Comparative Collocations as Cognitive Classifiers are Bases of Lexical Categories

Öz

The paper is devoted to the linguistic phenomena of cognitive classifiers and the way they are defined in the Russian, English and French languages. Different aspects of the cognitive approach in linguistics science are considered as the legitimate interdisciplinary paradigm. The concepts are presented from several viewpoints. The comparative collocations are given a detailed examination covering the processes determined by national and cultural specific background. The need to study comparative constructions in the language is due to the fact that the mechanism of comparison occupies an important place in human thinking. Comparisons play an important role in the formation of the conceptual picture of the world, clarify and concretize the person's ideas about objects and phenomena. The analysis of comparisons allows us to penetrate into the deep mechanisms of cognitive processes of ordinary consciousness. The category of cognitive classifiers is one of the least developed in linguistics. The importance of determining the composition and functions of cognitive classifiers in the structuring of the conceptual sphere and semantic space of the language determines the relevance of the work. The presence of common standards of comparison for different linguistic cultures is explained by the fact that there is almost the same reflection in the language of universal practice. The analysis of the material also reveals significant differences in the standards of comparison, which are determined by differences in cultures associated with realities, historical events, peculiarities of natural conditions and traditions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cognitive Classifier,Comparative Collocation,Supporting Component,Lexeme,Substance of Expression

Kaynakça

1. Barsalou, L. (2002). Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In N. L. Stein, P. J. Bauer, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Representation, memory, and development: Essays in honor of Jean Mandler, 1-15. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
2. Beréndi, M., Csábi, S. & Kövecses, Z. (2008). Using Conceptual Metaphors and Metonymies in Vocabulary Teaching. In: Frank Boers, & Seth Lindstromberg (eds.). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches toTeaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–100.
3. Boers, F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2008) Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Studies in Second Languige Aquisition. Vol. 31 (4), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 396.
4. Boldyrev, N.N. (2000). Когнитивная семантика. Тамбов: Изд-во Тамб. ун-та, 123.
5. Bourke, L. & Adams, A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and the early learning goals in writing. Wiley Online Library. Journal of research in reading. Vol. 33(1), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01434.x
6. Collins, J.L. (1998). Strategies for struggling writers. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
7. Crossley, S.A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1236-1241. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
8. Csábi, S. (2004). A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and its Implications for Teaching. In: Michel Achard, & Susanne Niemeier (eds.). SOLA: Studies on Language Acquisition. Series: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 233-256.

9. DeVillez, R. (2003). Writing: Step by step. Dubuque, IO: Kendall Hunt.
10. Fadeeva, T.M. (2010). The Main Units Expressing Definite Objects of Compound Epithets. In: Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Russian philology, vol. 5, 24-30.
11. Fahim, M. & Pishghadam, R. (2007). On the role of emotional, psychometric, and verbal intelligences in the academic achievement of university students majoring in English language. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 240-253.
12. Ferris, D.R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
13. Goldberg, V.B. (2000). Структурные связи в лексико-семантическом поле языка. Тамбов: Изд-во ТГУ им. Г.Р.Державина, 232.
14. Kubryakova, E.S. (1994). Начальные этапы становления когнитивизма: лингвистика психология - когнитивная наука. Вопр. языкознания. №4, 26-34.
15. Lakoff, G. (1988). Мышление в зеркале классификаторов. Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. М, Вып. XXIII: Когнитивные аспекты языка, 12-51.
16. Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf. Viet Nam Generation: A Journal of Recent History and Contemporary Issues, Vol.3. The Sixties Project. Retrieved 2018-10-04.
17. Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press, 584.
18. Likhachev, D.S. (1993). Концептосфера русского языка. Изв. РАН. Сер. лит. и яз. №1, 3-9.
19. Nakamaru, S. (2011). Making (and Not Making) Connections with Web 2.0 Technology in the ESL Composition Classroom. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, EJ927073, v38 n4, 377-390.
20. Nazarova, I.V. (2000). Типология компаративных единиц в когнитивном аспекте (на материале русского и французского языков): Дис. ... канд. филол. наук. – Воронеж, 178.
21. Sparks, R., & Gonschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90-111.
22. Pishghadam, R. (2009). Emotional and verbal intelligences in language learning. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 3(1), 43-64.
23. Pishghadam, R., Baghaei, P., Shams, M. & Shamsaee, S. (2011). Construction and validation of a narrative intelligence scale with the Rasch rating scale model. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 8(1), 75-90.
24. Popova Z.D. (1996). Семантическое пространство языка как категория когнитивной лингвистики. Вестн. Воронеж, гос. ун-та. Сер. 1, Гуманит. науки. №2, 64-68.
25. Popova, Z.D. (2001). Из истории когнитивного анализа в лингвистике. Методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики. Воронеж, 7-17.
26. Popova, Z.D. & Sternin, I.A. (2001). Очерки по когнитивной лингвистике. Воронеж: Изд-во Истоки, 83-88.
27. Rosch, E. (1983). Prototype classification and logical classification. The two systems. In E. F. Scholnick (ed.), New Trends in Cognitive Representation. Erlbaum, 73-86. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
28. Sheigal, E.I. (1990). Градация в лексической семантике: Учебное пособие к спецкурсу. – Куйбышев, 96.
29. Shevchenko, A.N. (2003). Сравнение как компонент идиостиля писателя - билингва В. Набокова (на материале русско- и англоязычных произведений автора): Дис.: канд. филол. наук. – Саратов, 182 с.
30. Solomakha, V.А. (2003). Признак как медиатор межполевых связей в лексиконе носителя языка: Автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. – Тверь, 17.
31. Tyler, A. (2012) Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence.
32. Routledge. Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning 53, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 547–587.
33. Vezhbitskaya, A. (1999). Семантические универсалии и описание языков. М., 1999.
34. Weston, J.L., Crossley, S.A., McCarthy, P.M., & McNamara, D. (2011). Number of words versus number of ideas: Finding a better predictor of writing quality. In Proceedings of the 24th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society, FLAIRS – 24, 335-340.
35. Zalewskaya, A.A. (1999). Введение в психолингвистику: Учеб. для студ. вузов, обуч. филол. спец. М.: Рос. гос. гуманит. ун-т, 381.