THE PROBLEM  OF DIFFERENTIATION OF NOTIONS IN MODERN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

Yekibayeva N.A

Candidate of Philological Sciences , associate professor

Mussabayeva G.M

Master student

Abstract

The main aim of the article is to point out the peculiarities of differentiation of such notions as “frame”, “concept”, “script”, “slot” in cognitive linguistics. The analysis reveals  that the storage and possibilities of using of  information are caused by the frame language structures representing a kind of  «narration concentrates», the contexts of encyclopedic type expressing the maximum knowledge of a situation, presented in the symbolical coding on the certain basis. The  interpretation and verification of the axiological bases of frames may contribute to better understanding of any fiction.

Резюме

Основная цель статьи состоит в том, чтобы указать на особенности дифференцирования таких понятий как “структура”, “понятие”, “подлинник”, “место” в когнитивной лингвистике. Анализ показывает, что возможности использования информации вызваны языковыми структурами, представляющими своего рода «концентраты повествования», контексты энциклопедического типа, выражающего максимальное знание ситуации, представленной в символическом кодировании на определенной основе. Интерпретация и проверка оснований структур могут способствовать лучшему пониманию любой беллетристики.

Түйіндеме

Мақаланың негізгі мақсаты конгитивті лингвистикадағы дифференционалданған «құрылым», «түсінік», «түпнұсқа», «орын» түсініктерінің ерекшеліктерін айқындап көрсету. Саралау нәтижесінде, тілдік ақпараттарды қолдану мүмкіншілігі «концентратты баяндау» негізі ретінде, энциклопедиялық типтегі контекста, жағдайға байланысты максималды білімін қолдануға негізгі анықталған кодтауда ұсыну мүмкіншіліктерін көрсетті. Құрылымдарды талдау және тексеру негізінде шығармаларды жақсы түсінуге мүмкіндік береді.

Key words: cognitive linguistics, concept, frame structure, coding, slots, script.

Ключевые слова: когнитивная лингвистика, концепт, фреймовая структура, кодирование, слот, подлинник.

At the end of the XX century linguistics has gained the nature of a metadiscipline. Methods of linguistics are widely used not only in sciences of a humanitarian cycle: philosophies, psychology, cultural science, but also in natural, and also in the exact sciences. So the scientists, who work within the corresponding directions, enrich linguistics, expanding possibilities of the researchers in the sphere of the analysis of the text. In particular, cognitive science was affected, first of all, by works of the programmers, who study the problem of artificial intelligence.  Linguistics operating in the analysis of the text with concepts,  symbols and  signs,  has also accepted such terms as   frame,  script,  slot and  topic.

In this regard invaluable contribution to cognitive linguistics was made by the scientists developing the artificial intelligence direction. The term “frame” was offered by the famous American cognitive scientist in the field of ratification intelligence M.Minsky in his work «Frames for representation of knowledge». According to the author, any “intelligent” behavior of any artificial system  demands the existence of   a specially organized model of the world within it: «The knowledge must be embodied in some form of mechanism, data-structure, or other representation». [ 2, 1 ]. Knowledge in a frame is stored in the substructures, therefore represented in «stereotypic situations».

Linguists have started paying special attention to the  development of the semantic and semiotics directions. M.Minsky’s terms — frame,  slot,  script, a semantic network,  transframe, a frame picture —  have received the second life in cognitive linguistics. T.A.Van Deyk , for example, writes about cognitive frames, using which as the conceptual devices, cognitology should «offer an explanation of our ability to make and understand speech acts, and also to “influence” this understanding» . [ 4, 312 ]

Short, but the exact review of the term “frame” in  modern cognitive science was presented by V.Z.Demyankov  in  «The short dictionary of cognitive terms». The scientist doesn’t give the definition of “frame”, but naturally refers to other researchers arguing (J. Hayes, L. Flower) that this term “frame” is at the same time a set of assumptions  of formal language  using for expressing  knowledge [5, 187].

I.A.Sternin considers  frame to be  a Gestalt version – the functional structure of a complex type combining sensual and rational, dealing with mixed type of coding information [7, 55].

We share U.Eco’s point of view on a frame problem where frame is described as the  representation of «encyclopedic knowledge» of a situation in special structures where all the components  are connected among themselves. U.Eco comes to a conclusion that frame, thus, is «already potential text or a narration concentrate», but specifies that «the same it is possible to tell and about the separate sememe presented in the encyclopedia» [8, 502].

The majority of the scientists developing the theory of frames, agree that it is very difficult, and sometimes even impossible for the recipients of information to isolate the correct word meaning in a peculiar information vacuum — out of access to a context of encyclopedic type, to all knowledge relating to this word. Ability of decoding, on the one hand, is caused by social factors, and, on the other, – by specific features of the recipients’ perception of the  situation.  The frames, thus, represent a coherent structure of the interconnected concepts.

We define the term “frame” as a structure of data which serves for representation of the stereotypic situations, organized round a certain concept.  The numbers of different frames, in our opinion, are crossed, and updating of this or that concept depends on  the focus of attention of the subject.

We agree the frame is set by topic which  the western linguists define as text «aboutness» . «In themselves, thematic progression and semantic progression tell us nothing about the topic of a text as a whole.  A distinction can be drawn  between the extensional aboutness of a text and its intentional aboutness. The former is defined by the topics of component parts of a text, topics of its paragraphs, sections, chapters, etc. The latter is the topic of the text as a whole, representing something more than the topics of its parts»[1,17].

Any frame, as it was stated, consists of slots. The term “slot”, as well as “frame”, was taken from the sphere of researches on artificial intelligence. It is supposed that frame as the structure representing knowledge, stores information units in cells — slots.

We accept the definition of slot as cells based on a maximum of grammatical categories. In this case, in our opinion, the frame represents the maximum volume of knowledge of a situation which is expressed, first of all, lexically and is connected in an associative and grammatical way. All set of frames, thus, we began to understand as a language picture of the world.

Any frame can be expressed in various scripts. Unlike frame structures, «the script shows frame development in time» [3,123]. The script, thus, represents a frame option. It is momentary, that is its updating depends on decisions which are accepted by the recipient, choosing a relevant topic, and also from features of a conceptual paradigm of the recipient.

The script, in our opinion, is structured as a plot from slots of the general and this frame depending on the topics chosen by the recipient/reader.

We accept the definition of script as one of possible options of realization of a frame structure, representing this or that concept.

I.A.Sternin notes a dynamic role of concepts which «incorporates to other concepts and makes a start from them»[ 7,55 ]. V.I.Karasik allocates such type as a lingvocultural concept considering that it has a brightly expressed axiological component, especially significant for the individuals and society [6, 75].In our opinion, the formation of concept in a frame structure occurs as follows: for the first time the perceived phenomenon is designated by a word, but also other words which were used at its description, form, in our terminology, a connotative loop round a concept kernel.

Thus, we define the term «concept» as semantic capacity of a notion with its connotative loop, that is the “checked” experience of a certain cultural group concerning this notion, fixed in the dictionary, and personal experience.  The manifestation of this or that concept in a frame depends on the focus of attention of the subject.

The concepts which are based on the axiological grounds make the ideal frame. Changing value components in slots of this type of frame, changing the developed stereotypic scripts, it is possible to change all axiological background of a subject/recipient/reader.

In our opinion,  the analysis of  considered above  terms, will lead to correct research of such phenomena, as text potential, its polysemy and game structure.

But in future we`d like to compare these terms of cognitive linguistics with the similar ones in the Kazakh and Russian languages.

Reference:

1. Hutchins, W.J. On the Problem of ‘Aboutness’ in Document Analysis//Journal of Informatics, vol.1, no.1, April 2003 , pp.17-35.

2. Minsky, M./M. Minsky //The Emotion Machine. – 2005. – http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/eb8.html

3. Baranov, A.N. Introduction to applied linguistics. M: Editorial of URSS, 2001.- 123 p.

4. Van Deyk, T.A. Language. Knowledge.  Communication. – M: Progress, 2006. – 312 p.

5. Demyankov, V. Z. Frame//Short dictionary  of cognitive terms / Kubryakova E.S., Demyankov V. Z., Pankraz Yu.G., Luzin L.G. – M: Philological faculty of the Moscow State University, 2006.- P. 187-189.

6. Karasik, V.I./V.I.Karasik //Lingvocultural concept as  a research unit//Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics. -Voronezh: 2001. – P. 75 — 79.

7. Sternin, I.A. Concepts and lacunas//Language consciousness: formation and functioning. M, 2000.- P. 55-67.

8. Eco, At. / U.Eco//Role of the reader. Researches on text semiotics. -St. Petersburg: “Symposium”, 2005. – 502 p.