магистрант Калиева Г.А.

Региональный социально-инновационный университет

To the question of Concept Classification

 

The most common representation of the concept in the language attributed to the word and the word itself acquires is the status of the name of the concept - the linguistic sign, transmitting the content of the concept more fully and adequately. Concept usually refers to more than one lexical unit, and the logical culmination of this approach is its correlation with the plan of expression of the totality of heterogeneous synonymous (strictly lexical, phraseological and aphoristic) of describing it in language that is ultimately a concept correlate with the plan of expression lexical-semantic paradigm.

Concepts can be stable - having assigned linguistic means of verbalization and unstable - do not expressed by linguistic means, deeply personal, often little or no verbalized. The presence of linguistic expression for the concept, its regular verbalization support the concept of a stable, steady state, making it well-known (because the meaning of words are well known, they are interpreted by native speakers, are reflected in dictionaries).

The concept has a certain structure, which is a necessary condition for the existence of the concept and its entry into the conceptual sphere.

Structure of linguacultural concept is triple. In addition to the evaluative element in its composition can be isolated factual and figurative elements. Factual element of the concept is kept in mind in verbal form, and therefore can be played in the speech itself, shaped as an element not verbal and lends itself to a description.

The core of concept is a sensual base image that acts as a universal way of encoding the object code. This image belongs to the existential layer of consciousness and, as shown by some observations, has an operational or substantive in nature, based on biodynamic and sensual fabric of consciousness. The base image is surrounded by a concrete sense of their origin, the cognitive layer, reflecting the sense-perceptible properties, characteristics of the subject. This layer, together with the base layer refers to the existential consciousness.

Further, the structure of the concept (though not all concepts) is in the more abstract layers, reflecting a phase of reflection and existential symptoms related to the layer of reflective consciousness. Finally, the interpretative field concept, which includes the evaluation of the content of the concept, some interpretive signs and cognitive shaping national consciousness arising from the content of the concept of advice on behavior and comprehension of reality, may be associated with the spiritual level of consciousness, which involves an assessment in the broadest sense of the concept in terms of its value to the nation.

According to I.A. Sternin there are three structural types of concept: single-level, multi-layered and segmented. Single-level concept includes only the core, i.e. sensual image. Such a structure may have concepts in the mind of the child, as well as concepts in the mind of intellectually underdeveloped personality. Multi-level concept includes several cognitive layers that differ in the level of abstraction, which is reflected by them. A segment is a basic concept of sensitive layer, surrounded by several segments, “equal to the degree of abstraction” [1, p.58].

The concept is a “multi-dimensional idealized morphogenesis” [2, p.16], but the consensus on the number of semantic parameters that it can carry out in its studying is not defined. This includes both conceptual and imaginative, value, behavioral, etymological and cultural 'dimension', of which almost everyone can have a priority status in the study.

T.V. Gonnova offers the following classification of concepts, which was based on the criterion of internal or external assessment:

- Regulatory concepts (“labor”, “feat”, “happiness”) - the internal evaluation;

- Parametric concepts (“age”, “status”, “time”, “space”) - an external evaluation skills.

Regulatory concepts “contain rules of behavior, characteristic of a particular society”

Parametric concepts – “associated with dominant cultures indirectly” [3, p.483].

Wierzbicka identifies concepts, autochthonous, abstracted from the values of their specific language implementations that contain in their semantics and the “subject” and ethno-cultural semes, and protoconcepts – “universal concepts”, abstracted by an indefinite number of language implementations and provide a standard of comparison required for cross-language comparisons and translation [4 p.72].

Universal concepts are presented in the scientific minds in the form of ethical terms and logical operators: the good, bad, good, bad, indifferent, etc. In turn, the autochthonous concepts may not only be intralanguage, monoglossive, they can be abstracted from the lexical items of two or more languages forming a cultural super-ethnos – poliglossive like, “limiting the concept of” western and eastern linguocultures [5].

Another criterion of demarcation of linguacultural concepts is that they belong to the realm of consciousness, which they serve. There are specific lexical items, “further meaning” which forms the basis for the content of the ethical, psychological, logical, and religious terms – “spiritual values” which, of course, can be marked as an ethnocultural within one language, and within the boundaries of interlingual scientific paradigm - the style thinking” [6, p.105].

Classified by their media concepts form the individual microgroupping, macrogroupping, national, civilizational, universal concept sphere. Concepts can be released, operating in one form or another discourse: for example, pedagogical, religious, political, medical, etc. In terms of subject matter concepts are formed, for example, emotional, educational, and other text conceptospheres.

From a pragmatic point of view A.Ya.Gurevich shared linguacultural concepts into philosophical categories which he calls the universal categories of culture (time, space, cause, change, movement), and social categories, the so-called cultural categories (freedom, law, justice, labor , wealth, property) [7].

V.A.Maslova sees fit to single out one group - the category of national culture (for Russian culture, “Will”, “Share”, “Intelligence”, “Collegiality”, etc.) [8].

Thus the linguistic understanding of the concept outlined the following approaches:

1. Among the concepts of included lexemes whose values constitute the content of the national language consciousness and form a 'naive view of the world' speakers, which concentrated culture of the nation. Determining factor in this approach is a way of conceptualizing the world in lexical semantics, the main research tool - a conceptual model with which highlighted the basic components of the semantics of the concept and identify stable links between them. Some of these concepts gets any lexical unit, within the meaning of which can be seen the way (form) of the semantic representation.

2. In a narrower sense to refer to the number of semantic concepts of formation, marked by linguacultural specificity and somehow characterize the carriers of a particular ethnic culture [6]. The set of such concepts in the conceptual sphere is a part - a conceptual domain.

Semantic formation, which the list is limited and that are key to understanding the mentality as a specific relationship to the world of its speakers. Metaphysical concepts (“Soul”, “Truth”, “Freedom”, “Happiness”, “Love” etc.) - essentially a high mental or limit the degree of abstraction, they are sent to the 'invisible world' spiritual values, whose meaning can be revealed only through the symbol - a sign, would be to use a figurative expression for the objective content of the content of the abstract.These concepts are relatively easy to “sinonimize” forming conceptualized area where semantic associations are established between the metaphysical meanings and phenomena of the objective world, as reflected in the word [9].

Literature:

  1. Стернин И. А. – Методика исследования структуры концепта. Методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики: Научное издание /Под ред. И. А. Стернина. - Воронеж: ВГУ, 2001.
  2. Ляпин С.Х. Концептология: к становлению подхода. Концепты. Вып. I.- Архангельск, 1997.
  3. Гоннова Т.В. Русский язык: исторические судьбы и современность. Русская языковая картина мира. Труды III Международного конгресса исследователей русского языка. - М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2007. 
  4. Anna Wierzbicka. Semantics, Culture and Cognition. Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations. Oxford University Press, 1992. New York, Oxford
  5. Снитко Т.Н. Предельные понятия в западной и восточной лингвокультурах. Пятигорск, 1999.
  6. Степанов Ю.С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования.- М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 2001. http://philologos.narod.ru/concept/stepanov-concept.htm
  7. Гуревич А.Я. Человек и культура: Индивидуальность в истории культуры.- М., 1990
  8. Маслова В.А. Лингвокультурология. - М.: Академия, 2001. http://www.englspace.com/dl/files/maslova.zip
  9. Воркачев С.Г. Методологические основания лингвоконцептологии. Аспекты метакоммуникативной деятельности: Вып.3.- Воронеж, 2002. http://tpl1999.narod.ru/WEBTPL2002/VORKACHEVTPL2002.HTM