Lecture 5. The main trends of Cognitive Linguistics in works of native authors.
· To study the main stages of Cognitive Linguistics’ development in works of native.
· To give characteristic to the main approaches distinguished by the authors
Modern cognitive linguistics is rapidly developing in various scientific centers all over the world, which leads to particular differences in approaches, categorical and terminological apparatus, understanding of the main aims of cognitive linguistics and applied methods.
In the dissertation research and review papers, scientists are increasingly attempting to classify trends in modern cognitive linguistics. Recognizing the relativity of these classifications, however, we note that they have a sense, as different areas primarily use different methodological approaches the study of concepts.
EY Balashova, describing prevailing in the domestic cognitive linguistics research areas, distinguishes two basic approaches: Cognitive and Lingvocultural.
Lingvocultural approach would address the specifics of the national concept sphere of culture to consciousness. For researchers working within Lingvocultural approach, EY S. Balashova refers Stepanov, VI Karasik, VV Red, VA Maslov, NF Alefirenko etc. This approach defines concept as the basic unit of culture that has the figurative, conceptual and value components, with a predominance of the latter one (VI Karasik).
Cognitive approach according to EY Balashova refers researchers who come from the fact that the basis of knowledge of the world is a unit of mental information, as a concept, which provides "access to the concept sphere of society." From the standpoint of Cognitive approach to the study of the concept was designed by the field model presented in terms of the core and the periphery. Representatives of this approach are ES Cubreacov, D. Popov, IA Sternin, VN Teliyu etc.
EY Balashova, except the two mentioned approaches in cognitive linguistics, also allocates more psychological, psycholinguistic, neuro-psycholinguistic, semantic, logical and conceptual, logical analysis of cultural concepts and approach of the traditional linguistics, identifying the terms "concept" and "concept".
A. Kostin described lingu-ocultural direction in cognitive linguistics. By his definition, lingua-cultural approach is based on the idea of cumulative (cumulative) of the language by which it is impressed, stored and transmitted experience of the people of his world view and attitude. Language, according to this view, is a universal form of initial conceptualization of the world and the rationalization of human experience, the exponent and guardian of the unconscious knowledge of the natural world, the historical memory of socially significant events in human life.
By lingvokultural direction A. Kostin considers works of SG Vorkacheva, V. Vorobiev, VN Telii, G. Tokarev, F. Farkhutdinova, AT Hro-lenco, V. M. Shakleina etc. This may also include investigations of Kostomarov and EM Vereshchagin, VA Maslova, Vladimir Vorobiev.
A. Kostin highlights a number of approaches in contemporary cognitive linguistics, "mentally-activational approach of SA Askold, the approach of individual speech by Likhachev, semantic approach (NF Alefirenko, A. Vezh-bitskaya, V. V. Kolesov, IP Mikhalchuk VP Neroznak), cultural studies (S. Stepanov, VI Karasik), logical approach (ND Arutyunov, TV Bulygin, AD Shmelev GV Makowicz, RI Pavilionis, MR ProskuryakovProskurjakova IG), cognitive approach (AP Grandmother, ES Cubreacov, D. Popov, IA Sternin , G. Tokarev, JF Richard, S. X. Lyapin, AV Kravchenko, GA Volokhina, GV Bykov), lingua-cultul approach (SG Vorkachev, VN Telia, FF Farkhutdinova). "
V. Kolesov distinguishes cognitive linguistics (the connection between the word and the thing) cognitive linguistics (which studies the semantic "prototypes" - modality, mortgage, temporality and etc.) and conceptual linguistics that studies the actual concepts.
C. Kuzlyakin differentiates psychological approach (Likhachev), logical (N Arutyunov and the school, "Logical Analysis of Language"), philosophical approach (V Kolesov), cultural approach (S. Stepanov) , integrative approach ( X. Lyapin, G Slyshkin) in cognitive linguistics.
E Kubreacova separates classical cognitivism - research of knowledge’s structures and types predominantly by means of logical methods - and cognitive-discursive trend that is a logical development of the entire modern linguistics in general: "every linguistic phenomenon can be adequately described and clarified only in cases if it is considered at the intersection of cognition and communication ", the purpose of cognitive linguistics is not only to be associated with each language form its cognitive counterpart, its conceptual or cognitive structures (thus explaining the meaning or content of a particular form of cognitive structure, the structure of opinion or knowledge) but also to explain the reasons for the selection or creation of this "package" for the content. "
N. Boldyrev fairly notes that it is possible speak of two stages in the development of cognitivism "early - logical, or objectivist, and modern – experimental, based on experience."
Thus, we can say, at least, that the following directions in cognitive linguistics, which are defined to date (refer to typical representatives of these areas): cultural - research of concepts as elements of culture by relying on data from different sciences (S. Stepanov) . Such studies are usually interdisciplinary, not exclusively related to linguistics, though they can run linguists (which allows us to consider this approach in the framework of cognitive linguistics), language in this case is the only one of the sources of knowledge of concepts (for example, to describe the concept of using data on the etymology of the word, the name of this concept); lingvo-cultural - study these language units concepts as elements of national lingvo-cultural study in their relationship with national values and national characteristics of the culture: the direction of "the language of the culture" (VI Karasik, SG Vorkachev, GG Slyshkin, Mr. Tokarev); logical - analysis of concepts by means of logical methods is directly related to their linguistic form (ND Arutyunov, RI Pavilionis); semantic and cognitive study of lexical and grammatical semantics of the language as a means of access to the content of the concept as a means of modeling the semantics of the language to the conceptual sphere (E Cubreacov, N. Boldyrev, Rachel's , E Lukashevich , A Grandmother, D. Popov, I Sternin, G Bykov); philosophical and semiotic – study of cognitive foundations of semiotics (AV Kravchenko).
Each of these can be considered as an already taken shape in modern linguistics, they all have their methodological principles (they are all primarily united by a theoretical understanding of the concept of consciousness as a unit) and they all have their supporters among linguists, cognitive science, they are quite well-known scientific schools.
Of course, the proposed division of approaches as the reference of individual scientists to the different areas, are rather relative (many scientists at different stages of their scientific career are working within the framework of different concepts), but, nevertheless, such a classification reflects the key linguistic trends, which take place in the modern domestic cognitive.
In addition, there are quite a number of works that share the actual identification of the concepts and the concept of the word: the traditional analysis of the semantics of speech called for an analysis of this concept, a semantic study – cognitive linguistics.
For example, V Myrkin’svery interesting and informative article on the types of the word begins with a phrase: "The concept, adopting a particular word is a (lexical) meaning of the word."
Such identification is barren; it simply reflects the tendency to use a fashionable term concept, cognitive. The existence of such work once again explains the need for a system of presentation of the postulates of cognitive linguistics with a clear definition of its categories and the establishment of a relationship with the categories of traditional semasiology.
What reflects the difference in approaches to the study of cognitive linguistics? What are the main approaches which can be identified in the works of authors? What trends in contemporary cognitive linguistics does the presented classification highlight?