EVALUATIVE DYNAMICS OF CONCEPTUAL FIELD TURKEY IN RUSSIAN MEDIA DISCOURSE OF THE 2010TH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32589/2311-0821.1.2018.135668Keywords:
evaluative dynamics, concept, conceptual field TURKEY, media discourse, conceptualization, subconceptsAbstract
Introduction. The paper focuses on the problem of linguistic realisation of the
conceptual field TURKEY in Russian media discourse. Topicality of the research is determined
by the necessity of revealing the mechanism, which would explain the ways of verbalization
of the dynamics of conceptual field TURKEY taking place in cognitive structure of the text.
Purpose. The paper aims at working out the structure of conceptual field TURKEY
and illustrating its estimated dynamics grounded on the ways of this concept verbalization
in Russian media texts of 2010th.
Methods. The investigation is made provided the method of conceptual analysis and
the methods of componential analysis as well.
Results. Analyzing the evaluative dynamics of conceptual field TURKEY in Russian
media discourse gave the reason for structuring this concept, describing its nuclear and ways
of its interconnection with other concepts. Thus, the evaluative dynamics of this conceptual
field in Russian media discourse of 2010th is presented in the paper.
Conclusions. Dynamics of conceptual field TURKEY is a complex system, which is
grounded on the interconnection of nuclear concept TURKEYwith other concepts ofAGRESSION,
for instance: CONFLICT, ANMITY, POLITICS, WAR, etc. Depended on the concept which may
dominate at this or that situation, evaluative meaning of the concept TURKEY or its subconcepts
may also change.
References
Баранов, А. Н. и Добровольский, Д. О. (2008). Аспекты теории фразеологии. Москва: Знак.
Вежбицкая, А. (2001). Лексикография и концептуальный анализ. Москва: Языки русской культуры.
Гришина, О. А. (2004). Актуализация концепта АМЕРИКА в современном русском языке: на материале публицистических текстов. (Дис. канд. филол. наук). Кемерово.
Евгеньева, А. П. (Ред.). (1981). Словарь русского языка. (Т. 1). Москва: Рус. яз.
Керимов, Р. Д. (2013). Лингвокогнитивные аспекты изучения немецкой политической метафоры. Языковая картина мира. Гуманитарный вектор. 4 (36), 155-164.
Куданкина, О. А. (2005). Актуализация концепта ГЕРМАНИЯ в российской публицистике. (Дис. канд. филол. наук). Архангельск.
Ожегов, С. И. и Шведова, Н. Ю. (1999). Толковый словарь русского языка. Москва: Азбуковник.
Орлова, О. Г. (2013). Дискурсивная теория стереотипа. (Автореф. дис. докт. филол. наук). Кемерово.
Пименова, М. В. (2011). Концептуальные исследования и национальная ментальность. Языковая картина мира. Гуманитарный вектор. 4 (28). 126-132.
Снитко, Т. Н. (1999). Предельные понятия в Западной и Восточной лингвокультурах. Пятигорск: Пятиг. гос. лингв. ун-т.
Сорокин, Ю. С. (Ред.). (1984). Словарь русского языка XVIII в. (Вып. 1.) Ленинград: Наука, Ленингр. отд-ние.
Стернин, И. А. (2002). Коммуникативное и когнитивное сознание. С любовью к языку. (с. 44-51). Воронеж: Воронеж. гос. ун-т.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
1. Authors take full responsibility for the content of the articles as well as the fact of their publication.2. All the authors must follow the current requirements for publication of manuscripts. Plagiarism itself and its representation as the original work as well as submission to the editorial office previously published articles are unacceptable. In case of plagiarism discovery the authors of the submitted materials take all the responsibility.
3. Authors shall inform the editor of any possible conflict of interests which could be influenced by the publication of the manuscript results.
4. The editorial board has the right to refuse publication of an article in case of non-compliance with these requirements.
