Psycholinguistic Aspects of Reproducing the Chinese Military and Political Discourse in Ukrainian

Keywords: Chinese military and political discourse, concept, concept sphere, view of the world, language, culture, reproduction means.

Abstract

The article is aimed at studying psycholinguistic issues regarding the interpretation variability and linguocultural accommodation of conceptual basis representing the determinants of the Chinese military and political discourse by the Ukrainians. The topicality is stipulated by great interest of the scientists in the fields of psycholinguistics, linguistic culturology, translation studies as to the semantic content within the view of the world displayed by ethnic groups from The Orient. The determinants of the Chinese military and political discourse (discourse, concept, concept sphere, linguistic component, extra-linguistic component) are specified in the article. The Chinese-language military-political discourse is understood as a totality of verbalized oral and written texts created in the context of the politics-oriented communication; ideographic and symbolic embodiment of the national concept sphere, which is governed by the national and culture-centric tactical and strategic vectors of the conflict-free interaction performed by communicants in the spheres of politics, economy, military-industry, international relations. The linguistic phenomena enable the Chinese military and political discourse to be actualized as well as the means of their reproduction in the Ukrainian language [replication (equivalent translation), transliteration, transcoding, descriptive translation, commentary; the communication-equal translation strategy; the redirection strategy where cultural and linguistic adaptations are applied]. The prospects of our further research are seen in the study of tactical and strategic vectors which may determine the peculiarities of reproducing the syntactic component of the discourse under study into the Ukrainian language.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arutyunova, N.D. (1990). Diskurs. Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar [Discourse. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya [in Russian].
Batsevych, F.S. (2010). Narysy z linhvistychnoi prahmatyky [Essays on linguistic pragmatics]. Lviv: PAIS [in Ukrainian].
Batsevych, F.S. (2004). Osnovy komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky [Basics of communicative linguistics]. Kyiv: Akademiia [in Ukrainian].
Bekhta, I.A. (2004). Dyskurs naratora v anhlomovnii khudozhnii prozi [Discourse of the narrator in English-language artistic prose]. Kyiv: Hramota [in Ukrainian].
Boldyrev, N.N. (2001). Kognitivnaya semantika [Cognitive semantics]. Tambov: Izd-vo Tamb. gos. un-ta [in Russian].
Wan, Xiu. (2016). Osobennosti politicheskoy kulturi Kitaya [Peculiarities of the political culture of China]. Obshchestvo. Sreda. Razvitiye – Society. Environment. Development, 3, 57–62 [in Russian].
Greimas, A.J., & Courtes, J. (1983). Semiotika. Obyasnitelnyy slovar teorii yazyka [Semiotics. Explanatory dictionary of theory of language]. Moscow [in Russian].
Zhabotinskaya, S.A. (2009). Printsipy sozdaniya onomasiologicheskikh modeley i sobytiynykh skhem v yazyke [Principles of creating onomasiological models and event schemes in the language]. Gorizonty sovremennoy lingvistiki: Traditsii i novatorstvo – The horizons of modern linguistics: Tradition and innovation, (pp. 381–401). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur [in Russian].
Zalevskaya, A.A. (2001). Psikholingvisticheskiy podkhod k probleme kontsepta [Psycholinguistic approach to the concept problem]. Metodologicheskiye problemy kognitivnoy lingvistiki – Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics. I.A. Sternin (Ed.), (pp. 36–44). Voronezh: VGU [in Russian].
Ishchenko, N.A. (2007). Voyennyy diskurs i diskursivnoye izmereniye voyny [Military Discourse and Discursive Dimension of War]. Kultura narodov Prichernomoria – Culture of the peoples of the Black Sea region, 116, 22–24 [in Russian].
Karasik, V.I. (2000). O tipakh diskursa [About types of discourse]. Yazykovaya lichnost: institutsionalnyy i personalnyy diskurs – Linguistic identity: institutional and personal discourse, (pp. 5–20). Volgograd: Peremena [in Russian].
Kont-Sponvil, A. (2012). Filosofskiy slovar [Philosophical Dictionary]. (E. Golovina, Trans). Moscow: Eterna [in Russian].
Krasnyih, V.V. (2001). Osnovyi psiholingvistiki i teorii kommunikatsii [Fundamentals of psycholinguistics and communication theory]. Moscow: ITDGK “Gnozis” [in Russian].
Kubryakova, E.S. (1991). Ob odnom fragmente kontseptualnogo analiza slova “pamyat” [Regarding a fragment of the conceptual analysis of the word “memory”]. Logicheskiy analiz yazyka. Kulturnyye kontsepty – Logical analysis of the language. Cultural concepts, (pp. 85–91). Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
Kubryakova, E.S. (2007). Predisloviye [Foreword]. Kontseptualnyy analiz yazyka: Sovremennyye napravleniya issledovaniya – Conceptual analysis of the language: Modern areas of research, (pp. 7–19). Moscow: RAN. In-t yazykoznaniya; TGU im. G.R. Derzhavina [in Russian].
Leontev, A.A. (1969). Yazyik, rech, rechevaya deyatelnost [Language, speech, speech activity]. Moscow: “Prosveschenie” [in Russian].
Leontev, A.A. (1971). Psihologicheskaya struktura znacheniya [Psychological structure of meaning]. Semanticheskaya struktura slova: psiholingv. issled – The semantic structure of the word: psycholinguistic studies. A.A. Leontev (Ed.). Moscow: Akad. nauk SSSR, In-t yazyikoznaniya [in Russian].
Martyniuk, A.P. (2011). Slovnyk osnovnykh terminiv kohnityvno-dyskursyvnoi linhvistyky [The dictionary of the main terms of cognitive-discursive linguistic studies]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina [in Ukrainian].
Maslova, V.A. (2001) Lingvokulturologiya [Linguoculturology]. Moscow: Akademiya [in Russian].
Pavilenis, R.I. (1983). Problema smysla. Sovremennyy logiko-filosofskiy analiz yazyka [The problem of meaning. Modern logical-philosophical analysis of language]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
Popova, Z.D., & Sternin, I.A. (1999). Ponyatiye kontsept v lingvisticheskikh issledovaniyakh [The notion concept in linguistic studies]. Voronezh [in Russian].
Reisberg, B.A. (2009). Sovremennyy sotsioekonomicheskiy slovar [Modern Socioeconomic Dictionary]. Moscow: INFRA-M [in Russian].
Rebrii, O., & Rebrii, I. (2018). Cistemnіst і tvorchіst u perekladі: psikholіngvіstichniy pіdkhіd [Systemic and Creative Aspects of Translation: Psycholinguistic Approach]. Psyholingvistyka – Psycholinguistics, 23(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1199186 [in Ukrainian].
Salmeri, S. (2016). Kommunikatsiya i germenevtika v ramkakh inklyuzii [Communication and hermeneutics for inclusion]. Âzyk i tekst – Language and Text, 3(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.17759/langt.2016030107 [in Russian].
Serio, P. (1999). Kak chitayut teksty vo Frantsii [How one reads texts in France]. Kvadratura smysla. Frantsuzskaya shkola analiza diskursa – Meaning quadrature. French school of discourse analysis, (pp. 14–53). Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
Tolstoy, N.I. (1989). Nekotoryye soobrazheniya o rekonstruktsii slavyanskoy dukhovnoy kultury [Some thoughts regarding the reconstruction of Slavic spiritual culture]. Slavyanskiy i balkanskiy folklor. Rekonstruktsiya drevney slavyanskoy dukhovnoy kultury: istochniki i metody – Slavic and Balkan folklore. Reconstruction of the ancient Slavic spiritual culture: sources and methods, (pp. 7–22). Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
Whorf, B.L. (1960). Otnosheniye norm povedeniya i myshleniya k yazyku [Relationship of the norms of behaviour and mind-set to language]. Novoye v lingvistike – New in Linguistics, 1, 135–168 [in Russian].
Fuko, M. (1996). Arkheologiya znaniya [Archeology of knowledge]. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr [in Russian].
Sheygal, E.I. (2004). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse]. Moscow: Gnozis [in Russian].
Budniak, D (2003). Triada: etnos, język, kultura Słowian. Kyïv: Vydavnyčyj Dim Dmytra Burago.
De Deyne S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Network and semantic properties. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.213
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main.
Hatzidaki, A. (2007). The Process of Comprehension from a Psycholinguistic Approach – Implications for Translation. Meta, 52(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/014715ar
Reitter, D. (2016). Alignment in web-based dialogue: Who aligns, and how automatic is it? Studies in big-data computational psycholinguistics. In Big Data in Cognitive Science (pp. 246–269). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315413570

Abstract views: 79
PDF Downloads: 81
Published
2019-04-18
How to Cite
Korolova, T., & Popova, O. (2019). Psycholinguistic Aspects of Reproducing the Chinese Military and Political Discourse in Ukrainian. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 25(2), 92-116. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-25-2-92-116