Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêè/3.Òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû èññëåäîâàíèÿ
Blagodarna
O.M.
THE CONCEPT “WORK” AS A CATEGORIZED STRUCTURE
Concept analysis is a crucial point in modern cognitive linguistics. The
present abstract dwells on the methods of concept representation, because “the
issue of method deals with the issue of content and reality of a concept
itself” [2: 25]. The authors give a general overlook of categorization
phenomenon and describe the procedure of the concept WORK categorization
analysis.
Categorization makes it possible for an organism to reduce limitless
variations in the world to manageable proportions. A category fulfils this
function in virtue of the fact that “by knowing the category to which a thing
belongs, the organism, thereby, knows as many attributes as possible” [6: 197].
Because classical and prototypical organization of categories are considered to
be the most constructive and coherent ones, we will introduce these two
approaches into out research.
As for classical categories, it is well known that Aristotle
distinguished between the essence of a thing and its accidents. The essence is
that which makes a thing what is it, all immanent parts which define and
indicate their individuality. Accidents are incidental properties which play no
part in determining what a thing is [8: 22-23]. In this case, once established,
classical category divides the universe into two sets of entities – those that
are members of the category and those that are not.
The inadequacies of the classical theory were broadly represented for
the first time in “Philosophical Inversigations” by L. Wittgenstein, who
analyzed the definition cases of the word Spiel “game” [9].
He notes that there are no common properties shared by all members of the GAME
category. Thus, the fact of inability to differentiate clearly games from
non-games proves the hypothesis of fuzzy category boundaries.
E. Rosh proved that certain kinds of entities could be regarded as good
examples in a category and that category membership degree is a psychologically
valid notion [5; 6]. As studied by
It is clear that not all the category levels are of the same importance
for the speaker. The more cognitively and linguistically salient level of
categorization, as noticed by E. Rosch, is its “basic level”. It is at the
basic level of categorization that people conceptualize thing as perceptual and
functional gestalts [7]. In this connection it seems not out of place to
mention the assumption of R.W. Langacker, exposed in his work “Foundation of
Cognitive Grammar”. Particularly, he argues that cognitive structures often
need to be understood more as holistic, gestalt configurations, than as
attribute bundles [4: 19].
The above-given overlook enables us to claim that the concept WORK is a
categorical concept of basic level, which means that it possesses the necessary
properties of a category, such as holistic nature and perceptual and functional
simplicity. According to the prior analysis [1], the concept WORK is based on a
complex prototypical model, the nucleus of which is represented by the
following frame [the SUBJECT of the action – produces mental and/or physical
ACTIVITY – in order to get tangible/intangible RESULT]. The periphery is
represented by properties that are metonymically attached to the nucleus, i.e.
OBJECT towards the activity is directed, PLACE where it is happening, TIME
during which it is happening and INSTRUMENT required to carry out the activity.
In the framework of our research the basic category WORK might be considered
as a superordinate category that unites all cognitive models of its subordinate
categories – i.e. a cluster of models.
Conventional variations of the central case, i.e. subordinate
categories, are determined by one of the cognitive models and make a deviation
from the central prototypical model. The subordinate categories are as
follows: ACTIVITY, RESULT (which are
considered as central subcategories) and OBJECT, TIME, PLACE, INSTRUMENT (which
are considered as peripheral subcategories).
The basic level category WORK is represented by two salient dimensions: dynamic (ACTIVITY) and static (RESULT). Each dimension
is represented by two cognitive models, each model highlighting a different
aspect of WORK concept. The cognitive model is represented by its central
member – a lexeme that possesses prototypical attributes of the category-member
and its proper attributes. Thus, the peripheral groups of lexemes are tugged to
the central lexeme by partial confluence of different numbers of attributes.
The ACTIVITY dimension is structured by two cognitive models. The first
model [WORK is an EFFORT] represents WORK as “the active use of mental power or
physical strength in producing a result”. The central lexeme labour is
surrounded by peripheral groups of lexemes: pain-struggle-travail, with
additional semes ”onerous and painful”; drudgery-grind-toil with
additional semes “exhausting, irksome and monotonous”. The second model [WORK
is MEANS OF EARNING INCOME] represents WORK as “the activity by which one regularly
makes a living”. The centre of the model is marked by the lexeme occupation.
The three peripheral groups are interconnected by gradual highlighting of the
semes combination “presence employer/ remuneration/ motivation”: employment-job-office-position;
craft-line-métier-pursuit-trade-vocation; chore-duty-endeavour-mission-task-undertaking.
The static dimension RESULT is structured by two cognitive models, those
of [WORK is an INTANGIBLE RESULT] and [WORK is a TANGIBLE RESULT]. There is no
lexeme other than work to represent the former model. The latter model is formed by two central
lexemes which, in their turn, determine the periphery. The lexeme composition denotes “output
of inspiration”. One peripheral group shares the seme “arrangement”: configuration-design-form-layout-pattern;
and “output of artistic excellence”: article-essay-etude-magnum
opus-masterpiece-model-novel-paper-pièce de
résistance-showpiece-sketch-story. The lexeme product has nearest
periphery is formed by the lexemes article-goods-merchandise-wares, that
share the common attribute “commercial use” and the lexemes fruit-handwork-object-thing-yield
for “non-commercial use”.
As we can see, the basic-level concept WORK is subject to vertical and
horizontal categorization. Superior categories contain cognitive models that
are projected on the subordinate level categories. The categories of
subordinate level might serve as superordinate categories for the lower levels
of categorization. Because of the fuzziness of category boundaries all the
categories are inter-connected. As the
further trend of out research we plan to study the functioning of the concept
WORK categories in discourse.
References:
1. Áëàãîäàðíà Î.Ì. Ñåìàíòèêî-êîãí³òèâíèé àíàë³ç ³ìåí ë³íãâîêóëüòóðíîãî
êîíöåïòó "ðîáîòà" (íà ìàòåð³àë³ àíãëîìîâíîãî õóäîæíüîãî äèñêóðñó) //
³ñíèê Õàðê³âñüêîãî íàö³îíàëüíîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó ³ì. Â.Í. Êàðàç³íà.
– 2006. ¹ 741. – Ñ. 38-41.
2. Ñòåïàíîâ Þ.Ñ. Êîíñòàíòû: Ñëîâàðü
ðóññêîé êóëüòóðû. – Ì.: ßçûêè ðóñ. êóëüòóðû, 1997. – Ñ. 26.
3. Geeraerts D. Cognitive
restrictions on the structure of semantic change. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical
Semantics,
4. Langacker R.W. Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar, Theoretical Prerequisites. – Stanford:
5. Rosch E. On the internal
structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In
6. Rosch E. Universals and
cultural specifics in human categorization. In R.W.Brislin, S.Bochner, and
W.J.Lonner (eds.), Cross-cultural Perspectives on Learning. –
7. Rosch E. Structural bases
of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance 2, 1976. – P. 491-502.
8. Taylor J.R. Linguistic
Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. –
9. Wittgenstein L.,
Philosophical investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. –