Oleksandr Oguy - Experience of conceptual researches in Ukraine: onomasiologic problem and its semasiologic perspective
The conceptual paradigm (with researches of concepts as fragments of the linguistic picture of the world) is actively used in Ukraine being based upon the anthropocentric-cognitive ideas of E. Bartminski, Z. Kövecses, G. Lakoff, R. Langacker, A. Wierzbicka et al., developed by N. Arutiunova, O. Bessonova, E. Kubriakova, A. Prykhodko, etc. It can be observed in Ukrainian qualifying cognitive works (theses): «HEROISM» (T.O. Shvab), «FEAR» (O. Borisov), «GLADNESS» (Y. Shamayeva), «MAN» and «WOMAN» (O. Bondarenko), the «COSSACKS» (Zapolskikh), et al., carried out with different methods (deductive lexicographic, concept-discourse analysis, etc.), as a rule, in synchrony. Some innovative researches were carried out in diachrony (T. Shvab, S. Zapolskhikh). A diachronic approach has its own advantages because it allows learning sources and dynamics of development of many linguistic phenomena in the light of changes in extra-linguistic environment. Besides, application of post-classic methods in diachrony allows considering synergy and bifurcation processes of language-mental processes.
The essence of cognitive paradigm in Ukraine can be formulated in such a way: researchers define onomasiological concept and its constituents deductively, operating with lexicographic definitions in more than four explanatory dictionaries. Then the researches try to specify the found concept (from lat. conceptum: ethno-national, non-rigid structured, «kaleidoscopic» notional category with special contents without clear scopes) through discursive approach. They usually apply, having defined communicative strategies and tactics in this discourse, a standard procedure (after the method of S. Zhabotynska/S. Vostrova) for verbalization a concept to a frame. These netlike frames as «scopes, structures of data» with no formalized procedures for their determination, allow representation of linguistic knowledge about situations. Frames contain standard copulas, knots (slots) of concepts and terminals which correlate with the denotative-significative components of meaning in principle. However a problem is that determination of frames as fragments of reality is provided by intuition. This subjectivism of frame formulation can be overcome to a certain extent by procedure of Fillmore’s semantic cases: someone (slot agent) operates (slot) on someone (slot patient) by something (slot), etc., where the proper lexical units are activated in. Our analysis of these slots certifies their field character. Frames are usually made of slots and terminals, joined in discourse, for example, HEROIC ACT or FEELING of FEAR.
All problems in defining concepts and their frames can be described as following:
(1) Unconcordances of terminologies and theoretical problems (as in standard semasiology);
(2) Methodical limitations: All analysed cognitive researches are based upon deductive introspection (i.e. subjective intuition) instead of objective empiric and formal methods;
(3) Material of analysis is unspecified (because of the vagueness of his units). Determination of concepts takes place, as a rule, on material of dictionaries, and description of frames – on text material, but their amount and quality is not certain.
(4) Deductive subjective procedure of research remains unclear. Due to our analysis of cognitive paradigm which brings cardinally new anthropocentric and mentalist prospective, there are certain elements of subjectivism while intuitional defining of concepts, their frames, its slots and terminals. Opposite – systemocentric approach, which casts aside mental processes, has its advantages in objective research methods for formal inductive defining of semantic fields (method of V. Levickyi).
Having taken into consideration the field character of frame slots we can use some formalized procedures for the determination of the concepts from semasiologic aspect.