The epistemology-oriented conceptual model of cognitive-semantic universals  in related languages

Olena Balaban; Tetiana Aleksakhina; Tetiana Davydova; Marianna Goltsova; Oleksii Tsepkalo

doi:10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0726

Keywords:

epistemology-oriented

conceptual model

cognitive-semantic universals

narrowing

positivization

polarization

Abstract

The analytical study of the processes of thinking and awareness of reality is positioned as an actualized psychological direction in linguistics, which arose as a result of the logical transformation of traditional logicism and formalism in the course of the development of speech activity. The purpose of the article is to study the epistemologically oriented conceptual model of cognitive-semantic universals in related languages. In the course of the study, it was found that the previous historical stage was characterized by ignoring the influence of psychophysiological aspects. It has been determined that in the process of transformation the phenomenon of language is interpreted as a reflection of the psychological concept and spiritual activity. It is proved that the cognitive paradigm made it possible to explain the thinking processes that occur during the production of speech with the advent of the cognitive paradigm in linguistics. It is suggested that from a universal point of view, any conceptual area can be studied with the help of elementary concepts. The study has shown that from the standpoint of cognitive grammar, grammatical categories have corresponding prototypical structures. The sphere of conceptual functionality of modern cognitive semantics is distinguished. The cognitive-semantic universality of the basic main category is stated. It is proved that the epistemologically oriented conceptual model of cognitive-semantic universals in related languages is represented by such processes in the lexical composition of a word as generalization (transition from the concrete to the abstract general), narrowing (dynamics from the abstract to the specialized), degradation (depreciation) and polarization (opposition). Promising directions for further scientific research on the subject of the study are actualized, namely, conducting cognitive research that accurately explains the universal conceptual processes occurring in semantics.
References
1. Akimova, N., Akimova, A., & Akimova, A. (2022). Specificity of internet texts understanding in youth age. Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 6-28. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2022-32-1-6-28
2. Akimova, N., Chornous, O., Akimova, A., & Akimova, A. (2023). Psychological peculiarities of understanding brand name in form of personal name. Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 6-25. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2023-33-1-6-25
3. Biedermann, H. (1992). Dictionary of Symbolism. Kyiv. 465 p.
4. Bulakhovskyi, L. (1926). Word dynamics. Kyiv: Institute of Literature named after T. G. Shevchenko of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR.
5. Carston, R. (2021). Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language, 36(1). 90–114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mila.12329
6. Csillag, A. (2020). Anger metaphors in quotations: A cognitive semantic analysis. BAS British and American Studies, 26(26). 211–219. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=871102
7. Dalieva, M. (2024). The Multiplicity of Meanings in Cognitive and Semantic Perspectives. International Journal of Scientific Trends, 3(1). 75–77. https://scientifictrends.org/index.php/ijst/article/view/203
8. Fazalehaq, H. M., & Aleem, A. (2020). An intersection of cognitive (awej.org) linguistics, second language acquisition, and sociocultural theory. Al-Qalam, 25(1). 1–19. http://surl.li/qsfca
9. Geeraerts, D. (2021). Cognitive semantics. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 19–29. Routledge.
10. Gómez, M. C., & Hummel, M. (2021). Structural Semantics in the Romance Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.672
11. Guide to the Robert Redfield Papers (1917–1958). Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library.
12. Haspelmath, M. (2023). Coexpression and synexpression patterns across languages: comparative concepts and possible explanations. Front Psychol, 24(14). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236853.
13. Hee-Jin, R. O., & Soh, J. S. (2021). From Aspecto-Temporal Analysis of a Natural Language to Logical Modeling Using Combinatory Logic. Nveo-natural volatiles & essential oils Journal, NVEO, 4424–4441. https://www.nveo.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1032
14. Hoang, P. N. (2021). Cross-Disciplinary Language Teaching. 18th International Conference of the Asia Association of Computer-Assisted Language Learning. 65–75. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211224.008
15. Kabantseva, N. V. (2021). Lingvocognitive features of political metaphor in journalistic discourse (in the Ukrainian and English languages). Dissertation abstracts. https://abstracts.donnu.edu.ua/article/view/9549
16. Kalmykova, L., Kharchenko, N., Mysan, I. (2021). «I-Language» i. e. «individual Language»: The problem of functional generalization. Psycholinguistics, 29(1), 59-99. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2021-29-1-59-99
17. Kochergan, M. P. (2006). General Linguistics. Tutor. for students philol. special university Kyiv: "Academy", 463 p.
18. Levisen, C., Fernández, S. S., & Hein, J. (2022). Cognitive Cultural Semantics: A Nordic Guide to Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). Scandinavian Studies in Language, 13(1). 1–38. https://tidsskrift.dk/sss/article/view/135133/179897
19. Liashyna, A., & Tyshchuk, A. (2023). Cognitive aspects of learning terminology as a method of intensifying the process of translators' training. Redaktsiina kolehiia, 89. http://surl.li/qseui
20. Mizin, K., Petrov, O. (2021). Emotional state gemütlichkeit in cross-cultural perspective: Corpus-based approach. Studies About Languages, 1 (38), pp. 43-60. https://doi.org/10.5755/J01.SAL.1.38.26581
21. Mizin, K., Slavova, L., Letiucha, L., Petrov, O. (2023). Emotion concept disgust and its German counterparts: Equivalence determination based on language corpora data. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5 (1), pp. 72-90. https://doi.org/ 10.18063/FLS.V5I1.1552
22. Pelepeychenko, L. М. (2021). Limits of tolerance in the linguistic aspect. Scientific notes of V. I. Vernadsky Taurida National University", Series: "Philology. Journalism," 32(71), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.32838/2710-4656/2021.3-1/44
23. Savelyuk, N., Kalmykov, O., Riznyk, V. (2021). Psychosemantic dimensions of basic concepts of economic discourse. Psycholinguistics, 29 (1), pp. 142-166. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2021-29-1-142-166
24. Selivanova, O. (2010). The problem of communicative influence in modern linguistics. Linguistic Bulletin, 11, 195–199. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Mv_2010_11_46
25. Selivanova, О. О. (2008). Modern linguistics: directions and problems. Poltava: Dovkillya-K, 711 p. http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/ulib/item/UKR0001849
26. Shytyk, L., & Akimova, A. (2020). Ways of transferring the internal speech of characters: Psycholinguistic projection. Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-27-2-361-384
27. Sjöberg, A. (2023). Knowledge predication: A semantic typology. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. http://surl.li/qsfco
28. Taher, M. D. (2023). A Cognitive Semantic Approach to Lexical (Sense) Relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, Koya University. https://koyauniversity.org/
29. Talmy, L. (2023). Foreword: A taxonomy of cognitive semantics. Handbook of Cognitive Semantics. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. http://surl.li/qseyb
30. Vezhbytska, А. (1996). Semantics: primes and universals.
31. Winter-Froemel, E. (2021). Onomasiology in the Romance Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. http://surl.li/qsfdq
32. Zhylko, F. T. (1955). Essays on dialectology of modern Ukrainian language. Kyiv.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to cite

Balaban, O., Aleksakhina, T., Davydova, T., Goltsova, M., & Tsepkalo, O. (2024). The epistemology-oriented conceptual model of cognitive-semantic universals in related languages. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 6, 2024ss0726. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0726

[1] Akimova, N., Akimova, A., & Akimova, A. (2022). Specificity of internet texts understanding in youth age. Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 6-28. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2022-32-1-6-28

[2] Akimova, N., Chornous, O., Akimova, A., & Akimova, A. (2023). Psychological peculiarities of understanding brand name in form of personal name. Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 6-25. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2023-33-1-6-25

[3] Biedermann, H. (1992). Dictionary of Symbolism. Kyiv. 465 p.

[4] Bulakhovskyi, L. (1926). Word dynamics. Kyiv: Institute of Literature named after T. G. Shevchenko of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR.

[5] Carston, R. (2021). Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language, 36(1). 90–114. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mila.12329

[6] Csillag, A. (2020). Anger metaphors in quotations: A cognitive semantic analysis. BAS British and American Studies, 26(26). 211–219. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=871102

[7] Dalieva, M. (2024). The Multiplicity of Meanings in Cognitive and Semantic Perspectives. International Journal of Scientific Trends, 3(1). 75–77. https://scientifictrends.org/index.php/ijst/article/view/203

[8] Fazalehaq, H. M., & Aleem, A. (2020). An intersection of cognitive (awej.org) linguistics, second language acquisition, and sociocultural theory. Al-Qalam, 25(1). 1–19. http://surl.li/qsfca

[9] Geeraerts, D. (2021). Cognitive semantics. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 19–29. Routledge.

[10] Gómez, M. C., & Hummel, M. (2021). Structural Semantics in the Romance Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.672

[11] Guide to the Robert Redfield Papers (1917–1958). Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library.

[12] Haspelmath, M. (2023). Coexpression and synexpression patterns across languages: comparative concepts and possible explanations. Front Psychol, 24(14). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236853.

[13] Hee-Jin, R. O., & Soh, J. S. (2021). From Aspecto-Temporal Analysis of a Natural Language to Logical Modeling Using Combinatory Logic. Nveo-natural volatiles & essential oils Journal, NVEO, 4424–4441. https://www.nveo.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1032

[14] Hoang, P. N. (2021). Cross-Disciplinary Language Teaching. 18th International Conference of the Asia Association of Computer-Assisted Language Learning. 65–75. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211224.008

[15] Kabantseva, N. V. (2021). Lingvocognitive features of political metaphor in journalistic discourse (in the Ukrainian and English languages). Dissertation abstracts. https://abstracts.donnu.edu.ua/article/view/9549

[16] Kalmykova, L., Kharchenko, N., Mysan, I. (2021). «I-Language» i. e. «individual Language»: The problem of functional generalization. Psycholinguistics, 29(1), 59-99. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2021-29-1-59-99

[17] Kochergan, M. P. (2006). General Linguistics. Tutor. for students philol. special university Kyiv: "Academy", 463 p.

[18] Levisen, C., Fernández, S. S., & Hein, J. (2022). Cognitive Cultural Semantics: A Nordic Guide to Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). Scandinavian Studies in Language, 13(1). 1–38. https://tidsskrift.dk/sss/article/view/135133/179897

[19] Liashyna, A., & Tyshchuk, A. (2023). Cognitive aspects of learning terminology as a method of intensifying the process of translators' training. Redaktsiina kolehiia, 89. http://surl.li/qseui

[20] Mizin, K., Petrov, O. (2021). Emotional state gemütlichkeit in cross-cultural perspective: Corpus-based approach. Studies About Languages, 1 (38), pp. 43-60. https://doi.org/10.5755/J01.SAL.1.38.26581

[21] Mizin, K., Slavova, L., Letiucha, L., Petrov, O. (2023). Emotion concept disgust and its German counterparts: Equivalence determination based on language corpora data. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5 (1), pp. 72-90. https://doi.org/ 10.18063/FLS.V5I1.1552

[22] Pelepeychenko, L. М. (2021). Limits of tolerance in the linguistic aspect. Scientific notes of V. I. Vernadsky Taurida National University", Series: "Philology. Journalism," 32(71), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.32838/2710-4656/2021.3-1/44

[23] Savelyuk, N., Kalmykov, O., Riznyk, V. (2021). Psychosemantic dimensions of basic concepts of economic discourse. Psycholinguistics, 29 (1), pp. 142-166. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2021-29-1-142-166

[24] Selivanova, O. (2010). The problem of communicative influence in modern linguistics. Linguistic Bulletin, 11, 195–199. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Mv_2010_11_46

[25] Selivanova, О. О. (2008). Modern linguistics: directions and problems. Poltava: Dovkillya-K, 711 p. http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/ulib/item/UKR0001849

[26] Shytyk, L., & Akimova, A. (2020). Ways of transferring the internal speech of characters: Psycholinguistic projection. Psycholinguistics, 27(2), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-27-2-361-384

[27] Sjöberg, A. (2023). Knowledge predication: A semantic typology. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. http://surl.li/qsfco

[28] Taher, M. D. (2023). A Cognitive Semantic Approach to Lexical (Sense) Relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, Koya University. https://koyauniversity.org/

[29] Talmy, L. (2023). Foreword: A taxonomy of cognitive semantics. Handbook of Cognitive Semantics. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. http://surl.li/qseyb

[30] Vezhbytska, А. (1996). Semantics: primes and universals.

[31] Winter-Froemel, E. (2021). Onomasiology in the Romance Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. http://surl.li/qsfdq

[32] Zhylko, F. T. (1955). Essays on dialectology of modern Ukrainian language. Kyiv.

Abstract

References

How to cite