Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

2024: Іншомовна комунікація: інноваційні та традиційні підходи. Випуск 3

CONCEPT OF THE CONTEXT POLARIZATION

DOI
https://doi.org/10.36074/ikitp.monograph-2024.04
Published
2024-08-20

Abstract

In modern linguistics there are various approaches to the study of the architectonics of texts, in particular literary texts. Within the framework of the cognitive-hermeneutic approach, a literary text is considered in the form of a conceptual sphere consisting of artistic concepts. The nominative field of an artistic concept as a nuclear-peripheral structure is a set of various nominees, including contextual markers polarization. Contextual polarization is interpreted as the opposition of phenomena described within the context and events in the artistic world. Markers of contextual polarization are understood as speech units that represent opposite semantic phenomena within a particular context.

Interpretation of the conceptual sphere of artistic text as a format of individual author’s knowledge, representing a collection of artistic concepts, some of which represent the phenomenon of contextual polarization, made it possible to substantiate the presence five types of contextual polarization constructs and introduce new terms in the scientific thesaurus: anthropocentric contextual polarization, societal contextual polarization, linguocultural contextual polarization, proxemic contextual polarization, temporal contextual polarization. The identification of five types of contextual polarization constructs became the basis for a comprehensive analysis of markers contextual polarization included in nominative fields of artistic concepts that form cognitive-hermeneutic model of the conceptual sphere of a literary text. It is noteworthy that the structure and frequency of markers of contextual polarization are determined by the writer’s intention, his idiostyle and plot-thematic contour of a piece of art.

In structure, markers of contextual polarization can be single-component or multi-component, and namely single-component and multi-component markers anthropocentric contextual polarization, social contextual polarization, linguocultural contextual polarization, proxemic contextual polarization. Markers of temporal contextual polarization represent single- and multi-nuclear markers. Among the markers of contextual polarization, there are simple and synergistic polar constructions, which are a combination of two or more types contextual polarization. In the synergistic polar constructions represented in the concept spheres of modern novels anthropocentric markers of polarization, social markers of polarization, and linguocultural markers of contextual polarization are of high-frequency. Markers of proxemic context and markers of temporal contextual polarization are less frequent ones.

References

  1. Benthem, J. (1991). The Logic of Time. A Model-Theoretic Investigation into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology and Temporal Discourse. 2-d edition. Benthem J. Springer science + Business media Dordrecht, 280 p.
  2. Birch, D. (2005). Language, literature and Critical Practice: Ways of Analysing Text. N. Y.: The Taylor and Francis e-library, 232 p.
  3. Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd Eds.). New York, NY: Routledge, Retrieved from URL: https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publications/social-const-ructionism-second-edition
  4. Collini, S. (1996). Introduction: Interpretation terminable and interminable. Interpretation and overinterpretation. Umberto Eco with Richard Porty, Jonathan Culler and Christine Brooke-Rose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Рp. 1-21.
  5. Cook, G. (1994). Discourse and Literature. Oxford University Press, 285 p.
  6. Croft, W. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 356 р.
  7. Currie, G. (2007). Work and Text. Philosophy of Literature. Contemporary and Classic Readings. An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, Pp. 98-106.
  8. Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary Theory. An Introduction. Anniversary ed. with a new preface. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 234 p.
  9. Eaton, T. (2010). Literature Semantics. Cambridge Melrose Books, 311 p.
  10. Holland, D., Quinn N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge University Press,
  11. р.
  12. Jackendoff, R. (2007). Language, consciousness, culture: essays on mental structure. Hardcover, MIT Press, 403 p.
  13. Levinson, J. (2007). Intention and Interpretation. Philosophy of Literature. Contemporary and Classic Reading. An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, Pp. 98-106.
  14. Miall, D. S. (1994). Beyond Text Theory. Understanding Literary Response. D. S. Miall, D. Kuiken Discourse Processes. Vol. 17. Pp. 337-352.
  15. Ryan, M.L. (2003). Cognitive maps and the construction of narrative space. M.L. Ryan. Narrative theory and cognitive science. Edited by David Herman. CSLI Stanford, California, Pp. 214-243.