23)

or (2) the system's ability to share (=b10) resources with other systems (sustain them) thus becoming a symbiotic element in the multiverse:

jotna...,pa erfordum mik“jotuns. that fed me” (Vol, 2) (i.e. a resourcesful system capable of sharing), which could manifest as hospitality or affection: Gunnlod mer of gaf //gullnum stoli a // drykk ins dyra mjadar “Gunnljoth gave me on a golden stool a drink of the marvelous mead” (Hav, 105), gaf hann mer gambantein “[Hlebard] gave me his magic staff” (Harb, 20);

The JOTUN-system is not manifested at level 7 of the model: although it provides the material resources for a created world it is denied either free-will or sufficient mental organization capable of “conscious world-designing”.

The models above constitute a synthetic “cognitive matrix” (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Old Norse Jotun-system as a cognitive matrix

The basic irrational operator-quantor X00^ provides an “interpretational prism” at each level of categorization where denotes “predication”, an imperative set of system's features. The sign “ë” indicates “adjunction” i.e. an additive connection between conceptualized features within a cluster or at a level of the model. The sign “v” indicates “disjunction” i.e. an alternative between conceptualized features within a cluster or at a level of the model. The sign “^” stands for “implication” that reflects the relations of determinism between between conceptualized features within a cluster e.g. [a08^-b08], between clusters at a level of the model or those belonging to different levels, e.g. [a12^ b02].

The logic of “upward vertical determinism” (the content of lower levels provides premises for the content and structure of the upper ones) defines the complementary correlation between the conceptualized features: “powerful” / “elementary” / “expanding” ^ “grim” / “angry” / “hard” ^ “knowledgeable” ^ “organized” ^ “adversary” ^ “container of valuable features” ^ “*?” (unspecified, as respective designations are not found, probably, “reality shaper”). The logic of “downward vertical determinism” (the content of upper levels provides stimuli for the development of the lower ones) defines the regulatory correlation between the conceptualized features: “*?” (a hypothetical “reality shaper”) ^ “container of valuable features” (in auto-ceonceptualizationand from

the standpoint of other systems) ^ “adversary” (attempting to implement the development program incepted at level 7 as well as protect itself in conflict-type intersystemic interactions) ^ “organized” (acquiring a sustainable structure and functional mode) ^ “knowledgeable” (cognition agent, auto-improving system) ^ “grim” / “angry” / “hard” (a defensive signal to potential adversaries) ^ “powerful” / “elementary” / “expanding” (a set of basic features providing the system's functionality). Finally, the “symmetric causative determinism” (the content of opposite upper levels provides stimuli for the development of the respective lower ones (7^1, 6^2, 5^3) with the spiral-like focusing on a system's eventual optimal configuration (1^6^2^5^3^4 ... ^ 7n+1, where 7n+1 stands for a dialectic transition towards a new quality /dimension) defines the system's adaptive dynamics and the purpose of its each mode: “*?” (a hypothetical “reality shaper”) ^ “powerful” / “elementary” / “expanding” (a set of basic features necessary to fulfill the program of the over-system) ^ “container of valuable features” (auto-diagnostics and evaluation by other systems ) ^ “grim” / “angry” / “hard” (a system's mode resulting from “orientation” at level 6) ^ “adversary” (determinism of level 6 is complemented and enhanced by the mode acquired at level 2 thus defining the primary trajectory of intersystemic interactions) ^ “knowledgeable” (synthesis of experience from interactions at level 5) ^ “organized” (a focal “assembly point” that provides optimal structuring and functionality) ... ^ hypothetical dialectic transformation or expected megaconflict (Ragnarok) resulting in fundamental systwmic inversion.

Results

The analysis of JOTUNN's designations in Old Norse texts allows reconstructing of a fragment of the Old Norse worldview that encompasses the knowledge of a specific type of SUPERNATURAL BEING manifesting a number of hypertrophied features of “expanding”, “absorbing” and “power-wielding”. The said features represent collective and mostly irrational knowledge and experience of Old Scandinavian (Nordic) peoples regarding large-scale natural phenomena (virtually equi-ranking to the deities). The said features generate a number of JOTUN's derivative capabilities that determine its peculiar position in the Aesir- centered mythic world (worldview).

Within this worldview the JOTUN-system is adaptable (sustaining) and, despite being associated with CHAOS, demonstrates the tendency towards structuring and the ability of auto-sustaining. It is noteworthy that the verbal representations of this structuring are somewhat isomorphic to those of their adversaries: a genetically-bound social structure occupying a respectively named segment in the physical space i.e. the deep logic of adversaries' systemic organization is virtually identical.

JOTUN's axiological features are not explicit. They tend to be negative and rather overlay ontological and functional ones thus demonstrating the specific vantage point of the human / Aesir-centered subject of categorization.

Although the JOTUN-system is capable of rapid and obviously unlimited fractal expansion (and therefore targeting other systems' space as potentially hostile subjects) it is relatively passive, appears as a patient to violent destructive impacts and manifests aggression as retaliation or as the result of excessive entropy when other scenarios are eliminated (final battle of Ragnarok).

Its structure is rather isomorphic to that of the adversaries' systems. The adversaries function in dialectic collaboration and everying pertaining to the negatively assessed JOTUN-system (resources, artifacts, genetic features granting the offsprings of the gods and the Jottnar supernatural powers etc.) is utilized by the Aesir-system. However, this unbalanced and paradox-like symbiosis requiring a high level of tolerance may be identified as a deep systemic error that eventually leads to a CATASTROPHE-type transformation of the world.

References

1. (Alv) Alvissmal. Retrieved September 1,2023, from

https://www.voluspa.org/alvissmal.htm.

2. Birgisson, B. (2010). The Old Norse Kenning as a Mnemonic Figure. The Making of Memory in the Middle Ages. Ed. Lucie Dolezalova. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 199-213.

3. Birgisson, B. (2012). Skaldic Blends Out of Joint. Blending Theory and Aesthetic Conventions. Metaphor and Symbol, 27 (4), 283-298.

4. Casteel A. B. (2020). Cognizing as the Wind and Metaphors of Mind: A Reconsideration of Old Norse hugr and Huginn. Oslo: University of Oslo.

5. Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. Ed. D. Harper. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from http://www.etymonline.com.

6. (Grimn) Grimnismal.RetrievedSeptember1,2023,from

https://www.voluspa.org/grimnismal.htm.

7. (Gylf) Snorra Edda Gylfaginning. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from https://norroen.info/src/snorra/ gj/2.html.

8. Haley-Halinski K. A. (2017). Kennings in Mind and Memory: Cognitive Poetics and Skaldic Verse. Oslo: University of Oslo.

9. (Harb)Harbardsljdd.RetrievedSeptember1,2023,from

https://www.voluspa.org/harbardsljod.htm

10. (Hav)Havamal.Retrieved September 1,2023, from -

https://www.voluspa.org/havamal.htm

Studia Philologica. 2023. Âèïóñê 21

11.(Hym)Hymiskvida.Retrieved

https://www.voluspa.org/hymiskvida.htm

September1,2023,from

12.(Hyndl)Hyndluljdd.Retrieved

https://norroen.info/ src/edda/hyndlu/on.html

September1,2023,from

13. Kolesnyk, O., (2011), Mifolohichnyiprostir krizpryzmu movy ta kultury [Mythic space in the scope of language and culture], Chernihiv: ChNPU

14. Kolesnyk O.S. (2015a). Kontsept-mifolohema ELF u dzerkali movy [Mythic Concept Elf in the Mirror of Language]. Teoretychna i dydaktychnafilolohiya, 20, 207-221.

15. Kolesnyk O.S. (2015b). Kontsept-mifolohema HNOM u dzerkali movy [Mythic Concept DWARF in the Mirror of Language]. StudiaPhilologica, 3, 23-30.

16. Kolesnyk O.S. (2016a). Linhvokulturni j linhvoseiotychni osoblyvosti verbalizatsiyi konceptu-mifolohemy DRAKON [Linguo-cultural and linguo-semiotic peculiarities of designating the mythic concept DRAGON]. OdeskyiLinhvistychnyi Visnyk, 7, 225 - 230.

17. Kolesnyk O. S. (2016 b). Mova ta mif u vymiri mizhdystsyplinarnyh studiy [Language and Myth: an Interdisciplinary Study]. Chernihiv: Desna Polygraph.

18. Kolesnyk, O., (2019), Cognitive premises of the myth-oriented semiosis. Cognitive Studies | Etudes cognitive, #19, Article 196, https://ispan.waw.pl/journals/index.php/cs- ec/article/view/cs.1916