DOI: 10.18503/2658-3186-2021-5-1-45-50
Abstract
Despite the large number of studies on the problems of polysemy, scientists have not come yet to a consensus if a person operates in the course of words use within the lists of meanings or whether polysemous words are represented by their invariant abstract cores. The unsolved problem of polysemous words functioning predetermines the relevance of research in this area. The article presents an attempt to describe the ways of metaphorical meanings storing and functioning in the lexicon. Mechanisms that provide quick access to the language signs without having to scan lists of meanings are described in the article. A hypothesis has been put forward that the use of a lexical invariant, as the meaningful core of the word, allows to carry out an effective search of metaphorical meanings in the process of communication. The lexical invariant acts as a general cognitive model of perception and understanding of polysemous words semantics. The results of the invariant-component analysis of the lexical invariants are presented. The lexical invariants act as effective substitutes for the entire content of a concept or a word, freeing the mind from the need to scan the entire spectrum of meanings, in accordance with the principle of linguistic economy. The article presents the results of a psycholinguistic experiment aimed at identifying the ways of metaphorical meanings representation in the lexicon, in particular, at verifying the cluster-invariant structure of polysemous words. The results of the study proved that a native speaker does not need to store expanded definitions when operating with the meanings of words, and a minimum set of features is sufficient for identifying their meanings
Keywords: polysemous words, a semantic structure of a word, a metaphor, semantics, a meaning, experimental research
Аuthors:
Svetlana A. Pesina, Doctor of Philology, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Professor, at the Linguistics and Translation Department, Institute of Humanities Education, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University, Magnitogorsk Russia; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Olga L. Zimareva, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor at the Linguistics and Translation Department, Institute of Humanities Education, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University, Magnitogorsk Russia; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Kozlova Ksenia Andreevna, an undergraduate at the Linguistics and Translation Department, Institute of Humanities Education, Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University , Magnitogorsk Russia; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
References
1. Belousov K. I., Erofeeva E. V., Leshchenko Yu. E. Polevoi printsip organizatsii mental'nogo leksikona i stsenarii aktivatsii polei, Voprosy psikholingvistiki [], 2018, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 39–53.
2. Vygotskii L. S. Myshlenie i rech'. Moscow, Labirint, 1997. 352 p.
3. Gasparov B. M. Yazyk, pamyat', obraz. Lingvistika yazykovogo sushchestvovaniya, Moscow, Nov. lit. obozrenie, 1996, 351 p.
4. Luriya F. R. Yazyk i soznanie / pod red. E. D. Khomskoi. Rn/D.: Feniks, 1998. 413 s.
5. Pesina S. A. Prototipicheskii podkhod kak sredstvo ponimaniya i interpretatsii mnogoznachnogo slova, Gumanitarnye nauki i gumanitarnoe obrazovanie: istoriya i sovremennost': materialy ezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., red. i sost. I. P. Vishnyakova-Vishnevetskaya, Saint Petersburg, Bresta, 2005, pp. 209–211.
6. Pesina S. A. Funktsionirovanie polisemantov v mekhanizmakh recheproizvodstva, Frazeologicheskie chteniya pamyati professora V. A. Lebedinskoi, vol. 4. Kurgan, Izd-vo Kurgan. gos. un-ta, 2008, pp. 113–115.
7. Pesina S. A. Yazykovoi znak i kommunikativnye protsessy v filosofskom aspekte: monografiya, Moscow, Flinta, Nauka, 2012, 152 p.
8. Yusupova L. G., Pesina S. A. Antropotsentrizm kak istochnik popolneniya slovarnogo sostava yazyka, Vestnik Bashkirskogo un-ta, 2016, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1083–1089.
9. Foraker S., Murphy G. L. Polysemy in sentence comprehension: effects of meaning dominance, J. Memory Lang, 2012, vol. 4, no. 67, pp. 407–425.
10. Falcum I. L., Vicente A. Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches [Electronic resource], Lingua 157, 2015, ResearchGate GmbH. 2015.02.002. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272740167_Polysemy _Current_ perspectives_and_approaches.
11. Fauconnier G. Mental spaces. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 371–376.
12. Hoffman R. Some implications of metaphor for philosophy and psychology of science, In: The ubiquity of metaphor, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Co, 1985, pp. 327–383.
13. Hodges J. R., Patterson, K. Semantic memory disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1997, no 1(2), pp. 68–72.
14. Klein D. E., Murphy G. L. The representation of polysemous , J. Memory Lang, 2001, vol. 2, n. 45, pp. 259–282.
15. Lakoff G., Johnson M. A Metaphor-Enriched Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin 136, 2010 no 6, pp. 1045–1067.
16. Langacker R. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 562 p.
17. Musolff A., Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2001, no 21(3), pp. 216–229
18. Musolff A. Metaphor scenarios in public discourse, Metaphor and Symbol, 2006, no. 21(1), pp. 23–38.
19. Navigli R., Ponzetto, S. Babel P. Net: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network, Artificial Intelligence, 2012, vol. 193, pp. 217– 250.
20. Sullivan K. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2013, 184 p.
For citation
Pesina S. A., Zimareva O. L., Kozlova K. A., Metaphor as a Model of Congnition and Conventialization of a Meaning, Gumanitarno-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya [Humanitarian and pedagogical Research], 2021, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45–50.