Psycholinguistic Preconditions of Gradation Functioning in the Individual World Picture
Aim of the research. To describe objective and subjective factors of language semantic interpretation of gradation thinking content (psychological and linguistic aspects in gradation semantics).
Research methods. The article describes the foundations of distinguishing functional and semantic gradation category in the Ukrainian language which is reflected in the units of different levels. The linguistic cognitive character of the investigation is proved within these notions, as one of the principle tasks of the work is to determine mental anthropocentric and psychological factors of emerging gradation utterances in the Ukrainian language, which demonstrate the unity of linguistics and psychology, language and speech. The methodology consisted in comparing the materials of gradation in different levels, carrying out hypothetic modeling of the gradation scale on the basis of functioning gradation verbal markers, determining psychological foundations for gradation functioning in the individual picture of the world. The interaction of the objective (conceptual world of the gradated O) and the subjective (emotional and intellectual sphere of the gradator S) worlds creates the gradation fragment in a language, its orientation concerning the gradation dimension (O – object, S – subject of gradation).
Results. The investigation of the motivation, semantic accentuation and communicators character, i.e. the inner world of the speaker and listener, text author and reader, enabled to code and decode the information given in the text. For decoding we identified the gradation units and explicated them on the sentence (text) level, distinguished pragmatic structures with redundant information. Thus the problem of certain stereotypes as the norm of environment perception, deviations from the norm was partially solved and the possibilities of reconstructing the quality characteristics of the language world picture were expanded.
Conclusion. The choice of the verbal implementation for gradation category is carried out by the author of the communication act, it is subordinated to particular psychological regularities, which are general for human language but mentally individual concerning the communicator personality and individual language picture of the world.
Andrukhovych, Yu. (1999). Dezoriientatsiia na mistsevosti: Sproby [Disorientation on the place: Attempts]. Ivano-Frankivsk: «Lileia – NV» [in Ukrainian].
Baranov, V. (2013). Smert po-bilomu [Death in white colour]. Kyiv: Yaroslaviv Val [in Ukrainian].
Vygotskiy, L.S. (1982). Myshleniye i rech [Thinking and speech] (Vols. 1–2), (Vols. 2, pp. 162–168). Moscow: Pedagogika [in Russian].
Volf, Ye. M. (2002). Funktsionalnaya semantika otsenki [Functional semantics of assessment] (2nd ed., rev.). Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].
Hutsalo, Ye.P. (2007). Mentalnist ordy [Horde mentality]. Kyiv: Vyd. Dim «KM Academiia» [in Ukrainian].
Davydov, V.V. (1986). Problemy razvivayushchego obucheniya [Problems 0f developmental learning]. Moscow: Pedagogy [in Russian].
Zhuravlev, Y.V., & Zhuravleva, Yu.V. (2017). K postroenyiu kommunykatyvnoi modely rechevoho protsessa: metodolohycheskye problemы [Building a communicative Model of Verbal Process: Methodological Problems]. Voprosы psykholynhvystyky – Journal of Psycholinguistics, 3(33), 48–61 [in Russian].
Zabuzhko, O. (2004). Sestro, sestro: Povisti ta opovidannia [Sister, sister: Narratives and short stories]. Kyiv: Fakt [in Ukrainain].
Zasiekin, S., & Rozenhart, Yu. (2018). Psykholinhvistychni kompiuterni instrumenty linhvistychnoho ta perekladoznavchoho analizu dyskursu [Psycholinguistic Computerized Tools of Linguistic and Translation Studies Discourse Analysis]. Psykholinhvistyka – Psycholinguistics, 23(2), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1204994 [in Ukrainian].
Katsnel’son, S.D. (1972). Tipologiya yazyka I rechevoye myshleniye [Typology of language and speech thinking]. Leningrad: Nauka [in Russian].
Kokotyukha, A. (2006). Temna voda [Dark water]. Kyiv: Nora-press [in Ukrainain].
Marchuk, L. (2007). Funktsionalno-semantychnyi aspekt hradatsii v ukrainskii movi [The functional and semantic aspect of gradation in the Ukrainian]. Kamianets-Podilskyi: Aksioma [in Ukrainain].
Matios, M. (2007). Zhinochyi arkan u sadu neterpinnia: poezii [Woman lasso in the garden of impatience: poetry]. Lviv: Piramida [in Ukrainian].
Mushketyk, Yu. (2003). Khto i yak vyhrav druhu svitovu viinu [Who and when won the Second World War]. Neopalyma kupyna – Unburnt tussok, 2, 48 [in Ukrainian].
Petrenko, V.F. (1988). Psihosemantika soznaniya [Psychosemantics of consciousness]. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU [in Russian].
Piazhe, Zh. (1969). Izbrannyye psichologicheskiye trudy. Psikhologiya intellekta. Genesis chisla u rebenka. Logika ipsikhologiya [Selected psychological works. Psychology of the intellect. The genesis of the number of the child. Logic and psychology]. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye [in Russian].
Protsiuk, S. (2004). Totem [Totem]. Kurier Kryvbasu – The courier of Kryvbas, 17, 34–95 [in Ukrainian].
Rarytskyi, O. (2018). Volodymyr Svidzinskyi i shistdesiatnyky: konteksty osiahannia problemy [Volodymyr Svidzinskyi and the sixties: the context of understanding the problem]. Slovo i chas – The Word and time, 10, 34–47 [in Ukrainain].
Taran, L.O. (2007). Opovidannia [Short stories]. Novochasna literature – Modern literature, 1, 130–230 [in Ukrainian].
Hjelle, L., & Ziegler, D. (2000). Teorii lichnosti [Personality theories]. Saint Petersburg; Moscow; Kharkov; Minsk: [b.m.] [in Russian].
Tsintsiruk, A. (2017). Kolo Elu [Near Ell]. Kharkiv: Klub simeinoho dozvillia [in Ukrainian].
Juhasz, B.J., Lai, Y.-H., & Woodcock, M.L. (2015). A database of 629 English compound words: ratings of familiarity, lexeme meaning dominance, semantic transparency, age of acquisition, imageability, and sensory experience. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0523-6
Keuleers, E., & Balota, D.A. (2015). Megastudies, crowdsourcing, and large datasets in psycholinguis-tics: An overview of recent developments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1051065
Maslow, A.H. (1971). Toward a humanistic biology. American Psychologist, 24, 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027859
Neuman, Yalr, Neuman, Yiftach, & Cohen, Yochai. (2017). A Novel Procedure for Measuring Semantic Synergy. Journal Complexity, 14, 8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5785617
Turney, P.D., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016261
Abstract views: 159 PDF Downloads: 134
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.