Advertisement

Basic Features of Conceptual Sphere “Geopolitics” in Modern English-Speaking Worldview

Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The article focuses on analyzing verbalization means, which serve to represent the conceptual sphere “geopolitics” in the modern English-speaking worldview. While mastering a foreign language it is necessary to learn a huge bulk of vocabulary and other linguistic information. How lexical units are acquired, stored and arranged in our mind is a controversial issue for psychologists, linguists and educators. To facilitate this process, one should investigate the principles of a second language mental lexicon functioning. The research is aimed at revealing the connection between language means and knowledge representation structures and relies mostly on the ideas professed by Cognitive Semantics. Cognitive modeling and interpretation combined with traditional linguistic methods enabled us to identify the contexts of cognitive understanding the phenomenon of geopolitics in the modern English-speaking worldview. We identify the conceptual sphere “geopolitics” as a complex of interrelated concepts that structure the phenomenon of geopolitics in native speakers’ consciousness. The research presents two cognitive models of the conceptual sphere—the nuclear and peripheral one, and the hierarchical one. The conceptual sphere under study is a complex multidimensional mental formation, its content being formed by its notional, figurative and evaluative components. The verbalization of the conceptual sphere components becomes possible due to the action mechanisms of word formation such as affixation, compounding, blending and reduction. The figurative component of the conceptual sphere is realized by a number of cognitive metaphorical models.

Keywords

Concept Conceptual sphere Worldview Metaphor Notion Lexeme Nomen Mental lexicon Evaluative component Figurative component 

References

  1. Aristotle. (1998). Nicomachean ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Askoldov, S. A. (1997). The concept versus the word: Russian Philology. From Philology theory toward text structure. Moscow: Academia (In Russian).Google Scholar
  3. Besner, D., & Humphreys, G. W. (Eds.). (1991). Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Bonin, P. (2004). Mental lexicon: Some words to talk about words. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, H., & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Evans, V. (2009). How words mean. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gairns, R. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbs, R. (1994). The Poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Givon, T. (1979). Discourse and syntax: Syntax and simatintics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. N.Y.: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  12. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karasik, V. I., & Slyshkin, H. H. (2001). Lingua cultural concept as research object. In I. A. Sternin (Ed.), Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics (pp. 75–80). Voronezh: Voronezh State University (In Russian).Google Scholar
  14. Kim, K. L. (1996). Caged in our own signs: A book about semiotics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub.Google Scholar
  15. Kolshansky, H. V. (1990). Objective worldview in cognition and language. Moscow: Science. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  16. Kosharnaya, S. A. (2002). Myth and language: An experiment of linguaculturological reconstruction of Russian mythological worldview. Belgorod: BSU. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  17. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kubryakova, Ye S. (2004). Language and knowledge: On the way to obtain knowledge about language. Moscow: Languages of Slavonic Culture. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Lyapin, S. H. (1997). Conceptology: Towards approach foundation. Concepts, 1, 32–45. Arkhangelsk (In Russian).Google Scholar
  24. Pavilenis, R. I. (1983). Problem of sense: Modern logical and philosophical analysis of language. Moscow: Thought. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  25. Santa Ana, O. (1999). ‘Like an animal I was treated’: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse and Society, 10, 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singleton, D. M. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stepanov, Yu S. (2007). Concepts: A thin envelope of civilization. Moscow: Languages of Slavonic Cultures. [In Russian].Google Scholar
  28. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Concept Structuring Systems, 1, 104–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kryvyi Rih National UniversityKryvyi RihUkraine

Personalised recommendations