О высоком и низком: пространственная семантика абстрактных и конкретных существительных

Главная

Статья в Elpub

РУС ENG

Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2017; : 26-34

О высоком и низком: пространственная семантика абстрактных и конкретных существительных

Миклашевский А. А.

https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/424/4

Аннотация

Проведен анализ пространственной семантики различных категорий русских существительных, входящих в психолингвистическую базу данных; особое внимание уделяется абстрактным концептам. Выявлены различия пространственной семантики наименований физических ощущений и действий, эмоций, ментальных процессов. Полученные результаты обсуждаются с точки зрения отдельных подходов в рамках теории воплощенного познания - теории концептуальной метафоры, теории слов как социальных инструментов (WAT, Words As social Tools), нейросемантики.

Список литературы

1. Николова А. Функциональная грамматика. Способы выражения пространственных значений в русском языке // Шумен: УИ «Епископ Константин Преславски». М., 1997.

2. Яковлева Е. Фрагменты русской языковой картины мира (модели пространства, времени и восприятия). Litres, 2013.

3. Кобозева И.М. Грамматика описания пространства // Логический анализ языка. Языки пространств. М. : Языки русской культуры, 2000. С. 152-162.

4. Порядина Р.Н., Гынгазова Л.Г., Эмер Ю.А. и др. Картины русского мира: пространственные модели в языке и тексте / отв. ред. З.И. Реза нова. Томск : UFO_Plus, 2007. 384 с.

5. Dudschig C. et al. From top to bottom: spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli // Cognitive processing. 2012. Vol. 13, № 1. P. 151 Doi: 10.1007/s10339-012-0480-x.

6. Dudschig C. et al. Reading "sun" and looking up: The influence of language on saМcadic eye movements in the vertical dimension // PloS one. 2013. Vol. 8, № 2. Р. e56872. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056872.

7. Estes Z., Verges M., Barsalou L.W. Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects' typical location // Psychological Science. 2008. Vol. 19, № 2. Р. 93-97. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x.

8. Tsaregorodtseva O.V., Miklashevsky A.A. Different Languages, Same Sun, and Same Grass: Do Linguistic Stimuli Influence Attention Shifts in Russian? // Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015. Vol. 215. Р. 279-286. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.635.

9. Barsalou L.W. Perceptual symbol systems // Behavioral & Brain Sciences. 1999. № 22. Р. 577-660.

10. Barsalou L.W. et al. Concepts and meaning. L., 1993.

11. Попова Л.В. Соотношение понятий «Концепт», «Понятие», «Значение» в русле коммуникативно-когнитивной парадигмы // Омский научный вестник. 2013. № 4 (121). С. 127-131.

12. Taylor J.E.T. et al. Bow Your Head in Shame, or, Hold Your Head Up with Pride: Semantic Processing of Self-Esteem Concepts Orients Attention Vertically // PloS one. 2015. Vol. 10, № 9. Р. e0137704. Doi: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137704.

13. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press, 2008.

14. Резанова З.И., Миклашевский А. А. Моделирование образно-перцептивного компонента языковой семантики при помощи психолингвистической базы данных // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2016. № 5 (43). С. 71-92. Doi: 10.17223/19986645/43/6.

15. Lynott D., Connell L. Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties // Behavior Research Methods. 2009. Vol. 41, № 2. Р. 558-564. Doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.2.558.

16. Moreno-Martinez F.J., Montoro P.R., Rodriguez-Rojo I.C. Spanish norms for age of acquisition, concept familiarity, lexical frequency, manipula-bility, typicality, and other variables for 820 words from 14 living/nonliving concepts // Behavior research methods. 2014. Vol. 46, № 4. Р. 10881097. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0435-x.

17. Barca L., Burani C., Arduino L.S. Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns // Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2002. Vol. 34, № 3. Р. 424-434. Doi: 10.3758/BF03195471.

18. Schroder A. et al. German norms for semantic typicality, age of acquisition, and concept familiarity // Behavior research methods. 2012. Vol. 44, № 2. Р. 380-394. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0164-y.

19. Колбенева М.Г., Александров Ю.И. Органы чувств, эмоции и прилагательные русского языка: лингво-психологический словарь / Ин-т психологии РАН. М. : Языки славянских культур, 2010. 368 с.

20. Akinina Y. et al. Russian normative data for 375 action pictures and verbs // Behavior research methods. 2015. Vol. 47, № 3. Р. 691-707. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0492-9.

21. Tsaparina D., Bonin P., Meot A. Russian norms for name agreement, image agreement for the colorized version of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures and age of acquisition, conceptual familiarity, and imageability scores for modal object names // Behavior Research Methods. 2011. Vol. 43, № 4. Р. 1085-1099. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0121-9.

22. Grigoriev A., Oshhepkov I. Objective age of acquisition norms for a set of 286 words in Russian: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables // Behavior research methods. 2013. Vol. 45, № 4. Р. 1208-1217. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0319-0.

23. Borghi A.M., Binkofski F. Words As social Tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. Berlin ; New York, NY : Springer, 2014.

24. Borghi A.M., Zarcone E. Grounding abstractness: Abstract concepts and the activation of the mouth // Frontiers in Psychology. 2016. Vol. 7. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01498.

25. Vigliocco G. et al. Toward a theory of semantic representation // Language and Cognition. 2009. Vol. 1, № 2. Р. 219-247. Doi: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.011.

26. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

27. PulvermUller F. Meaning and the brain: The neurosemantics of referential, interactive, and combinatorial knowledge // Journal of Neurolinguis-tics. 2012. № 25 (5). Р. 423-459. Doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.03.004.

28. Myachykov A. et al. TEST: a tropic, embodied, and situated theory of cognition // Topics in cognitive science. 2014. Vol. 6, № 3. Р. 442-460. Doi: 10.1111/tops.12024.

29. PulvermUller F. How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2013. Vol. 17, № 9. Р. 458-470. Doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004.

Tomsk State University Journal. 2017; : 26-34

About the high and the low: spatial semantics of abstract and concrete nouns

Miklashevsky A. A.

https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/424/4

Abstract

Aim and material: In the present study, the data of the rating study presented earlier, where participants estimated the position of an object or phenomenon in vertical space by using the seven-point Likert scale, are used in order to systematically describe spatial information included in language units of different semantic categories. Background: The role of spatial semantics in language understanding is assumed by modern cognition theories and confirmed in experimental studies. Hypotheses: Based on conceptual metaphor theory, a number of hypotheses are proposed in the present study: different semantic categories of nouns (e.g., tools vs. animals vs. emotions etc.) should significantly differ in their spatial semantics as well; different semantic categories of abstract nouns (e.g., mental states vs. emotions vs. physical sensations) should also differ in their spatial semantics, as the latter is included in their conceptual structure; mental states and phenomena (e.g., imagination, thought or memory) should have higher values (i.e., be located higher in the virtual subjective space) than any other abstract concepts; emotional concepts (e.g., love, disgust or happiness) should be located higher than physical sensations (e.g., pain or softness); positive emotions (like joy or euphoria) should be located higher than negative ones (like feeling of guilt or disappointment). Methods: Statistical methods (parametric and non-parametric ones) are used in order to test the hypotheses. As additional cross-testing methods corpora data and expert assessment are included. Results: The results of the study confirmed all the hypotheses. A number of additional regularities were revealed: in general, abstract concepts get higher values on a scale, i.e., are located higher in the virtual subjective space than concrete ones; tool concepts are related more to the lower space, unlike sound concepts that are related to higher space. No difference was found between action concepts (like attack or running) and physical sensations. Discussion: The results obtained can also be explained in terms of other theories within the embodied cognition framework, as it is discussed in the conclusion (words as social tools by A. Borghi and F. Binkofski; ideas by G. Vigliocco and neurosemantic approach by F. PulvermUller). The need in an integrative model and larger studies with other semantic categories is underlined.

References

1. Nikolova A. Funktsional'naya grammatika. Sposoby vyrazheniya prostranstvennykh znachenii v russkom yazyke // Shumen: UI «Episkop Konstantin Preslavski». M., 1997.

2. Yakovleva E. Fragmenty russkoi yazykovoi kartiny mira (modeli prostranstva, vremeni i vospriyatiya). Litres, 2013.

3. Kobozeva I.M. Grammatika opisaniya prostranstva // Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Yazyki prostranstv. M. : Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, 2000. S. 152-162.

4. Poryadina R.N., Gyngazova L.G., Emer Yu.A. i dr. Kartiny russkogo mira: prostranstvennye modeli v yazyke i tekste / otv. red. Z.I. Reza nova. Tomsk : UFO_Plus, 2007. 384 s.

5. Dudschig C. et al. From top to bottom: spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli // Cognitive processing. 2012. Vol. 13, № 1. P. 151 Doi: 10.1007/s10339-012-0480-x.

6. Dudschig C. et al. Reading "sun" and looking up: The influence of language on saMcadic eye movements in the vertical dimension // PloS one. 2013. Vol. 8, № 2. R. e56872. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056872.

7. Estes Z., Verges M., Barsalou L.W. Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects' typical location // Psychological Science. 2008. Vol. 19, № 2. R. 93-97. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x.

9. Barsalou L.W. Perceptual symbol systems // Behavioral & Brain Sciences. 1999. № 22. R. 577-660.

10. Barsalou L.W. et al. Concepts and meaning. L., 1993.

11. Popova L.V. Sootnoshenie ponyatii «Kontsept», «Ponyatie», «Znachenie» v rusle kommunikativno-kognitivnoi paradigmy // Omskii nauchnyi vestnik. 2013. № 4 (121). S. 127-131.

12. Taylor J.E.T. et al. Bow Your Head in Shame, or, Hold Your Head Up with Pride: Semantic Processing of Self-Esteem Concepts Orients Attention Vertically // PloS one. 2015. Vol. 10, № 9. R. e0137704. Doi: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137704.

13. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press, 2008.

14. Rezanova Z.I., Miklashevskii A. A. Modelirovanie obrazno-pertseptivnogo komponenta yazykovoi semantiki pri pomoshchi psikholingvisticheskoi bazy dannykh // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya. 2016. № 5 (43). S. 71-92. Doi: 10.17223/19986645/43/6.

15. Lynott D., Connell L. Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties // Behavior Research Methods. 2009. Vol. 41, № 2. R. 558-564. Doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.2.558.

17. Barca L., Burani C., Arduino L.S. Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns // Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2002. Vol. 34, № 3. R. 424-434. Doi: 10.3758/BF03195471.

18. Schroder A. et al. German norms for semantic typicality, age of acquisition, and concept familiarity // Behavior research methods. 2012. Vol. 44, № 2. R. 380-394. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0164-y.

19. Kolbeneva M.G., Aleksandrov Yu.I. Organy chuvstv, emotsii i prilagatel'nye russkogo yazyka: lingvo-psikhologicheskii slovar' / In-t psikhologii RAN. M. : Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur, 2010. 368 s.

20. Akinina Y. et al. Russian normative data for 375 action pictures and verbs // Behavior research methods. 2015. Vol. 47, № 3. R. 691-707. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0492-9.

23. Borghi A.M., Binkofski F. Words As social Tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. Berlin ; New York, NY : Springer, 2014.

24. Borghi A.M., Zarcone E. Grounding abstractness: Abstract concepts and the activation of the mouth // Frontiers in Psychology. 2016. Vol. 7. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01498.

25. Vigliocco G. et al. Toward a theory of semantic representation // Language and Cognition. 2009. Vol. 1, № 2. R. 219-247. Doi: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.011.

26. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

27. PulvermUller F. Meaning and the brain: The neurosemantics of referential, interactive, and combinatorial knowledge // Journal of Neurolinguis-tics. 2012. № 25 (5). R. 423-459. Doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.03.004.

28. Myachykov A. et al. TEST: a tropic, embodied, and situated theory of cognition // Topics in cognitive science. 2014. Vol. 6, № 3. R. 442-460. Doi: 10.1111/tops.12024.

29. PulvermUller F. How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2013. Vol. 17, № 9. R. 458-470. Doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004.

О высоком и низком: пространственная семантика абстрактных и конкретных существительных

Аннотация

About the high and the low: spatial semantics of abstract and concrete nouns

Abstract

События