Seacraft Names in Military Discourse
https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2021-3-1-10-26
Abstract
The article analyses the process of meaning formation of names of warships in the military discourse with the aim of identifying conceptual mechanisms which underlie the naming of seacraft. The research constitutes part of the study in the field of cognitive linguistics and fills in the gap in the studies of metaphoric potential and cultural specificities of secondary names applied to artifacts (as big as warships) in British and American tradition. The results show that of all 1200 seacraft names, 700 units are originally zoomorphic common nouns transformed into proper names of seacraft with which they “share” and sometimes even exchange some of their basic or latent semantic characteristics. It was revealed that underlying mechanisms of meaning formation in seacraft nicknames are cognitive mechanisms of conceptual metaphor, focusing and defocusing. To describe them the methods of frame analysis and cognitive metaphoric modelling are employed. Metaphor in the paper is both the object and the tool of research. To support the analysis, the information about specific features of named objects and creatures is elicited from dictionaries and language corpora.
About the Authors
E. E. Golubkova
Moscow State Linguistic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina Golubkova
Moscow
E. B. Kivileva
Moscow State Linguistic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina Kivileva
Moscow
References
1. Belyaevskaya, E. G. (2012). Frejm «politik» v angloyazychnom biograficheskom diskurse. [Frame “POLITICIAN” in the English biographical discourse] Politicheskaya lingvistika. № 2, 21 - 26. (in Russian).
2. Belyaevskaya, E. G. (2013). Konceptual’naya metafora kak istochnik stilisticheskih priemov v diskurse. [Conceptual metaphor as a source of stylistic devices in discourse] Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki, №3 (36), 41 - 48. (in Russian).
3. Belyaevskaya, E. G. (2013). Frejmy «Dejstviya» i «Deyatel’nosti» kak osnovanie klassifikacii leksicheskih edinic. [Frames of “action” and “activity” as a classification scheme for lexical units] VestnikMGLU. №20 (680), 18 - 28. (in Russian).
4. Boldyrev, N. N. (2013). Interpretacionnyj potencial konceptual’noj metafory. [Interpretational potential of conceptual metaphor] Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka: sbornik nauchnyh trudov / In V. Z. Dem’yankov (Eds.), Vyp. XV: Mekhanizmy yazykovoj kognicii, (pp. 12 - 21), Tambov. (in Russian).
5. Charniak, E. (1982). Context recognition in language comprehension. Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale (N.J.). L.: Erlbaum, 435 - 454.
6. Ermolovich, D. I. (2001). Imena sobstvennye na styke yazykov i kul ’tur. [Proper names at the intersection of languages and cultures] M.: R. Valent. (in Russian).
7. Evans, V (2010). The perceptual basis of spatial representation. In V. Evans., P. Chilton (Eds.) Language, Cognition and Space (pp. 21 - 48), London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
8. Evans, V. (2013). Metaphor, lexical concepts and figurative meaning construction. Cognitive Semiotics, 2013, Bangor University. Retrieved from https://ru.b-ok.global/book/3257061/5f5313 (accessed: 11.02.2021).
9. Feyaerts, K. (2000). Refining the Inheritance Hypothesis: Interaction between metaphoric and metonymic hierarchies. In A. Barcelona (Eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (pp. 58 - 78), Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
10. Fillmore, Ch. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech. Vol. 280, 20 - 32.
11. Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica. Vol. VI, № 2, 222 - 254.
12. Finegan, E. (2011). Language: its structure and use. USA: Cengage Learn.
13. Gal’perin, I. R. (1981). Tekst kak ob”ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya. [Text as an object of linguistic research] AN SSSR, In-t yazykoznaniya Moskva: Nauka. (in Russian).
14. Gibbs, R. W. (1996). What’s cognitive about cognitive linguistics. In E. H. Casad (Eds.). Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics. (pp. 27 - 53), Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
15. Golubkova, E. E. (2011). Korpusnye dannye pri izuchenii semantiki slovosochetanij ustojchivogo haraktera. [Corpus data in the study of semantics of set phrases] Metody kognitivnogo analiza semantiki slova. M.: RGGU, 206 - 212. (in Russian).
16. Golubkova, E. E. (2020). Korpusno-kognitivnaya lingvistika: osnovnye tendencii v razvitii nauki. [Corpus studies in cognitive linguistics] In Golubkova, E.E. (2020) Korpusno-kognitivnaya lingvistika: osnovnye tendencii v razvitii nauki. (in Russian).
17. Goossens, L. & Pauwels, P & Rudzka-Ostyn, B. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. & Vanparys, J. (1995). By Word Of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
18. Hausman, C. R. (1989). Metaphor and Art. Interactionism and Reference in the Verbal and Nonverbal Arts, Cambridge University Press NY
19. Indurkhya, B. (1992). Metaphor and Cognition: an Interactionist Approach, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ.
20. Iriskhanova, O. K. (2014). Igry fokusa v yazyke: semantika, sintaksis ipragmatika defokusirovaniya. [Focus games in language: semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing] Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskoj kul’tury. Studia philologica. (in Russian).
21. Jackendoff, R. S. (1984). Sense and reference in a psychologically based semantics. Talking minds: the study of language in cognitive science. Cambridge (Mass.), 49 - 72.
22. Kalanov, N. A. (2020). Morskaya biblioteka. [Marine library] Retrieved from http://www.kala-nov.ru/index.php?id=22 (accessed: 11 February 2021)
23. Kivileva, E. B. (2017). Mekhanizmy nominacii edinic voennoj tekhniki (na materiale nazvanij amerikanskh i britanskih korablej) [Nomination mechanisms of military equipment (based on the analysis of British and American warships’ names]: (doctoral thesis). Moskovskij gosudarstven-nyj lingvisticheskij universitet, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
24. Kovecses, Z. (2008). Conceptual metaphor theory. Some criticisms and alternative proposals. In Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 168-184. doi 10.1075/arcl.6.08kov.
25. Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
27. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 202 - 251.
28. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago; L.: U. of Chicago, xvii.
29. Leezenberg, M. (1995). Contexts of Metaphorical, Semantic and Conceptual Aspects of Figurative Language Interpretation. Amsterdam.
30. Lisov, P B. & Solodun, N. P (2014). Funkcional’nostilisticheskie i pragmaticheskie harakteris-tiki angloyazychnogo voennogo diskursa. [Functional, stylistic and pragmatic characteristics of English military discourse] Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnoj studencheskoj elektronnoj nauchnoj konferencii «Studencheskij nauchnyj forum», Moscow, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.science-forum.ru/2014/discus/543/2291 (accessed: 20 May, 2016) (in Russian).
31. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1967). The Structure of Behavior. Trans. by A. L. Fisher. Boston: Beacon Press, Middleton Murry J. Op. Cit.
32. Porokhnitskaya, L. V. (2014). Konceptual’nye osnovaniya evfemii v yazyke: na materiale angli-jskogo, nemeckogo, francuzskogo, ispanskogo i ital’yanskogo yazykov [Conceptual grounds of euphemisms in English, German, French, Spanish and Italian languages]: Avtoref. Diss. doktora filologicheskih nauk: Moskovskij gosudarstvennyj lingvisticheskij universitet. Moscow, (in Russian).
33. Rakova, M. (2003). The Extent of the Literal. Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Houndmills. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Rodina, N. A. (2014). Sovremennye detskie i molodezhnye prozvishcha: strukturno-semanticheskij i funkcional’no-dinamicheskij aspekty [Contemporary childhood and youth nicknames: structural, semantic, functional, and dynamic aspects]: dissertaciya ... kandidata filologicheskih nauk: 10.02.01 / Rodina Nadezhda Andreevna. Mesto zashchity: Baltijskom universitete im. I.Kanta. Kaliningrad. (in Russian).
35. Romanov, A. A. (2000). Imya sobstvennoe v politike: yazyk vlasti i vlast ’ yazyka. [Common nouns in politics: the language ofpower and power of the language]. Tver’: Liliya LTD. (in Russian).
36. Rosch, E. (1983). Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In E. Scholnick (Eds.). New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory (pp. 73 - 86), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Smith, N. & Hoffmann, S. & Rayson, P. (2008). Corpus Tools and Methods, Today and Tomorrow: Incorporating Linguists’ Manual Annotations. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 23 (2), 163 -180.
38. Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, v. 171, 63 - 105.
39. Suvorina, E. V (2015). Ispol’zovanie kvalimetricheskih metodov v lingvokognitivnyh issledo-vaniyah. [The use of qualimetric methods in linguistic research] Nauchnye issledovaniya: ot teorii k praktike: materialy II Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. Cheboksary, 2015. In O. N. Shirokov (Eds.). — Cheboksary: CNS «Interaktiv plyus», 219-221. (in Russian).
40. Taylor, J. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford.
Review
For citations:
Golubkova E.E., Kivileva E.B. Seacraft Names in Military Discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2021;3(1):10-26. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2021-3-1-10-26
Email this article 