Cognitive Research Methods in Linguistics: Conceptual-Inferential Analysis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In studying language modern linguistics takes into account the users’ personality and their role as interpreters, arguing that language does not only convey a person’s knowledge of the world in one format or another, but also interprets it in a certain way. The leading role of the anthropocentric factor in linguistic research, as well as focusing on the cognitive and linguistic mechanisms of meaning construction makes the problem be discussed in the study up-to-date and significant one within the framework of the cognitive-discursive paradigm. The authors put forward an idea of conceptualinferential analysis as a new research method which can be effectively applied to language data within the framework of a cognitive study of language. The aim of this article is to substantiate the possibility of using this method in modelling the processes of interpretation and representation of world knowledge in language. The application of the method of conceptual-inferential analysis is illustrated by the example of quantitative interpretation of quality in language as a complex mental processing of quantitative-qualitative relations in the world. Based on the analysis of the linguistic means of the quantity concept representation, the article gives a deeper insight into processes of quantitative interpretation of quality, describes the repertoire of potential inferenced qualitative meanings and demonstrates their dependence on the cognitive context. In addition to the proposed method, the authors also use other research methods and techniques of conceptual analysis and conceptual-definition analysis. The evidence data (12000 examples) is retrieved from the works by modern authors. The integrated application of conceptual-inferential and conceptual-definition analysis methods reveals a high interpretive potential of quantitative meanings in representing quality in language. It also helps identify cognitive mechanisms of the quantitative-qualitative meanings construction, and to detect various types of knowledge available to an individual as an interpreter of quantitative-qualitative relations and their representation in language.

About the authors

Nikolay N. Boldyrev

Derzhavin Tambov State University

Email: boldyrev@tsutmb.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6864-9859
Scopus Author ID: 56285294400
ResearcherId: I-9854-2017

D.Sc. (Philology), Professor, Honored science worker for RF, Director of the Center For Cognitive Research

33, International Str., Tambov, Russian Federation, 392000

Elena V. Fedyaeva

Novosibirsk State Technical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: fedyaeva_lena@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8488-3511
ResearcherId: AAF-4024-2021

D.Sc. (Philology), Associate Professor, Professor of Foreign Languages Department, Humanities Faculty

20, Marx Ave., Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, 630073

References

  1. Arutyunova, N.D. (1999). The Language and the Human World. Moscow: Languages of Russian culture publ. (In Russ.).
  2. Boldyrev, N.N. (2016). Cognitive Nature of Language. Moscow-Berlin: Direkt-Media publ. (In Russ.).
  3. Boldyrev, N.N. (2019). Language and the System of Knowledge. Moscow: YaSK Publishing House. (In Russ.).
  4. Dem’yankov, V.Z. (1994). Cognitive Linguistics as a Kind of Interpretative Approach. Topics in the study of language, 4, 17–32. (In Russ.).
  5. Nikitin, M.V. (2003). The Cognitive Semantics Basics. Saint-Petersburg: A.I. Gertsen RGPU publ. (In Russ.).
  6. Pavilenis, R.I. (1983). Problem of Meaning: (Modern logical-philosophic analysis of the language). Moscow: Mysl’ publ. (In Russ.).
  7. Anderson, J. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. (In Russ.).
  8. Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 617–645.
  9. Langacker, R.W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter.
  10. Talmy, L. (2001). Toward a cognitive semantics. V. I: Concept structuring system. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: A Bradford Book. The MIT Press.
  11. Fedyaeva, E.V. (2020). Quantitative Interpretation of Quality in Language [dissertation]. Tambov. (In Russ.).
  12. Guillaume, G. (2010). The Principles of Language Theory. Moscow: LKI publ. (In Russ.).
  13. Hjelmslev, L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. URL: https://classes.ru/grammar/148. new-in-linguistics/source1/worddocuments/110.htm (accessed: 23.12.2022). (In Russ.).
  14. Kozlova, L.A. (2020). Transdisciplinarity Principle and its Application Potential. Language Culture Personalit. AltGPA publ. 11–24.
  15. Palmer, G.B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Ostin: University of Texas Press.
  16. Sharifian, F. & Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi ‘being ashamed’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8–2, 227–251.
  17. Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical framework and applications. Amsterdam: PA.
  18. Kubryakova, E.S. (2007). Conceptual Language Analysis. Moscow: Eydos publ. рр. 7–18. (In Russ.).
  19. Boldyrev, N.N. (2007). Issues of Linguistic Knowledge Research. Moscow: Eydos publ. рр. 95–108. (In Russ.).
  20. Babina, L.V. (2003). Cognitive bases of secondary phenomena in language and speech. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University publ. (In Russ.).
  21. Besedina, N.A. (2006). Concepts Transferred through Morphology. Moscow; Tambov; Belgorod: Belgorod State University publ. (In Russ.).
  22. Furs, L.A. (2004). Concepts Represented through Syntax. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University publ. (In Russ.).
  23. Magirovskaуa, O.V. (2008). The Cognition Subject Representation in Language. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University publ. (In Russ.).
  24. Dubrovskaja, O.G. (2014). Socio-cultural Specificity of Discourse: Subjective Principle of Formation. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University publ. (In Russ.).
  25. Vinogradova, S.G. (2015). Communicative Perspective of Composite Sentences: Cognitive Bases. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University publ. (In Russ.).
  26. Chomsky, N. & Bervik, R. (2018). Why only Us. Language and Evolution. Saint Petersburg: Piter publ. (In Russ.).
  27. Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the Mind. New York: Basic Books.
  28. Merkulov, I.P. (1999). Cognitive Evolution. Moscow: The Russian Political Encyclopedia publ. (In Russ.).
  29. Aristotle. (1978). Collected Woks in four Volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl’ publ. (In Russ.).
  30. Kubryakova, E.S. (2004). Language and Knowledge. On the way to knowledge about language: Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in cognition of the world. Moscow: Slavic languages publ. (In Russ.).
  31. Kubryakova, E.S. (1997). Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Linguistics of the RAN (Russian Academy of Sciences). (In Russ.).
  32. Irishanova, O.K. (2014). Focus Games in Language. Semantics, syntax, and pragmatics of defocusing. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture publ. (In Russ.).
  33. Nikitin, M.V. (1997). Course in Linguistic Semantics. Saint Petersburg: Scientific Center for Dialogue Problems publ. (In Russ.).
  34. Uemov, A.I. (1978). The Systems Approach and General Systems Theory. Moscow: Mysl’ publ. (In Russ.).
  35. Boldyrev, N.N. & Fedyaeva, E.V. (2020). Cognitive Mechanisms of The Quantitative Meaning Construction. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.20916/1812-32282020-3-5-14 (In Russ.).
  36. Aristotle. (1998). Ethics. Politics. Rhetoric. Poetics. Categories. Minsk: Literatura publ. (In Russ.).
  37. Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague. Paris: Mouton.

Copyright (c) 2023 Boldyrev N.N., Fedyaeva E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies