Tambov
All-Russian academic journal
“Issues of Cognitive Linguistics”

COMPOSITE SENTENCE IN THE STRUCTURE OF LINGUISTIC COGNITION

COMPOSITE SENTENCE IN THE STRUCTURE OF LINGUISTIC COGNITION


Author:  S.G. Vinogradova

Affiliation:  Derzhavin Tambov State University

Abstract:  In the article, taking into account the experience of studying linguistic cognition and its organization the author presents a description of a composite sentence as a form of enlanguaged mind.
Specificity of a composite sentence being a form of enlanguaged mind consists in the manner the speaker adopts to transfer the conceptual links between the events he fixes in the context of interpreting the world in language.
The author considers the process of composite sentences activation in the course of communication hanging upon linguistic cognition dominants and the dominant character of the speaker’s cognitive activity in assessing events.
With evidence from English, the author argues that the choice of certain linguistic means (composite sentences in particular) used by the speaker in communication can be explained by realization of various cognitive models, schemas and mechanisms as certain dominants of human experience structuring and formatting the conceptual content in language.

Keywords:  sentence, linguistic cognition, dominant constructs, linguistic interpretation

References:  Artem'eva E.YU. Psihologiya sub"ektivnoj semantiki. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1980.
Boldyrev N.N. Konceptual'naya osnova yazy-ka // Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka. 2009.
Vyp. IV. S. 25-77.
Boldyrev N.N. Antropocentricheskaya sushch-nost' yazyka v ego funkciyah, edinicah i kategori-yah // Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. 2015.
№ 1. S. 5-12.
Boldyrev N.N. YAzyk kak interpretiruyu-shchij faktor poznaniya // Interpretaciya mira
v yazyke: kollektivnaya monografiya. Tambov: Izda-tel'skij dom TGU im. G.R. Derzhavina, 2017.
S. 19-81.
Vinogradova S.G. Kommunikativnoe chlene-nie slozhnogo predlozheniya: kognitivnye osnovy: monografiya. Tambov: Izdatel'skij dom TGU im. G.R. Derzhavina, 2015.
Vinogradova S.G. Kognitivnoe var'irova-nie pri konstruirovanii slozhnogo predlozhe-
niya // Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. 2017. № 4. S. 20-26.
Karasik V.I. YAzykovoj krug: lichnost', koncepty, diskurs. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002.
Karpenko A.S. Kontrfaktual'noe myshlenie // Logicheskie issledovaniya. 2017. T. 23. № 2. S. 98-122.
Klepikova T.A. Lingvisticheskie metare-prezentacii: monografiya. SPb.: Izd-vo «Asteri-on», 2008.
Kobrina O.A. Kategoriya ehvidencial'nosti: ee status i formy vyrazheniya v raznyh yazykah // Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. 2005. № 1.
S. 86-98.
Leont'ev A.A. Osnovy psiholingvistiki. M.: Smysl, 1999.
Leont'ev A.N. O putyah issledovaniya vos-priyatiya: Vstupitel'naya stat'ya // Vospriyatie
i deyatel'nost'. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1976.
S. 3-27.
Miller Dzh.A. Obrazy i modeli, upodoble-niya i metafory // Teoriya metafory. M.: Pro-gress, 1990. S. 236-283.
Potebnya A.A. Mysl' i yazyk. Kiev,
1993.
Reze N.Dzh. Kontrfaktual'noe myshlenie // Gorizonty kognitivnoj psihologii: hrestomatiya. M.: YAzyki slavyanskih kul'tur; RGGU, 2012. S. 243-253.
Stroson P.F. Namerenie i konvenciya v re-chevyh aktah // Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike.  Vyp. XVII. Teoriya rechevyh aktov. M.: Progress, 1986. S. 151-170.
Tarasov E.F. YAzyk kak sredstvo translyacii kul'tury // YAzyk kak sredstvo translyacii kul'-tury. M.: Nauka, 2000. S. 45-53.  
Uhtomskij A.A. Dominanta. SPb.: Piter, 2002.
CHejf U.L. Pamyat' i verbalizaciya proshlogo opyta // Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. XII. Prikladnaya lingvistika. M.: Progress, 1983. S. 35-73.
BNC – British National Corpus. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk
Chafe W.L. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow // Typological Studies in Language 11: Coherence and Grounding in Discourse / R.S. Tomlin (ed.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1987. P. 21-51.
COCA – Corpus of Contemporary American English. URL: http: //corpus.buy.edu/coca/
Fauconnier G., Turner M. Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Networks // Cognitive Lin-guistics: Basic Readings / D. Geeraerts (ed.). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 2006. P. 303-371.
Givón T. Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax // Iconicity in syntax /
J. Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1985. P. 187-219.
Haiman J. The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomor-phism and Motivation // Language. 1980. Vol. 56. No. 3. P. 515-540.
Jakobson R. Implications of Language Univer-sals for Linguistics // Universals of Language /
J. Greenberg (ed.). Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, 1966. P. 263-278.
Kelly G.A. A Theory of Personality. The Psy-chology of Personal Constructs. N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Company, 1963.
Langacker R.W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Langacker R.W. Grammar and Conceptualiza-tion. Berlin; N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Lewis D.K. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.
MD – Macmillan Dictionary. URL: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/
YD – Your Dictionary. URL: http://www.yourdictionary.com/

Acknowledgments:  The research is financially supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 18-18-00267 at Derzhavin Tambov State University.

For citation:  Vinogradova, S. G. (2019). Composite sentence in the structure of linguistic cognition // Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki, 1, 5-11. (In Russ.).

Pages:  5-11

Back to the list



Login:
Password: