Филологические науки/ 3.Теоретические и методологические проблемы исследования языка

Morel Morel D.A., candidate of philology

Belgorod branch of Modern Academy for Humanities, Russia

Concepts’ attractors: some observations and issues

Last decades the studying of concepts remains in the focal point of numerous linguistics researches both Russian and foreign. Such an interest is conditioned by the heuristic and integrative potential of this term, its interdisciplinary character [4; 5; 6; 24].

The most of contemporary linguists are unanimous that concepts are systems (e.g.: [27; 14: 90-93; 17: 51; 10; 11: 22]). Furthermore, concepts may be represented as open-ended [22], fractal [12: 174; 9: 21, 54-57; 8], self-organizing [18; 30] systems which are obligatorily dynamic [21].

When studying such systems from the position of the up-to-date synergetic paradigm we necessarily arrive at the question of their attractors.

It should be noted here that the consideration of concepts from such a standpoint is methodologically and ontologically proved; it meets ascertained peculiarities of the organization and functioning of the language, the thinking and the mental structures as dynamic, nonequilibrium systems. Moreover the term “attractor” is quite commonly used in modern linguistics papers (see: [22; 7; 13; 3; 25]).

An attractor is a preferred position for the system, a persistent smaller region of a system’s state space [29] (see also: [16; 1; 2]). It is very important for our further reasoning that a self-organizing system can have more than one attractor and “switch” from one to another: “Multiple equilibria (many possible attractors)” [29]. It is implied at that rate that the system which has reached its attractor does not need to stay in that region of its state space forever (cf.: [2: 86]): “…it <system> arrives at the attractor, and will then stay there in the absence of other factors” [29] (see also: [28: 20]).

We have proved that the problem of revelation of the concepts’ attractors is tightly bound with issues of the world categorization [20]. Having analyzed a number of linguistic and ethnographic papers and having examined a body of lexical material (the lexicalizing means of French macroconcepts “NOURRITURE” (food), “SURNATUREL” (supernatural), “MOUVEMENT” (movement), “ACTION”) we have come to the conclusion that Russian and European pictures of the world consist of four worlds: natural, human, social and supernatural ones.

Our research due to its synchronic and diachronic character has shown that the concepts (and the systems of their lexicalizing means consequently) are functioning and developing within the framework of these four worlds system. It is to note that the direction and the degree of interrelationship between concepts and these worlds may vary.

So we can suggest that there are four attractors in the state space of the conceptual sphere. These attractors correspond with aforementioned worlds and are named by us accordingly: “natural”, “human”, “social” and “supernatural”.

By virtue of the mental structures’ fractality (see: [19]) the attractors in question are present at the state space of any concept. Such a state of affairs is not depending on the concept’s interrelationship, its hierarchical status, its degree of standardization [23: 46] or prevalence in the midst of native speakers.

It is to be mentioned here that such a model provides for concepts’ anisotropy not depending on theirs structures representation way. Concepts are anisotropic being considered as fields as well as trees.

However we have to introduce clarity: in every concrete case not all of attractors may exert effective influence concurrently. Furthermore, to all appearance the synchronous effect of all four attractors inheres exclusively in highly relevant cultural (see: [6]) concepts.

So the number of attractors enabled in the state space of a concrete concept in a certain stage of its functioning may vary from one to four.

At the moment of their formation and in the stage of their lexicalizing means acquisition concepts are generally influenced by few attractors depending on a “categorization vector”: it means the world to which the consciousness (of a person, a social group or the whole nation) relates the reality reflected by a concept.

Afterwards a concept can get in touch with other worlds; furthermore it can start to expand towards the attractors which were not originally actualized. It is the metaphor that plays the crucial role in such processes.

We presume that the increase in the number of synchronously actualized attractors is directly connected with the growth of the concept’s relevance, cultural importance and social demand in a certain period of history. It is also reasonable to suppose that the changing of the “categorization vector” (and consequently the actualization of additional attractors) is depending on the most productive (in that historical period) models of metaphorical transfer (see: [26]).

The more numerous are concurrently actualized attracters the more “space for maneuvering” has a concept (in the case of some unfavorable for its further development circumstances emerge) the more favorable is the prognosis for its subsistence. Thus we could say that the relation between the number of currently actualized concepts and the stability of concept has a bilateral nature.

In the course of the concept’s development the strength of the different attractors’ influence may vary over a quite wide range. This circumstance undoubtedly affects the structure of the concept itself as well as the system of its lexicalizing means. Every concept is originally non-isometric and remains such during its functioning, therefore it is in a nonequilibrium state.

Such a state of balancing between four attractors (centers of forces) most probably cannot be named a bifurcation point, because it is not crisis: the system does not leave it being able to stay in it arbitrary long (see below); furthermore the system leaves it neither destructively nor constructively (a qualitatively new system with higher (than in the previous state) level of organization is not forming). The term “bifurcation point” is more likely acceptable to the behaviour of concepts’ lexicalizing means.

However the term “bifurcation point” may be used with reference to concepts. In this case it is not connected with the issue of attractors. This term is applicable to the situation when the existence itself of a concept, not the further direction of its evolvement, is doubtful.

The non-isometric organization of concepts and of the conceptual sphere on the whole (owing to their fractality) results from a) the anthropocentric character of the human mentality (see: [24]), b) the preponderance of the real over the supernatural.

For instance our study of the above-mentioned French macroconcepts “NOURRITURE”, “SURNATUREL”, “MOUVEMENT” and “ACTION” has clearly shown the following:

a) all of four attractors are currently actualized in these macroconcepts’ state spaces in a regular, systematic way;

b) if we represent these macroconcepts in a polar coordinates system (accordingly to four attractors) they are manifestly non-isometric (in this case this term is used rather conditionally because we apply it to a more than tree axes system);

c) as for the systems of these macroconcepts’ lexicalizing means their distribution within such a polar coordinates system has the evident anthropo-oriented character.

Thus we could suggest the existence of the anthropic resultant vector of the concepts’ development, the presence in the concepts’ state spaces of the “anthropic” attractor. Its basin covers the major part of the state space embracing the basins of “human” and “social” attractors completely and these of “natural” and “supernatural” ones partially.

Such a state of affairs caused by the deeply anthropocentric nature of thought and language should prejudice the isometric character of the state space itself (of detached concepts as well as of the conceptual sphere in the aggregate).

The issue if a concept can reach an equilibrium, isometric state in principle or for any long period requires an additional research. Such a behaviour of a system may correlate with the term “superattractor”: “You can asymptotically, making use of the mathematical language, approach to a superattractor arbitrary long, never arriving at it completely (for a finite time cell)” [15: 22]. It is possible that such an isometric state of concept is its true attractor.

But it is clear that even if a concrete concept reaches the basin of one of attractors (as with the superconcept “MAN” [24]), the others will still exert influence on: they will “pull aside” some of its existing or newly formed elements distorting its structure.

Taking into account that the concepts’ state space may be non-isometric we can make an assumption concerning the nature of the superattractor. It can be an area in the state space where the forces (of attractors’ influences on a concept) distribution pattern and the state space are isomorphic.

In conclusion we are to point out the following. As the present research has shown the outlook for further studying of chosen theme is quite promising, there is quite a number of issues requiring special investigations. First of all these are questions concerning the description of the ascertained attractors’ influence on concepts, of the concepts’ behaviour in the attractors’ basins, and the question on the revelation of concepts’ superattractor.

Bibliography:

1. Аршинов, В. И. Роль синергетики в формировании новой картины мира [Электронный документ] / В. И. Аршинов, В. Г. Буданов // Материалы Семинара «Рефлексивные процессы и управление». – Режим доступа: http://www.reflexion.ru/Library/Arschinov2005.doc.

2. Аршинов, В. И. Синергетика как феномен постнеклассической науки [Текст] / В. И. Аршинов. – М.: ИФРАН, 1999. – 203 с.

3. Блазнова, Н. А. Точечные аттракторы в структуре текста: автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук [Текст] / Н. А. Блазнова. – Кемерово, 2002. – 20 с.

4. Воркачев, С. Г. «Из истории слов»: лингвокультурный концепт [Текст] / С. Г. Воркачев // Новое в когнитивной лингвистике: Мат. I Междунар. науч. конф. «Изменяющаяся Россия: новые парадигмы и новые решения в лингвистике». – Кемерово: КемГУ, 2006. – С. 3-14.

5. Воркачев, С. Г. Концепт как «зонтиковый термин» [Текст] / С. Г. Воркачев // Язык, сознание, коммуникация. – М., 2003. – Вып. 24. – С. 5-12.

6. Воркачев, С. Г. Лингвокультурная концептология: становление и перспективы [Текст] / С. Г. Воркачев // ИРАН СЛЯ. – 2007. – Т. 66. – № 2. – С. 13-22.

7. Галушко, Т. Г. К вопросу об эволюционной парадигме языка [Электронный документ] / Т. Г. Галушко // Вестник АмГУ. – Вып. 3. – Режим доступа: http://www.amursu.ru/vestnik/3/3-12.doc.

8. Димитренко, Л. Ю. Возможность фрактального представления структуры макроконцептов [Текст] / Л. Ю. Димитренко, Д. А. Морель Морель // Ethnohermeneutik und kognitive Linguistik. – Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik, 2007. – S. 564-573.

9. Димитренко, Л. Ю. Макроконцепт «Mouvement» во французской языковой картине мира: структура и лексическая объективация: Дис. ... канд. филол. наук [Текст] / Л. Ю. Димитренко. – Воронеж, 2005. – 221 с.

10. Железнова, Ю. В. Сопоставление национальных концептосфер: к постановке проблемы [Текст] / Ю. В. Железнова // Сопоставительные исследования 2005. – Воронеж: Истоки, 2005. – С. 85-88.

11. Залевская, А. А. Текст и его понимание [Текст] / А. А. Залевская. – Тверь: Твер. гос. ун-т, 2001. – 177 с.: ил.

12. Зинченко, В. Г. Межкультурная коммуникация: от системного подхода к синергетической парадигме: учебное пособие [Текст] / В. Г. Зинченко, В. Г. Зусман, З. И. Кирнозе. – М.: Флинта; Наука, 2007. – 224 с.

13. Кашкин, В. Б. Факторная модель грамматического действия и перевод [Текст] / В. Б. Кашкин // Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Серия лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. – 2002. – № 2. – С.62-67.

14. Кубрякова, Е. С. Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов [Текст] / Е. С. Кубрякова и др. – М.: МГУ, 1996. – 245 с.: ил.

15. Ломоносов, Ю. Л. «Конец истории» как социофилософская проблема: автореф. дис. ... канд. филос. наук [Текст] / Ю. Л. Ломоносов. – М., 2002. – 22 с.

16. Лоскутов, А. Ю. Введение в синергетику [Текст] / А. Ю. Лоскутов, А. С. Михайлов. – М.: Наука, 1990. – 272 с.: ил.

17. Маслова, В. А. Введение в когнитивную лингвистику: Учебное пособие [Текст] / В. А. Маслова. – М.: Флинта; Наука, 2004. – 296 с.

18. Морель Морель, Д. А. Взаимодействие и самоорганизация концептов и их систем [Текст] / Д. А. Морель Морель // Materiály II Mezinárodní vědecko-praktická konference «Perspektivní novinky vědy a technici – 2005». – Praha – Dněpropetrovsk: Publishing house Education and Science s.r.o.; Nauka i osvita, 2005. – Díl 3: Filologiké vědy, Filosofie. – S. 24-27.

19. Морель Морель, Д. А. Концепт как фрактал: к постановке проблемы [Электронный документ] / Д. А. Морель Морель // Мат. Межрег. науч.-практ. конф. молодых ученых «Актуальные проблемы науки и практики в современном мире». – М.: СГА, 2007. – Режим доступа: http://www.muh.ru/.Docs/071016_conf/071025_morel_morel.htm.

20. Морель Морель, Д. А. Четыре направления развертывания концептов [Текст] / Д. А. Морель Морель // Концептосфера и языковая картина мира / Отв. ред. Е.А. Пименов, М.В. Пименова. – Кемерово: КемГУ, 2006. – С. 103-112.

21. Поддубный, Н. В. Синергетика: диалектика самоорганизующихся систем: Онтологические и гносеологические аспекты [Текст] / Н. В. Поддубный. – Ростов-н/Д. – Белгород: БелГУ, 1999. – 352 с.

22. Проскуряков, М. Русская ментальность и текст в терминах самоорганизации [Электронный документ] / М. Проскуряков, Л. Бугаева // Слово Текст Язык. – Режим доступа: http://fixed.ru/prikling/russmen/.

23. Рудакова, А. В. Когнитология и когнитивная лингвистика [Текст] / А. В. Рудакова. – 2-е изд. – Воронеж: Истоки, 2004. – 80 с.

24. Убийко, В. И. Концептосфера человека в семантическом пространстве языка [Текст] / В. И. Убийко // Вестник ОГУ. – 2004. – № 5. – С. 37-40.

25. Фененко, Н. А. Французские реалии в контексте теории языка: автореф. дис. ... д-ра филол. наук [Текст] / Н. А. Фененко. – Воронеж, 2006. – 36 с.

26. Чудинов, А. П. Россия в метафорическом зеркале: когнитивное исследование политической метафоры (1991-2000) [Текст] / А. П. Чудинов. – Екатеринбург, 2001. – 238 с.

27. Шейгал, Е. И. Тезаурусные связи и структура концепта [Текст] / Е. И. Шейгал, Е. С. Арчакова // Язык, коммуникация и социальная среда. – Воронеж: Изд-во ВГТУ, 2002. – Вып. 2. – С. 19-24.

28. Heylighen, F. The Science of Self-Organization and Adaptivity [Электронный документ] / F. Heylighen; Last modification: May 14, 1999 // Principia Cybernetica Web / F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn, V. Turchin (Eds.). – Режим доступа: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/EOLSS-Self-Organiz.pdf.

29. Lucas, C. Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) Frequently Asked Questions [Электронный документ] / C. Lucas; Version 2.99 July 2006 // The Complexity & Artificial Life Research Concept for Self-Organizing Systems / © 2006 CALResCo. – Режим доступа: http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm.

30. Morel Morel, D. A. Concepts development: four main directions (attractors) [Текст] / D. A. Morel Morel // Мат. II Междунар. науч.-практ. конф.«Перспективные разработки науки и техники – ’2006». – Днепропетровск: Наука и образование, 2006. – Т. 5. – С. 30-35.