Term Semantics from a Cognitive Viewpoint

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 965 – 969

Worldwide trends in the development of education and academic research, 15 - 18 June 2015

Term Semantics from a Cognitive Viewpoint Sabira Issakova *, Aru Taganova, Marfuga Oralbaeva K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional State University, A. Muldagulova Street, 34, Aktobe, 000003 Kazakhstan

Abstract The report is devoted to the use of methods of cognitive analysis for identification of relations between term semantics and conceptual structures of expert knowledge storage. Conceptual educations, cognitive formats of storage of expert knowledge and language cognition in their interaction are considered in the article as causing formation of terminological nominative units. The authors analyze mechanisms and tendencies that are characteristic of different categories representation and consider the distinctive relationship between categories representation and the use of productive term elements that in some cases leads to the establishment of explicit term oppositions. Some regularities in different terminologies related to the issue are discussed. We also examine possible reasons that govern the choice of word to serve as a term element that is relevant for a particular category. © 2015 2015 The TheAuthors. Authors.Published PublishedbybyElsevier ElsevierLtd. Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © Peer-review under responsibility of: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES), Sofia, Bulgaria & International Research (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review responsibility of: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES), Sofia, Bulgaria & International Research Center (IRC)under ‘Scientific Cooperation’, Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Center (IRC) ‘Scientific Cooperation’, Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Keywords: term, definition, concept, conceptual structure, cognitive analysis, conceptual system, cognitive structure

1. Introduction Considering the peculiarities of the cognitive approach to the term and the analysis of its semantics it should be noted that the problem of terminological units meaning came in sight of cognitive linguistics relatively recently (see, for example, Volodina, 2000; Manerko, 2000; Novodranova, 2000), though it should have drawn the researchers’ attention much earlier since the main objective of this direction of linguistics is studying the role of the language "in representation (coding) and transformation of information" (Kubryakova & Drozdova, 2007). Nevertheless, no other unit except the term is positioned as intentionally used for the purpose of representation, storage and transfer of knowledge/information. Naturally, with that it is emphasized that the term is connected with a particular type of knowledge – scientific or special which we prefer to designate as "expert knowledge".

*

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES), Sofia, Bulgaria & International Research Center (IRC) ‘Scientific Cooperation’, Rostov-on-Don, Russia. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.683

966

Sabira Issakova et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 965 – 969

This feature of the term caused a set of discussions concerning its artificial or natural character, possibility of including terms into the word stock of national languages and existence or absence of the term meaning similar to the lexical meaning of common lexis. Leaving aside the detailed analysis of debatable questions, we will note that though representatives of traditional linguistics paid certain attention to the semantics of the term, nevertheless, this aspect of a language sign received the most detailed lighting in terminology studies. 2. Objectives, methodology and research design Presenting the historical retrospective of the formation and development of this direction of linguistics, V. A. Tatarinov, for example, specifies that its representatives determined the existence of a special type of meaning in such language signs – the terminological one, which, in fact, represents the definition of the concept acting as the denotation/referent of the term and is changed under the influence of extralinguistic factors. The term also has linguistic meaning, which characterizes this sign proceeding from the revealed aspects/types of lexical meaning, and can be determined in the process of analysis of an internal form of a language unit. According to the same author semantics of the term was mainly investigated on the basis of analysis of dictionary definitions whose comparison with the use of terms in special texts showed further that in lexicographic sources the term cannot present the whole volume of the content of the concept, representing only its "nucleus" - integral and differential features. In general, the analysis of the term semantics within terminology studies was restricted to the logical and conceptual analysis of the definition of the term and consideration of the system of meanings of the ordered terminologies, and also to the description of types of definitions introduced by terms (Tatarinov, 2006). The results of this research and specific observations over the units, defined as terminological ones, formed the basis of resorting to the term semantics in works of the cognitive direction which, unlike works of the pre - cognitive period, set the objective to consider the relation of the term semantics with the results of scientific conceptualization and categorization of the world, with mental units and structures of expert knowledge storage, and also to characterize the generation and functioning of lexical units in special discourses with another perspective providing systematization and full presentation of expert information taking into account interaction of linguistic and extralinguistic types of knowledge. Before considering possibilities of the use of methods of the cognitive analysis for the study of the term semantics, we will stipulate that taking into account the ideas stated in a number of classical and modern works devoted to terminological lexicon (Vinokur, 1994; Reformatsky, 1968; Shelov, 1993; Manerko, 2000; Golovanova, 2003; Zyablova, 2004; Novodranova, 2006; Leychik, 2007) and in works on cognitive linguistics (Langacker, 1987; Kubryakova, 2000, 2009), we suggest considering terms as relative prototypical cognitive and functional category of lexical units (Drozdova, 2010). Members of this category are characterized by a complex function which includes: x name of scientific/special concept of an area (domain) of science or another type of expert activity; x explicit (through a definition) or implicit (through word usage in a statement or a text) representation of its contents; x participation in the creation of definitions of other concepts of the same domain forming an appropriate sphere of concepts i.e. in the organization and systematization of expert knowledge; x ability to unite with other signs of language into term systems and, linked with them, to objectify mental units and structures of expert knowledge storage, i.e. be associated with a certain cognitive context. This complex function is fully realized on condition of interaction of extralinguistic (i.e. usage in the appropriate discourse area) and linguistic (i.e. existence of syntagmatic and/or coherent interrelation with other terms of the same sphere in a statement or a text) contexts when the term certainly refers to the base of expert knowledge and cognitive formats of its storage and maximally carries out its pragmatic mission. From the given definition it follows that the cognitive approach to the term semantics assumes establishment of interrelation between a mental unit and the language sign representing it, i.e. the analysis of the term semantics or, to be more accurate, its definitions as contents of the concept underlying the term in order to define, what meanings were "grabbed" with language signs as a result of conceptualization and/or allowed to bring the represented concept under a certain category, to include it in any other mental structure. In the latter case it is necessary to resort to elements of more complicated cognitive structures of expert knowledge storage to a concept in generic understanding (Kubryakova, 2002), conceptual system (Pavilenis, 1983), cognitive models (Lakoff, 1988).


In other words, relying on the knowledge base of the expert community, it is first of all necessary to restore, "reconstruct", define these complicated cognitive structures and models as only on that condition it will be possible to define, what meanings fixed by these structures are represented by the semantics of the analyzed unit, what volume of verbalized knowledge, or the content of concept is. The conceptual analysis can also promote understanding of how the knowledge which allowed to create the content of concept was gained, and whether the conceptual bases of categorization and conceptualization of the real or visionary world are reflected in an inner form of a language sign-term. Using the methods of the conceptual analysis for studying semantics of a separate terminological unit taken from a lexicographic source, or presented together with the definition (or description) of the concept of the scientific text, linguists, certainly, cannot estimate or realize the scientific essence, depth / completeness and accuracy of the presented content of the concept, except their own terminology, as it is fairly noted (Superanskaya et al., 1989). We believe, nevertheless, that due to the common knowledge base gained in the education system, to the study of special literature in the area of science the terminology of which the linguist is engaged in, and also relying on standard procedures of scientific cognition, it is quite possible to define, what meanings and at what levels of abstraction are represented by the term semantics. 3. Discussion of the research outcomes Considering the meaning of the term as identical to its definition, we suggest speaking about it as about the conceptual content of a language unit which is fixed in specialized lexicographic sources, but can receive additional development / disclosure in the scientific discourse, including scientific texts, and which reflects informative experience, the base of knowledge created at a certain time point in a separate community of experts, opinions offered for discussion. Note that the meaning of the term of a certain term system is initially “attached" to a concrete "situation", a cognitive context. The basic concepts revealed as a result of the conceptual analysis and forming the content of the represented denotation represent its conceptual characteristics or features (Drozdova, 2003). Having restored, for example, the cognitive structure of such science as Economics, it is possible to establish that it includes the following concepts: "laws", "economic system (national economy)" as a scope of these laws which, in their turn, include the concepts "production" and "consumption" revealed through such more specific concepts as "production factors", "product", "Man", "wants", "distribution", etc. (Hyman, 1992). The analysis of the definition of the term in a lexicographic source shows that these components of cognitive structure are presented in it by verbal units at various levels of abstraction or a categorization; not all potentially possible conceptual features of the given concept are revealed at that: economics ECON the study of the natural laws governing the production, distribution and consumption of wealth. It examines and explains that part of Man’s social and personal behaviour that is directed towards the satisfaction of his wants (Adam, 1993). Thus, the given definition presents the following conceptual features connected with the given concept of the expert area of economics: "laws", "production", "consumption", "distribution", "Man", "wealth", "wants". These signs, in turn, imply other concept, not included into the definition, for example, such as "production factors", etc. The process of conceptualization can also profile other properties accompanying conceptual signs-concepts such as attributive (natural), relative, characterizing links/relations of concepts of the sphere of concepts of an expert area (social), functional (governing) and even axiological, representing the rational assessment of certain aspects of concepts. In general, the typology of the features forming the conceptual content of the denotation can be presented through the designations close to the concept "semantic primitives" according to A. Vezhbitskaya (1996), and terminological units, in particular those which designate the features designed as a result of scientific understanding of real or visionary reality (see above consumption, wealth, wants, etc.) can also act as such names - "primitives" in certain areas of science. The content of the concept can be also presented as structurally ordered, associated with such format of language storage as frame. The method of the frame analysis establishing hierarchical orderliness of conceptual features which are formed by separate slots associated with the concept nucleus name provides possibility of visualization of

967

968


the mental structure to which semantics of the concrete term abstracts. The definition given above abstracting to the frame of "Economics" represents not all slots of this frame as it is possible to see on the basis of its analysis. It will be recalled that frame structures can be also used for visualization of hierarchically organized categories, and for the purpose of indicating paradigmatic relations of terms within a certain term system. Confirming the fact of correlation of the term semantics with the formats of storage of expert knowledge of various configuration and complexity, it is also possible to specify that in the content of the definition under consideration propositional structures "are also developed". One of them, for example, characterizes the represented concept from the point of view of its main function (economics studies the natural laws), and another one represents knowledge of the relation of separate conceptual features / notions forming the content of economic science (Man's behavior satisfies his wants). At the same time, the terminological units used in a statement/text of the concept definition represent not only extralinguistic expert knowledge, but also certain elements of language knowledge. First of all, it is knowledge of existence of the semantic or, to be more accurate, thematic field of a special type represented by a branch term system, and also about more specific paradigmatic types of the relations of terminological units within it: hyperohyponymic (for example: economics – macroeconomics and microeconomics), synonymic, antonymic, etc. which also reflect linguistic knowledge proper though being caused by extralinguistic knowledge. The linguistic knowledge also includes knowledge about the derivational potential of terms allowing to create new units in the semantics of which the knowledge about various relations of concepts/notions of conceptual structure, or about the relations of various cognitive structures are reflected, more accurate characteristics of denotations are revealed. Such language signs can describe the newly created concepts or specify knowledge about already existing ones (economic law, economic model, etc.). Certainly, rather a large number of terms are primitive holistic units, however, still more language signs used as names of special concepts are derivatives and nominative complexes consisting of several words. Thus, the material exponential of the term can at the same time signal about the motivating bases of creating a derivative language sign of the applied word-formation model (agricultural economics), and, through an internal form, signal about the way of obtaining expert knowledge, definition of conceptual features making up the content of the concept designated by the term (applied economics, global economics). Quite often a minor sign characterizing rather ordinary, but not expert knowledge is motivating in the creation of a terminological unit (wasteful consumption). Such phenomenon, on the one hand, testifies to the existing interrelation between two types of cognition, and on the other hand, it confirms that cognitive structures are complicated ones, storing a lot of different data. In this case, as N. N. Boldyrev (2001) precisely notes, it is difficult to define the borderline, "beyond which the language knowledge (knowledge of linguistic meaning) comes to an end and general, encyclopedic knowledge which is not connected with the linguistic meaning" begins. 4. Conclusion In conclusion we would like to pay attention to the fact that the same fragments of the real or visionary world are conceptualized and categorized differently in ordinary and scientific cognition, but the knowledge obtained is rather often brought to one and the same sign which in different discourses profiles different meanings, different types of knowledge (for example, the words money, competition, etc. in ordinary and economic discourses). As stated above, these meanings become clear not only in the general context of a discourse connected with its extralinguistic and thematic specification but also on the basis of the analysis of the linguistic context when semantics of units united in a syntagma or a text allows to interpret the sense represented by a language sign properly: as relating either to an expert, or ordinary type of knowledge. In total both of these types make up encyclopedic knowledge access to which can be obtained, apparently, through semantics of such language sign, or its contents if the sign is characterized as polysemantic.

References Adam, J.H. (1993). Longman Dictionary of Business English. Moscow: RELOD.


969

Boldyrev, N.N. (2001). Kontsept i znachenie slova [Concept and word meaning]. In: Metodologicheskie problem kognitivnoi lingvistiki: nauchnnaya publikatsia. Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 25-36. Drozdova T.V. (2003). Problemy ponimania nauchnogo teksta [Problems of understanding of the scientific text]. Astrakhan: Izdatel’stvoAGTU. Drozdova, T.V. (2010). O kognitivno-funktsional’nyh osnovaniyah kategorizatsii leksicheskih edinits [About the cognitive and functional bases of categorization of lexical units]. In: T. V. Drozdova, Kognitivnyie issledovaniya yazyka [Cognitive research of language]. Vyp. VII. Types of categories in language: Proceedings. Moskva - Tambov: Izdatel’stvo TGU imeni G. R. Derzhavina, 171-180. Golovanova, E.I. (2003). Teoreticheskie aspekty interpretatsii termina kak yazykovogo znaka [Theoretical aspects of interpretation of the term as a language sign]. In: E.I. Golovanova, Lexicology. Terminovedeniye. Stylistica: materialy konferencii. Moskva - Ryazan. Hyman, D.N. (1992). Economics. Boston MA: Irwin. Kubryakova, E.S. (2000). Traditsionnye problem yazykoznaniya v svete novyh paradigm znaniya [Traditional problems of linguistics in the light of new paradigms of knowledge]. In: Introduction. Materials of a round table. Moskva: Institut Yazykoznaniya RAN, 3-10. Kubryakova, E.S. (2002). O sovremennom ponimanii termina “concept” v lingvistike i kulturologii [About modern understanding of the term "concept" in linguistics and cultural science]. In: E.S. Kubryakova, Real’nost, yazyk I soznanie [Reality, language and consciousness]: Mezhdunarodn. Mezhvyz. Sbornik Vyp.2. Tambov: Izdatel’stvo TGU imeni G.R. Derzhavina, 5-15. Kubryakova, E.S. (2009). V poiskah sushnosti yazyka [In search of language essence]. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki, No.1, 5-12. Kubryakova, E.S. & Drozdova, T.V. (2007). Kluchevye poniatia nauki s kgnitivnoi tochki zrenia [Key concepts of science from the cognitive point of view]. In: E.S. Kubryakova, T.V. Drozdova, Kognitivnaya lingvistika: Novye problemy poznania [Cognitive linguistics: New problems of knowledge]. Moskva - Ryazan: Izdatel’stvo Ryazan gos. universitet imeni S. A. Yesenina, Vyp. 5, 8-13. Lakoff, J. (1988). Myshleniye v zerkale klassifikatorov [Thinking in a mirror of qualifiers]. In: Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike, Vyp. 23, Kognitivnye aspecty yazyka. M.: Progress, 12-51. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Leychik, V.M. (2007). Kognitivnoe terminovedenie – piatiy etap razvitia terminovedenia kak vedushei nauchnoi distcipliny rubezha XX-XXI vekov [Cognitive terminological studies – the fifth stage of development of terminological studies as the leading scientific discipline at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries]. In: V.M. Leychik, Kognitivnaya lingvistika: novye problem poznania [Cognitive linguistics: new problems of knowledge]. Moskva – Ryazan: Ryazansk. Gos.ped.Un-t imeni S.A. Yesenina, 121-132. Manerko, L.A. (2000). Yazyk sovremennoi tehniki: yadro i periferia [Language of modern equipment: nucleus and periphery]. Ryazan: Ryazansk. Gos.ped.Un-t imeni S. A. Yesenina. Novodranova, V. F. (2000). Kognitivnye nauki i terminologia [Cognitive sciences and terminology]. In: V.F. Novodranova, Nauchnotehnicheskaya terminologia: Nauchno-tehnicheskiy referativnyi sbornik [Scientific and technical terminology: Scientific and technical proceedings]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo VNIIKI, Vyp. 2, 68-70. Novodranova, V.F. (2006). Kognitivnoe terminovedenie [Cognitive terminological studies]. In: V. F. Novodranova, Obshee terminovedenie: entsiklopedicheskiy slovar [General terminological studies: encyclopedic dictionary]. Moskva: Moscow lyceum, 82-84. Pavilenis, R.I. (1983). Problema smysla. Sovremennyi logiko-filosofskiy analiz yazyka [Problem of sense. Modern logical-philosophical analysis of language]. Moskva: Mysl`. Reformatskiy, A.A. (1968). Termin kak chlen leksicheskoi sistemy yazyka [Term as a member of lexical system of language]. In: A.A. Reformatsky, Problemy strukturnoi lingvistiki [Problems of structural linguistics]. Moskva: Nauka, 103-129. Shelov, S.D. (1993). Vneyazykovaya determinirovannost’ terminologicheskih system [Extra language determinancy of terminological systems]. In: S.D. Shelov, Terminovedeniye, T. 35. Moskva: Moskovskij Licej, Vyp 3, 14-24. Superanskaya, A.V., Podolskaya, N.V., Vasilyeva, N.V. (1989). Obshaya terminologia: Voprosy teorii [General terminology: Theory questions]. Moskva: Nauka. Tatarinov, V.A. (2006). Obshee terminovedenie: entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [General terminological studies: encyclopedic dictionary]. Rossiyskoe terminologicheskoe obshestvo Ross Term. Moskva: Moskovskij Licej. Vezhbitska, A. (1996). Yazyk. Cultura. Poznanie [Language. Culture. Knowledge]. Moskva: Russkie slovari. Vinokur, G. O. (1994). O nekotoryh yavleniyah slovoobrazovania v russkoi technicheskoi terminologii [On some phenomena of word formation in Russian technical terminology]. In: G.O. Vinokur, VA. Tatarinov, Istoria otechestvennogo terminovedenia klassiki terminovedenia: ocherk i khresomatia [History of domestic terminological studies. Classics of terminological studies: sketch and anthology]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskij Licej, 218-283. Volodina, M.N. (2000). Kognitivno-informativnaya priroda termina (na materiael terminologii sredstv massovoi informatsii) [The cognitive and informative nature of the term (on the material of terminology of mass media)]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Mosk. un-et. Zyablova, O.A. (2004). K ponimaniyu prirody termina s kognitivnoi tochki zrenia [On understanding the nature of the term from the cognitive point of view]. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistitki, No. 2-3, 41-46.