logo
calendar18 Iyun 2021
view34
Main language:Russian

“TRAJECTOR/LANDMARK”AND “PROFILE/BASE” BINARY DISTINCTIONS AS THE TOOLS OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

Field of Science:
pdf

60cc3375693cc.pdf

PDF

“Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan” - Electronic Journal and Internet portal

“Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan” - Electronic Journal and Internet portal

Publish Articlesee more

ARTICLE ANNOTATION

quote
The article reviews the issues of application of binary oppositions (asymmetries) “trajector/landmark” and “profile/base” in the core areas of cognitive linguistics (cognitive grammar, cognitive semantics, cognitive stylistics). These terminological pairs are viewed as the result of development of a more general perceptual asymmetry –figure vs. ground. The basic difference between the two binary oppositions consists in the fact that “trajector/landmark” distinction is predominantly used to describe linguistic units and expressions with dynamic and spatial meanings, while “profile/base” asymmetry is mainly applied to analysing semantic structure of language items denoting static properties of objects.

AUTHORS

N.Dzhusupov

Узбекского Государственного университета мировых языков

Tags

# Матн# Текст# text# domain# когнитив стилистика# когнитивная лингвистика# cognitive grammar# домен# когнитивная стилистика# asymmetry# асимметрия# траектор/ориентир# профиль/база# бинарнаяоппозиция# когнитивная семантика# когнитивная грамматика# “траектор/ориентир”# “профиль/асос”# жуфтлик қарама-қаршилик# когнитив грамматика# когнитив семантика# trajector/landmark# profile/base# binary relations# cognitive semantics# cognitive stylistics

OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS JOURNAL

Rate Article

0
0 ratings
5
4
3
2
1

Article Identifiers

ROI:

https://eroi.uz/11.0222/A0621-0013

DOI:

Not Available

References

Ирисханова О. К. Игры фокуса в языке. Семантика, синтаксис и прагматика дефокусирования. –М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2014. –320 с.

Кубрякова Е.С. В поисках сущности языка: Когнитивные исследования / Ин-т. языкознания РАН. –М.: Знак, 2012. –208 с.

Скребцова Т. Г. Американская школа когнитивной лингвистики. –СПб.: Анатолия, 2000. –204 с.

Скребцова Т. Г. Когнитивная лингвистика: Курс лекций. –Спб.: Филологический факультет СПбГу, 2011. –256 с.

CruseA. AGlossaryofSemanticsandPragmatics. –Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2006.

EvansV., GreenM. Cognitive Linguistics. AnIntroduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2006.

EvansV. AGlossaryofCognitiveLinguistics. –Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2007.

Langacker R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Langacker R. W. A View of Linguistic Semantics // B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Topics in Сognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, 1988 (с).

Langacker R. W. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991 (a).

Langacker R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991 (b).

Stockwell P. Cognitive Poetics. An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

Talmy L. The relation of grammar to cognition // D. waltz (ed.). proc. of TINLAp-2 (Theoretical Issues in Natural Language processing). Champaign: University of Illinois, 1978.

Talmy L. How language structures space // H. L. pick, Jr., L. p. Acredolo (eds). Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application. New York; London: plenum press, 1983.

Von HoekK.Pronominal Anaphora // The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. –Pp. 890–915.