Role of prominence in matrix modeling of the politics concept (within the USA celebrity discourse)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Role of prominence in matrix modeling of the politics concept (within the USA celebrity discourse)

Роль проминантности в матричном моделировании концепта политика (на базе публицистического дискурса США)

Stepanov V. V.

PhD student in Philology Zaporizhzhia National University (Department of Theory and Practice of Translation from the English Language)

Степанов Виталий Валерьевич

аспирант специальности «Филология» Запорожский национальный университет (кафедра теории и практики перевода с английского языка)



Summary

The article represents a mechanism of reproducing a matrix model of the «politics» concept, which is done via the methodology of component analysis in a discourse sample of 180 US celebrities' utterances. In particular, the contexts are processed for defining an implicit integral seme as well as explicit differential ones that are further equated to the macrodomains (base - profile) of the POLITICS concept. Having been analyzed subsequently via the cognitive interpretation by Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternin, the microstructure of upper domains is arranged as lexical-semantical fields (LSFs). The frequency of the latter in the whole sample is regarded as the prominence operation by R. Langacker, which establishes what concept features are the main in terms of Americans' view on the POLITICS as a social phenomenon. The role of prominence in the matrix research is compared with identical network reconstruction of the POLITICS concept in the previous study. A schema of the generated matrix is revealed in the article as well.

Key words: concept, discourse, US celebrities ' utterances, matrix model, domain, cognitive interpretation, prominence

politics concept modeling



Аннотация

Статья раскрывает механизм реконструкции матричной модели концепта «политика», что выполнено посредством методики компонентного анализа дискурсивной выборки 180 высказываний знаменитостей США. В частности, контексты анализируются с определением имплицитно интегральной и эксплицитно дифференциальных сем, которые приравниваются к макродоменам (база - профиль) концепта ПОЛИТИКА. После когнитивной интерпретации контекстов по З.Д. Поповой, И.А. Стернину микроструктура высших доменов сортируется как лексико-семантические поля (ЛСП). Частность последних в выборке рассматривается как реализация операции проминантности Р. Ленекера, благодаря которой определяется, что конкретно является главным для американцев в осмыслении ПОЛИТИКИ как социального феномена. Роль проминантности в матричной реконструкции ПОЛИТИКИ сопоставлена с сетевой репродукцией концепта. Дополнительно указаны иллюстрации смоделированной матрицы концепта.

Ключевые слова: концепт, дискурс, высказывания знаменитостей США, матричная модель, домен, когнитивная интерпретация, проминантность



Obtaining knowledge produces mental formations - concepts. As a piece of information activated in mind by a language unit, the concept is structured via the network or matrix formats [1]. Although both have been widely used for generating concept visualizations (e.g. JOY [2], EMPATHY [3, p. 190-202],

BUSINESSMAN [4], MYSTERY [5] for the network;

TIME [6], RITE [7], DAMAGE [8] for the matrix), an issue of modifying conceptual schemas into cognitive models remains unsettled. The latter, started by S.A. Zhabotinskaja within converting the JOY conceptual model into a cognitive one using some cognitive operations [2], is being considered by me in studying the POLITICS concept on the basis of USA discourse. After producing the POLITICS cognitive model [9] through the network format with operations of cognitive interpretation by Z.D. Popova &

A. Sternin [10, p. 200] and prominence by R. Langacker [11, p. 66-73], there is an urgent need to construct a similar matrix cognitive model. The fact of POLITICS as a social phenomenon. Reaching such a research aim requires explanation.

The sample of 180 USA celebrities' utterances has been previously compiled by me when I represented the role of cognitive interpretation in matrix research via political and celebrity discourses [17]. Therefore, the sample has been already processed through the component analysis as well as cognitive interpretation, and a detailed explanation can be found on Google Drive [18]. The semes-domains can be now indicated as LSFs. They are stated below (in round brackets there is the seme frequency within the sample, which is clarified in angle brackets via ASSESSMENT - H for HIGH, M for MODERATE, L for LOW, N for NEUTRAL).

Integral seme: COORDINATION.

Differential semes:

FORM OF COORDINATION (108; <H15 / M13 / L23 / N57>):

SCIENCE (9; <H0 / M0 / L1 / N8>): art (6); science (1); politics (2);

IDEAS (44; <H4 / M6 / L7 / N27>): interests (2); ideas (3); opinions (1); conception (1); feeling (1); duty (1); responsibility (1); mission (1); topic (1); attempt (1); politics (1); power (1); leadership (2); not leadership (1); optimism (1); common pulsebeat (1); conspiracy (1); Cold War (1); war (1); revolution (2); alliance (1); regime (1); democracy (4); leftist side of politics (1); radical side of politics (1); right-wing politics (1); left politics (1); right politics (1); identity politics (2); job politics (1); social politics (1); government politics (1); grass-roots politics (1); an expression and form of public ethics (1); pop culture

;ACTIVITY (55; <H11 / M7 / L15 / N22>):

EVENTS (7; <H4 / M0 / L2 / N1>): politics (7);

WORK (47; <H7 / M7 / L13 / N20>): politics

(33); political affiliation (1); practice (1); profession (1); job (1); office (1); field (1); orchestration of power

; forum (1); conduct (1); business (1); show business

; entertainment branch (1); life (1);

BEHAVIOR (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>): politics

(1).

CIRCUMSTANCES OF COORDINATION (279; <H0 / M4 / L10 / N265>):

SPHERE (136; <H0 / M3 / L6 / N127>):

REALITY (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>): the real (1);

POLITICS (105; <H0 / M1 / L5 / N99>): politics (98); public affairs (1); democracy (1); international politics (1); foreign policy (1); elections (1); government (1); world leadership (1);

ECONOMICS (9; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N9>): business (6); industry (1); economics (1); manufacturing (1);

CULTURE (2; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N2>): pop culture (1); entertainment (1);

CIVIL SPHERE (6; <H0 / M1 / L0 / N5>):

community life (1); every bold intention (1); lives (1); justice (1); race (1); charity (1);

EDUCATION (2; <H0 / M1 / L0 / N1>):

education (2);

NATURAL SCIENCES (3;

<H0 / M0 / L1 / N2>): global warming (1); science (2);

RELIGION AND HUMANITIES (8; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N8>): new religious right (1); political philosophy (1); the Bible (1); religion (4); beliefs (1);

PLACE (38; <H0 / M1 / L3 / N34>): TERRITORY IN SPACE ASPECT (19;

<H0 / M1 / L3 / N15>): everywhere (1); the Earth (1); world (13); space (1); environment (1); where you live (1); where your heart is (1);

SOCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT (6; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N6>): country (5); government (1);

AMERICAN SOCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT (10; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N10>): America (7); the United States (1); Louisiana (1); Federal Government (1);

EURASIAN / AFRICAN SOCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT (3; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N3>): Israel (1); Middle East (1); Lebanon (1);

OBJECT (55; <H0 / M0 / L1 / N54>):

PEOPLE (42; <H0 / M0 / L1 / N41>): QUANTITATIVE GROUPING ASPECT (24;

<H0 / M0 / L1 / N23>): society (2); the public (2); people (10); populace (1); humans (3); audiences (1); men (2); persons (1); others (2);

SOCIAL CLASS ASPECT (10; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N10>): the rich (3); the poor (2); grass roots (1); the ignorant (1); the illiterate (1); the uneducated (1); enemies (1);

RELIGIOUS ASPECT (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>) Christians (1);

COMMON ASPECT (7; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N7>) we (4); you (1); those (1); everybody (1);

CIVIL LAW RELATIONS (13 <H0 / M0 / L0 / N13>): troubles (1); challenges (1): irrationalities (1); the disastrous (1); the unpalatable (1); marriage (1); debate (1); wrongs and paltry rights (1); issues (1); ideas (1); dreams (1); roles (1); smut (1);

TIME / CONDITION (50; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N50>): for years (1); too long (1); for the rest of life (1); now (1); today (3); everyday (2); someday (1); sometimes (1); modern (1); ever (2); always (7); often (2); in 2018 (1); by 2000 (1); for 50 years (1); in the Internet age (1); the Greatest Generation (1); the Silent Generation (1); for so long (1); condition (1); every time (1); in the old days (1); anymore (1); once in a while (1); new age (1); new time (1); time (1); advent of television (2); in many cases (1); choosing (1); in the long run (1); writing (1); side (1); next elections (1); absence of education (1); past (1); elections (1); lying (1).

SUBJECT OF COORDINATION (144; <H8 / M6 / L6 / N124>):

PEOPLE (144; <H8 / M6 / L6 / N124>):

POWER HIERARCHY ASPECT (16; <H2 / M1 / L2 / N11>): Lincoln (1); the Clintons (1); Bernie Sanders (1); chief executive (1); leader (2); politician (6); those in power (1); political bedfellows (1); top (1); bottom (1);

POWER RESPONSIBILITY ASPECT (15; <H0 / M2 / L2 / N11>):

LEGISLATIVE (10; <H0 / M2 / L2 / N6>):

parties (5); factions (1); left (1); right (1); leftists (1); radicals (1);

EXECUTIVE (2; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N2>):

Administration (1); consul (1);

EDUCATION (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>): people of education (1);

JOURNALISM (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>): the media (1);

SERVICE SECTOR (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>): bellhops (1);

QUANTITATIVE AND SOCIAL

ORGANIZATION ASPECT (32; <H2 /

M0 / L1 / N29>): many (1); people (10); the public (1); group (1); humans (2); men (5); women (4); persons (2); citizens (1); Americans (2); Europeans (1); groups (1); tribes (1);

AGE ASPECT (2; <H2 / M0 / L0 / N0>):

childrens children (1); successors (1);

SOCIAL CLASS ASPECT (5; <H0 / M0 / L1 / N4>): the rich (1); the poor (1); black woman (1); foreigners (1); strangers (1);

WILL ASPECT (11; <H1 / M2 / L0 / N8>): the best among us (1); the unproductive but organized (1); the productive but unorganized (1); nutcases (1); martyrs (1); adherents (1); thieves (1); terrorists (1); the Devil (1); sumbitch (1); liars (1);

COMMON ASPECT (63;

<H1 / M1 / L0 / N61>): someone (1); one (1); I (9); we (16); you (16); he (6); she (1); they (5); everybody (4); those (2); each to the other (1); who (1).

TOOL OF COORDINATION (177;

<H36 / M28 / L59 / N54>):

POWER SUBJECTS AND ACTIONS (16; <H3 / M1 / L5 / N7>): politics (7); political means (1); retreat (1); control (2); power (2); bipartisan consensus (1); support (1); voting (1);

POWER MONOPOLY (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>): domination (1);

NO KEEPING LAWS (1; <H0 / M1 / L0 / N0>): drugs (1);

SELF-CRITICISM (1; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N1>):

narcissism (1);

FORCE (7; <H0 / M1 / L4 / N2>): war (3); menacing (1); rule (1); abuse of power through digital networks (1); no public discussion (1);

DIPLOMACY (7; <H2 / M2 / L0 / N3>): without controversy (1); a non-violent way (1); arguments (1); cooperation (1); consensus (1); declining competition (1); collaboration (1);

HOSTILITY (7; <H0 / M2 / L3 / N2>):

competition (1); vindictiveness (1); no cooperation (1); no friends (1); division (1); disagreement (1); no arguments (1);

RESISTANCE (4; <H0 / M0 / L1 / N3>):

revolution as an abrupt change (1); attenuation (1); struggle (1); fight (1);

INFIRMITY (3; <H0 / M1 / L2 / N0>): fear (1); inexperience (1); responsibility without authority (1);

PERSISTENCE (10; <H6 / M0 / L1 / N3>):

courage (2); patience (2); tolerance (1); suffering (1); optimism (1); carving (1); mauling (1); influence (1);

REASON (11; <H2 / M3 / L1 / N5>): rationalism (1); choosing words and actions (1); gossip (1); words and gestures or their absence (1); psychology (1);

choosing (1); making a choice (1); combining reality and appearance (1); pleasing (1); expedience (1); understanding (1);

REFORMING (1; <H0 / M0 / L1 / N0>):

agreeing on rules and slowly changing them (1);

NO REFORMING (1; <H0 / M1 / L0 / N0>): failure of political organization or power (1);

MASS MEDIA (6; <H2 / M0 / L4 / N0>):

Facebookistan (1); media (1); television (2); objective journalism (1); journalism (1);

SCIENCE, ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY (5; <H1 / M0 / L2 / N2>): science (1); history (1);

technology (1); oil trade (1); money (1);

IDEOLOGY (16; <H1 / M7 / L5 / N3>): race (1); religion (5); no religion (1); ideological polarization (1); no parties (1); political views (1); conception of people acting against their own best interests (1); misogyny (1); Cold War (1); the worst ideas (1); the best ideas (1); ideology (1);

ART (4;<H3 / M0 / L1 / N0>): art (1); music (1); record (1); culture (1);

KEEPING MORALITY (17;

<H8 / M6 / L0 / N3>): virtue (1); Jesus (1); emotions (1); loyalty (1); honesty (1); truth (1); short memory (1); liking people (1); outgoingness (1); without alienation (1); trust (1); no money (1); ideas (1); hope (1); joy (1); kindness (1); lesser evils (1);

NO KEEPING MORALITY (35; <H0 / M2 / L22 / N11>): bribery (1); favoritism (1); corruption (4); money (5); finance (1); no rules (1); without merit (1); no truth (1); separation from humanity (1); lousy way (1); manipulation (1); doing whatever you want (1); make-believe (1); step on heads (1); step over bodies (1); lie (1); no honesty (2); hatreds (1); sliming (1); manipulation of money (1); forgetting (1); failure of love (1); no ethics (1); power rather than truth (1); no shame (1); playing (1); gobbling cash (1);

DOING DUTIES PROPERLY (6; <H4 / M1 / L0 / N1>): no ignoring (1); no verbal abuse (1); picture rather than words (1); seeking to control (1); seriousness (1); facts, numbers and results (1);

DOING DUTIES IMPROPERLY (9; <H0 / M0 / L5 / N4>): keeping no promises (2); words rather than facts, numbers or results (1); diagnosing incorrectly (1); applying wrong remedies (1); verbal abuse (1); ignoring facts (1); lack of control (1); caring improperly (1);

SOCIAL EQUALITY (6; <H4 / M0 / L0 / N2>): social justice (1); private sector (1); right for politics (1); law (1); interdependence (1); race economic independence (1);

SOCIAL INEQUALITY (3;

<H0 / M0 / L2 / N1>): no right for politics (1); no independence (1); no political correctness (1).

RESULT OF COORDINATION (141;

<H17 / Ml / L25 / N98>):

PURPOSE (76; <H17 / M1 / L19 / N39>):

SOCIAL PROGRESS (34;

<H17 / M0 / L0 / N17>): peace (4); progress (1); support (1); military considerations (1); ethical reasons (1); justice (3); keeping populace alarmed (1); human evolution (1); accountability for lie (1); people (1);

marriage equality (1); prosperity (2); security (2); less suffering (1); improvement of people's lives (1); liberation (1); against imperialism (1); against scarcity (1); supremacy (1); integrity (1); doing big worthy things (1); proper social stratification (1); identity (1); publicly funded elections (1); truth (1); people (2);

PROFIT (42; <H0 / M1 / L19 / N22>): private advantage (6); self-interest (3); election (1); getting votes (1); campaign funds (1); profitable reaction (2); power (4); politics (1); government (3); King of the Mountain (1); money (4); enriching oneself (1); robbery (1); business (2); prestige (1); tax cuts (1); deregulation (1); serving someone's politics (1); winning (1); getting things done (1); no religion's running country (1); no truth (1); no aging out of politics (1); corruption (1); no accountability for lie (1);

CONSEQUENCE (65; <H0 / M0 / L6 / N59>):

SOCIAL CHANGES (47;

<H0 / M0 / L5 / N42>):

BETTERING SOCIAL LIFE (15; <H0 / M0 / L0 / N15>): strengthening social units (4); providing social and political progress (11);

WORSENING SOCIAL LIFE (32; <H0 / M0 / L5 / N27>): weakening social units (6); providing no social and political progress (26);

PERSONAL CHANGES (18;

<H0 / M0 / L1 / N17>): change of human conduct (4); change of social trust (1); degree ofproceeding to goal

.

ASSESSMENT OF COORDINATION PARAMETERS:

HIGH ASSESSMENT (76);

MODERATE ASSESSMENT (52);

LOW ASSESSMENT (123);

NEUTRAL ASSESSMENT (598).

Total: 849 cases of all domain realizations in the sample.

The defined LSFs are equated to domains in the hierarchy of the POLITICS concept, which can be visualized as a matrix model (figures 1-4).

Figure 1. Matrix model of the POLITICS concept

Figure 2. Matrix model of the POLITICS concept: microstructure of the TOOL domain

Figure 3. Matrix model of the POLITICS concept: microstructure of the SUBJECT domain

Figure 4. Matrix model of the POLITICS concept: microstructure of the CIRCUMSTANCES domain

Thus, the POLITICS macrostructure is represented by the COORDINATION profile and the FORM, CIRCUMSTANCES, SUBJECT, TOOL, RESULT, ASSESSMENT base. Among all base macrodomains, a peculiar attention is paid to the ASSESSMENT unit: within cognitive interpretation the sample semes have been analyzed as to pragmatic intention in authors' utterances, which produced their positive, moderate, negative or neutral estimation for corresponding domains [17]. The fact of such ASSESSMENT laying over other units gives a reason for regarding it as an auxiliary macrodomain rather than a separate one.

The frequency of subdomains in the sample (prominence) allows defining cognitive features that are considered by Americans as important in terms of their view on POLITICS. The most prominent units within the concept microstructure can be briefly summarized as the following list:

FORM OF COORDINATION - ACTIVITY (55 of 108 - 50.9% of 100%);

CIRCUMSTANCES OF COORDINATION - SPHERE (136 of 279 - 48.7% of 100%);

SUBJECT OF COORDINATION - PEOPLE in COMMON ASPECT (63 of 144 - 43.75% of 100%);

TOOL OF COORDINATION - NO KEEPING MORALITY (35 of 177 - 19.8% of 100%);

RESULT OF COORDINATION - PROFIT in PURPOSE, SOCIAL CHANGES in CONSEQUENCE (42, 47 of 141 - 29.8%, 33.3% of 100%).

These prominent concept features indicate that Americans usually consider POLITICS in terms of its actual realization (who and in which sphere performs political duties). On the other hand, this implementation is mostly viewed to find possible faults in governing the state, because politics is often misused to get personal benefits.

Meanwhile, some considerable prominent data are obtained from the ASSESSMENT domain as well. Among all 849 cases (100%), 598 subdomains are valued NEUTRALLY (70.4%), 76 - HIGHLY (9%), 52 - MODERATELY (6.1%), 123 - LOWLY (14.5%). This says POLITICS is usually analyzed by celebrities critically to find both advantages and disadvantages in social coordination. Omitting NEUTRAL ASSESSMENT (without 598 cases) gives some other results: 30.3% (HIGH), 20.7% (MODERATE), 49% (LOW) for all 251 cases. This fact shows critical nature of POLITICS consideration although a greater attention is paid to fails in governing strategies.

Apart from general macrostructure assessment, separate POLITICS subunits are also valued within the concept microstructure. The most active tendency in prominence difference from such a perspective is revealed in the TOOL domain. Among all 177 cases (100%), its 36 semes-subdomains (20%) are assessed HIGHLY, 28 (16%) - MODERATELY, 59 (33%) - LOWLY, 54 (31%) - NEUTRALLY. These figures show that POLITICS implementation is usually analyzed pragmatically to detect both more and less effective tools for public welfare.

Remark: results of prominence within the POLITICS matrix model differ from those of the network format [9]. While the former simply singles out the most important cognitive features for POLITICS in American mind, the latter further arranges them by decreasing frequency as zones of the field cognitive model (in terms of the formula “core - close - far - extreme periphery”). Therefore, in the current research the POLITICS cognitive model (obtained via matrix that is modified by prominence) is not a field one. However, it can be studied in future as a research prospect.



References

Zhabotinskaja, S.A. (2009). Concept / domain: the matrix and network models. Kul'tura narodov Prichernomor'ja, 1 (168), 254-259.

Zhabotinskaja, S.A. (2013). Name as a text: conceptual network of lexical meaning (analysis of the name of emotion). Kognicija, kommunikacija, diskurs, 6, 47-76.

Tatsenko, N.V. (2018). Empathy in English

discourse: the cognitive-synergetic dimension.

Doctoral thesis, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.

Starceva, N.N., & Saprun, I.R. (2017). The BUSINESSMAN concept in lingual networks (on the basis of the English language). Visnyk KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina. Inozemna filolohiia, 86, 95-102.

Strelchenko, K.S. (2016). Conceptual space MYSTERY: the frame model (on the basis of English fiction). Studia Philologica, 6, 56-62.

Bondarenko, E.V. (2014). Matrix modeling. Time duality in the English world picture. Kharkiv, Ukraine: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University.

Krechetova, O.V. (2015). Cognitive-matrix analysis in researching rites. Baltijskij gumanitarnyj zhurnal, 4 (13), 30-32.

Morozova, E.N. (2009). The matrix-network

organization of the DAMAGE concept within value categorization. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Serija «Lingvistika», 4, 14-17.

Stepanov, V.V. (2019). Cognitive model of the POLITICS concept (on the basis of the English- language COCA corpus). Nova filolohiia, 78, 60-74.

Popova, Z.D., & Sternin, I.A. (2007). Cognitive linguistics. Moscow, Russia: AST: Vostok - Zapad.

Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. New York, the United States of America: Oxford University Press.

Quote base Aphorisms, thoughts, sayings, quotes. URL: www.aphorism4all.com.

Quote base BrainyQuote. URL: www.brainyquote.com.

Quote base Goodreads. URL: www.goodreads.com/quotes.

Quote base Wise old sayings. URL: www.wiseoldsayings.com.

Stepanov, V.V. (2019). Matrix model of the POLITICS concept (on the basis of English-language discourse). Naukovi zapysky. Serna: Filolohichni nauky, 175, 634-641.

Stepanov, V.V. (2020). Role of cognitive interpretation in reconstructing the matrix model of the POLITICS concept (on the basis of English-language discourse). Naukovi zapysky. Seriia: Filolohichni nauky, 187, 532-541.

Corpus of American presidents and celebrities' utterances about POLITICS (component analysis and identification of matrix domains). URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yXximPt450Z9zn XR0WCKHvPsRVa9LpD4.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...