Fundamental cognitive-semantic theories in linguistics
Palabras clave:linguistic theory, cognitive semantics, cognitive linguistics, concepts, categorization, frames, semantic fields, prototypes, metaphor.
The article studies fundamental cognitive-semantic theories (Langacker, Lakoff, Fillmore, Croft) used in linguistics. The paper shows the use of ideas that can change the educational system with the aim of improving the teaching of linguistic disciplines in higher education. The relevance of the study is to improve the education quality for linguistics specialists and the possibility of implementing the study results to improve the teaching methodology. Particular focus is on the theories, tools, and methods of teaching foreign languages, which are essential components of quality learning and the formation of knowledge and skills among students of linguistic specialties. The study aims to systematize the theoretical foundations and directions of the cognitive-semantic theory in linguistics to determine the relevance of teaching this theory to the educational process. In the course of the study, general scientific methods of knowledge are applied, in particular analysis and synthesis of theoretical and practical information, as well as methods of questioning and statistical methods of analysis. The hypothesis of the study: the system of basic theoretical innovations used in the complex of cognitive-semantic theories is effective in the field of humanities research. It is an effective tool in the learning process in process of learning foreign languages. The result of the study is to determine the need to study theories of linguistics, which represent effective directions in the postmodern mainstream. The article shows the place of cognitive-semantic theories in the modern practice of teaching foreign languages. The study’s practical significance lies in the possibility of applying the results in constructing foreign language learning methodologies in higher education institutions.
Croft, W. (2015). Functional Approaches to Grammar. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 470‒475. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53009-8
Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York: Cambridge, 301 p.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University Of Chicago Press, 271 p.
Hapsari, P. D., & Wirawan, F. (2018). The Significant Connection between Communicative Competence and Cognitive Ability in Speaking English of English Debating Team. Humaniora, 9 (2), 149‒159. https://doi.org/10.21512/humaniora.v9i2.4492
Fillmore, C., Kay, J., & O’Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.
Findik, C., & Ozkan, S. (2013). A model for instructors’ adoption of learning management systems: Empirical validation in higher education context. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 13–25. Retrieved from URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1015409
Fried, M. (2010). Constructions and Frames as Interpretive Clues. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 83–102.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Malone, A., Seethaler, P., & Craddock, C. (2019). The Role of Cognitive Processes in Treating Mathematics Learning Difficulties Mathematical Cognition and Learning. Cognitive Foundations for Improving Mathematical Learning, 5, 295‒320. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815952-1.00012-8
Kharytonov, E., Kharytonova, O., Kolodin, D., Tkalych, M., Larkin, M., Tolmachevska, Y., Rojas-Bahamon, M. J., Arbeláez-Campillo, D. F., & Panchenko, O. I. (2021). Distance learning in the conditions of Covid-19: problems and prospects of their solution. Amazonia Investiga, 10(48), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.48.12.17
Kiki-Papadakis, K., & Chaimala, F. (2016). The Embedment of Responsible Research and Innovation Aspects in European Science Curricula. Romanian Magazine for Multidimensional Education [Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala], 8 (2), 71‒87. http://dx.doi.org/10.18662/rrem/2016.0802.06
Ko, J., Sammons, P., & Bakkum, L. (2013). Effective Teaching: a review of research and evidence. CfBT Education Trust. Oxford University Department of Education. Retrieved from URL: http://cdn.cfbt.com/~/media/cfbtcorporate/files/research/2013/reffective-teaching-2013.pdf
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and thought, Cambridge, 245 p.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 405 р.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 427 р. URL: https://www.academia.edu/7454705/Langackers_Cognitive_Grammar_chapter_The_Bloomsbury_Companion_to_Cognitive_Linguistics
Lemmens, M. (2015). Cognitive semantics. Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London & New York: Routledge, 90‒105.
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 389 р. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609
Molchan, A., Frantsisko, O., Ternavshchenko, K., Ostaev, G., Tinyakova, V., & Markovina, E. (2020). Optimization of interaction of agrarian entities as an imperative of ensuring food security of the state. Amazonia Investiga, 9(26), 244-253. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.26.02.28
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 256 р.
Sytar, H. (2015). Construction grammar as theoretical background of the study of phraseologized sentence. Typology and functions of language units, 2(4), 192‒205. https://evnuir.vnu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/7092/1/192-205.pdf
Takimoto, M. (2020). Investigating the effects of cognitive linguistic approach in developing EFL learners’ pragmatic proficiency. System, 89, 102213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102213
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 384 р. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823‒1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
Tomasello, M. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development, 10, 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(95)90021-7
Vykhrushch, A. V., Hnatyshyn, S. I., Klymenko, A. O., Medynska, O. Y., Synorub, H. P., & Horpinich, T. I. (2019). Development of information culture of students of humanitarian specialities. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 72(4), 152‒167. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v72i4.2922
Derechos de autor 2022 Nataliia Mushyrovska, Inna Kholod , Oksana Neher, Iryna Zozulia, Iryna Pavliuk
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.