TO THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENTIATION OF NOTIONS IN MODERN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
TO THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENTIATION OF NOTIONS IN MODERN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
E.I. Trubayeva
Candidate of philological science, Belgorod State University
Annotation
The article deals with the peculiarities of differentiation of such notions as “frame”, “concept”, “script”, “slot” in cognitive linguistics. The analysis reveals that the storage and possibility of using of information are caused by the frame language structures representing a kind of «narration concentrates», the contexts of encyclopedic type expressing the maximum knowledge of a situation, presented in the symbolical coding on the certain basis. So the interpretation and verification of the axiological bases of frames may contribute to better understanding of any fiction.
Key words: concept, frame structure, coding, slot.
Ключевые слова: концепт, фреймовая структура, кодирование, слот.
At the end of the XX century linguistics has gained the nature of a metadiscipline. Methods of linguistics are widely used not only in sciences of a humanitarian cycle: philosophies, psychology, cultural science, but also in natural, and also in the exact sciences. So the scientists who work within the corresponding directions, enrich linguistics, expanding possibilities of the researchers in the sphere of the analysis of the text. In particular, cognitive science was affected, first of all, by works of the programmers, who study the problem of artificial intelligence. Linguistics operating in the analysis of the text with concepts, symbols and signs, has also accepted such terms as frame, script, slot and topic.
In this regard invaluable contribution to cognitive linguistics was made by the scientists developing the artificial intelligence direction. The term "frame" was offered by M.Minski in his work «Frames for representation of knowledge». According to the author, any "intelligent" behavior of any artificial system demands the existence of a specially organized model of the world within it: «The knowledge must be embodied in some form of mechanism, data-structure, or other representation» (Minsky 1991: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/-SymbolicVs.Connectionist.html). Knowledge in a frame is stored in the substructures, therefore represented in «stereotypic situations».
Linguists have started paying special attention to the development of the semantic and semiotics directions. M.Minski's terms — frame, slot, script, a semantic network, transframe, a frame picture — have received the second life in cognitive linguistics. T.A.Van Deyk , for example, writes about cognitive frames, using which as the conceptual devices, cognitology should «offer an explanation of our ability to make and understand speech acts, and also to "influence" this understanding» (Deyk 1989: 13).
Short, but the exact review of the term "frame" in modern cognitive science was presented by V.Z.Demyankov in «The short dictionary of cognitive terms». The scientist doesn't give the definition of "frame", but naturally refers to other researchers arguing (J. Hayes, L. Flower) that this term "frame" is at the same time a set of assumptions of formal language using for expressing knowledge (Demyankov 1996: 187).
I.A.Sternin considers frame to be a Gestalt version – the functional structure of a complex type combining sensual and rational, dealing with mixed type of coding information (Sternin 2000: 57).
We share U.Eco's point of view on a frame problem where frame is described as the representation of «encyclopedic knowledge» of a situation in special structures where all the components are connected among themselves. U.Eco comes to a conclusion that frame, thus, is «already potential text or a narration concentrate», but specifies that «the same it is possible to tell and about the separate sememe presented in the encyclopedia» (Eko 2005: 42).
The majority of the scientists developing the theory of frames, agree that it is very difficult, and sometimes even impossible for the recipients of information to isolate the correct word meaning in a peculiar information vacuum — out of access to a context of encyclopedic type, to all knowledge relating to this word. Ability of decoding, on the one hand, is caused by social factors, and, on the other, - by specific features of the recipients' perception of the situation. The frames, thus, represent a coherent structure of the interconnected concepts.
We define the term “frame” as a structure of data which serves for representation of the stereotypic situations, organized round a certain concept. The numbers of different frames, in our opinion, are crossed, and updating of this or that concept depends on the focus of attention of the subject.
The frame is set by TOPIC which the western linguists define as text «aboutness» (Beghtol 1986, Campbell 2000). «In themselves, thematic progression and semantic progression tell us nothing about the topic of a text as a whole. A distinction can be drawn between the extentional aboutness of a text and its intentional aboutness. The former is defined by the topics of component parts of a text, topics of its paragraphs, sections, chapters, etc. The latter is the topic of the text as a whole, representing something more than the topics of its parts» (Hutchins 1977: 25).
Any frame, as it was stated, consists of SLOTS. The term "slot", as well as "frame", was taken from the sphere of researches on artificial intelligence. It is supposed that frame as the structure representing knowledge, stores information units in cells — slots.
We accept the definition of slot as cells based on a maximum of grammatical categories. In this case, in our opinion, the frame represents the maximum volume of knowledge of a situation which is expressed, first of all, lexically and is connected in an associative and grammatical way. All set of frames, thus, we began to understand as a language picture of the world.
Any frame can be expressed in various SCRIPTS. Unlike frame structures, «the script shows frame development in time» (Baranov 2001: 18). The script, thus, represents a frame option. It is momentary, that is its updating depends on decisions which are accepted by the recipient, choosing a relevant topic, and also from features of a conceptual paradigm of the recipient.
The script, in our opinion, is structured as a plot from slots of the general and this frame depending on the topics chosen by the recipient/reader.
We accept the definition of script as one of possible options of realization of a frame structure, representing this or that CONCEPT.
I.A.Sternin notes a dynamic role of concepts which «incorporates to other concepts and makes a start from them» (Sternin 2000: 58). V.I.Karasik allocates such type as a lingvocultural concept considering that it has a brightly expressed axiological component, especially significant for the individuals and society (Karasik 2001: 77).
In our opinion, the formation of concept in a frame structure occurs as follows: for the first time the perceived phenomenon is designated by a word, but also other words which were used at its description, form, in our terminology, a connotative loop round a concept kernel.
Thus, we define the term «concept» as semantic capacity of a notion with its connotative loop, that is the "checked" experience of a certain cultural group concerning this notion, fixed in the dictionary, and personal experience. The manifestation of this or that concept in a frame depends on the focus of attention of the subject.
The concepts which are based on the axiological grounds, make the IDEAL FRAME. Changing value components in slots of this type of frame, changing the developed stereotypic scripts, it is possible to change all axiological background of a subject/recipient/reader.
In our opinion, the analysis of considered above terms, will lead to correct research of such phenomena, as text potential, its polysemy and game structure.
Literature
1. Hutchins, W.J. On the Problem of 'Aboutness' in Document Analysis//Journal of Informatics, vol.1, no.1, April 1977, pp.17-35.
2. Minsky, M./M. Minsky//The Emotion Machine. - 2005. - http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/eb8.html
3. Baranov, A.N. Introduction to applied linguistics. M: Editorial of URSS, 2001.- 123 p.
4. Van Deyk, T.A. Language. Knowledge. Communication. - M: Progress, 1989. - 312 p.
5. Demyankov, V. Z. Frame//Short dictionary of cognitive terms / Kubryakova E.S., Demyankov V. Z., Pankraz Yu.G., Luzin L.G. - M: Philological faculty of the Moscow State University, 1996.- P. 187-189.
6. Karasik, V.I./V.I.Karasik //Lingvocultural concept as a research unit//Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics. -Voronezh: 2001. – P. 75 — 79.
7. Sternin, I.A. Concepts and lacunas//Language consciousness: formation and functioning. M, 2000.- P. 55-67.
8. Eco, At. / U.Eco//Role of the reader. Researches on text semiotics. -St. Petersburg: "Symposium", 2005. - 502 p.