Why information technology needs linguists?
Good day! This article is the result of my woeful thoughts about the role of modern philology in the age of commerce and information technology. My intuition persistently whispers that language research can now be more useful than ever. The sad reality is demonstrated by all the new faces among the unemployed candidates of the philological sciences. In this regard, I want to offer one idea to community members and ask them to evaluate it in terms of realism, viability and utility.
The idea is to practically use the very popular now concept analysis. I see the practical application of field descriptions of concepts, firstly, in using it in the site promotion system, forecasting possible search queries, forming the corresponding text content of a web resource. Secondly, it can become a scientific basis for creating names with an optimal associative background, including those adapted for different cultures (in cases of international use). Thirdly, it can help designers who work mainly with concepts (essentially concepts) expressed in specific images. The following briefly describes what concept is in linguistics and how its fields are described.
In recent years, a trend called cognitive linguistics has become popular in philology. One of the main subjects of the study of cognitive linguistics is concepts. A concept is “a certain idea of ​​a fragment of the world or a part of such a fragment, which has a complex structure, expressed by different groups of features, implemented by various language methods and means. The conceptual attribute is objectified in the fixed and free forms of combinations of the corresponding linguistic units - the representatives of the concept. The concept reflects the categorical and value characteristics of knowledge about some fragments of the world. In the structure of the concept, signs that are functionally significant for the corresponding culture are displayed "(Pimenova MV Introduction to cognitive linguistics. - Kemerovo, 2004). The structure of the concept content includes the literal meaning (internal form), the passive, historical layer, the newest, current and active layer, evolutionary semiotic series of concepts, images, associations. A concept may or may not have a name, but it is always verbalized in linguistic units.
')
Verbalization - verbal display of concept content. Representing the concept as a field, emit nuclear, near-nuclear zones, zones of near and far periphery. The nuclear zone includes units that call a concept, and those around the nucleus that characterize it. By the near and far periphery are the words and expressions, respectively, more and less closely related to the concept in meaning. Here is a fragment of the analysis of the concept “House” in Russian and German.
The structure of the concept “House” in the Russian and German concept spheres is represented by a set of microfields of the first stage: “Residence”, “Building, structure”, “People living together”, “Establishment”, “Homeland”, “Rod, Dynasty”, “Outbreak” , each of which, in turn, also has a field structure and incorporates various components, designated by us as the microfields of the second and subsequent steps. The content of these microfields is most fully represented in Russian and German with the help of lexical means of language representation, which are located in varying degrees of distance from the core and the core zone of the concept being studied, forming fragments of its near and far periphery.
The dominant and most extensive microfield of the “House” concept is the first-level microfield “Dwelling”, consisting of four microfields of the second degree: “Elements of the internal space (types of rooms)”, “Parts (borders) of a residential house”, “Home decoration”, “Environment” space". The lexical means of representing the microfield “Types of rooms” and, therefore, the near periphery of the concept “House” are the key lexeme Room (das Zimmer, der Raum) and its text synonyms: Svetelka, Gornitsa (die Stube), as well as lexemes that call premises on their functional grounds in a residential building: Hall (das Vorzimmer, die Diele); Corridor (der Flur); Kitchen (die Kuche); Living room (das Gastzimmer, das Wohnzimmer); Children's (das Kinderzimmer), etc. The periphery of the concept “House” is explicated by lexemes that call the “borders” of the house: Door (die Teig); Window (das fenster); Threshold (die (Tiir) schwelle); Roof (das dach); Gender (der Boden, der Fufiboden), etc., which carry the semantic components “locus of space”, “element (part) of the house”, “protective function”, “connection between the inner and outer world”.
The microfield "Dwelling" is also represented by lexemes with the common semey "furniture": Table (der Tisch), Chair (der Stuhl), Armchair (der Sessel); “Interior details”: Carpet (der Teppich), Crucifixion (das Kruzifix), (Deer) Antlers (das Geweih); “Houseware”: Glass (das Glas), Cup (die Tasse), Plate (der Teller), Skillet (die Pfanne), which together form a representative foundation of the microfield of the second stage, “Housekeeping”.
The space of the House covers not only the living space itself, but also the space surrounding the house, represented in the nominations Yard (der Hof), Garden (der Garten) and including border elements: Fence (der Zaun), Gate (das Tor), which are the means linguistic objectification of the far periphery of the concept under study.
The living space of the House can be expanded to the space of the City, Country, Fatherland, Motherland. The linguistic material made it possible to reveal that the token Rodina (die Heimat) is located in the core of the microfield “Motherland”. Priyadnaya zone is represented in the nominations Fatherland, Fatherland (das Vaterland '), and the periphery - in specific geographical names: Russia (Russland), Petersburg (Petersburg) and their contextual synonyms: hometown (die Heimatstadt), the second capital die zweite Hauptstadt) and etc. In the novel Petersburg as one of the representatives of the microfield “Motherland” is updated through the museum nomination, acquiring the spatial characteristics of a certain house, building, structure.
Near periphery of the “House” concept is represented by representatives of the microfields of the I stage “Building, structure”, which are combined into the microfields of the II stage: “Types of buildings”, “Construction parts of the house”, “Building materials used in the construction of the house”. The numerous means of language objectification of the microfield “Types of Buildings” include the tokens Palace (das Palais, der Palast); Mansion (das Palais, die Villa); Shack, Khibara, ((kleine, elende) Hiitte, die Kate, die Bude); Cabin (das Bauernhaus, die Bauernhiitte); Temple (der Tempel, das Gotteshaus); Barn, Barn (der Schuppen, die Scheune, der Speicher) and others, which are subject to group division with the isolation of the dominant semes: “destinations for living / staying”, “destinations for worshiping”, “destinations for * household, household needs ". At some distance from the core there are representatives of the microfields “Building Parts of the House”: Foundation (das Fundament); Entrance, Parade (der Hauseingang); Ladder (das Treppenhaus, die Treppe); Floor (das Stockwerk, der Stock, das Geschoss), characterizing the house as a structure, including a high-rise, and "Building materials used in the construction of the house": Wood, Wood (das Holz); Ax (dieAxt); Log (der Balken); Brick (der Ziegel).
The following fragment of the peripheral part of the concept “House” is represented by the lexical means of verbalization of the microfield “People living together”, within which the microfields of the second stage are distinguished: “Family”, presented in such nominations as Parents (die Eltern); Children (die kinder); Mother, Mother (die Mutter, die Mama); Father, Papa, (der Vater, der Papa); Grandfather, Grandfather (der Grofivater, der Opa) and “People having a particular attitude to the house”, presented in the nominations with common families: “the one who owns the house” - the Master (der Hausherr, der Hauswirt); Homeowner (der Hausbesitzer); “The one who lives in the house, near the house” - the tenant (der Mitbewohner); Neighbor (der Nachbar); Neighbor (die Nachbarin) \ "he who works in (at) the house" - Housekeeper (die Hausgehilfin, Hausangestellte); Janitor (der Hausmeister).
<...>
The national specificity of the semantics of the compared lexemes reflects the peculiarities of the linguistic consciousness of Russians and Germans and allows the concept to be modeled with the isolation of its national-specific features. When comparing the lexical content of the above microfields in the Russian and German languages, the following differences were identified:
1. Discrepancy in seminal composition (denotative differences). In one of the languages ​​one lexical unit is used, and in the other two or more: Living room - das Gastzimmer, das Wohnzimmer \ Cabinet - das Kabinett, das Btiro, das Studierzimmer, Floor - das Geschoss, der Stock; Wall, - die Wand, die Mauer; Boss - der Hausherr, der Hauswirt. On the other hand, Bed, Bed - das Bett; Entrance, Parade - der Hauseingang; Bath, Bathroom (room) - das Bad, etc. Moreover, these units contain specific differential semes that are absent in the matching language.
2. The discrepancy between the emotional and evaluative components (connotative differences). In one of the languages, the lexical unit acquires additional connotations that are absent in the matching language (the Bathrobe token in the meaning of “type of home clothes” in Russian, besides these “convenience”, “comfort”, “practicality”, contains negative connotations “untidiness”, “ negligence ”, absent in German correspondences der Schlafrock, der Morgenrock).
3. Discrepancy between lexical and grammatical characteristics {Gates - only pl. H., Das Tor (die Tore) - units. and many others h .; Khoromy - pl., Das Gemach (die Gemacher) - ed. and many others h.).
4. The discrepancy between the functional and stylistic characteristics (husband of the interstil., Der Gemahl-ect. And poet; cellar - mouth., Das Kellerlokal - general).
<...>
All microfields included in the macrofield of the “House” concept have “blurred” boundaries. Representatives of one of the microfields can simultaneously act as explicants of the other microfield. For example, many representatives of the “Home decoration” microfield, which we considered within the “Dwelling” microfield, can represent the filling of the “Hearth” microfield, as they acquire additional connotations and become attributes of the house as a symbol of homeness and comfort.
The concept of “House”, in turn, intersects with the fields of other concepts: “Freedom”, “Fate”, “City”, “Nature”, “Love”, “Family”, acquiring a number of additional semantic increments: “space of personal freedom”, “ spiritual unity "," breadth, open space "," territory, where people are united by a common culture, living conditions ", etc.
( Bazylova L.A., 2010 )
However, in practical terms, we will have to talk more about “microconcepts”, since such categories as “furniture”, “food” are unlikely to pull into real, full-fledged concepts. The latter are usually referred to more global concepts: "Time", "Death", "Motherland", etc.
The idea is to practically use the very popular now concept analysis. I see the practical application of field descriptions of concepts, firstly, in using it in the site promotion system, forecasting possible search queries, forming the corresponding text content of a web resource. Secondly, it can become a scientific basis for creating names with an optimal associative background, including those adapted for different cultures (in cases of international use). Thirdly, it can help designers who work mainly with concepts (essentially concepts) expressed in specific images. The following briefly describes what concept is in linguistics and how its fields are described.
In recent years, a trend called cognitive linguistics has become popular in philology. One of the main subjects of the study of cognitive linguistics is concepts. A concept is “a certain idea of ​​a fragment of the world or a part of such a fragment, which has a complex structure, expressed by different groups of features, implemented by various language methods and means. The conceptual attribute is objectified in the fixed and free forms of combinations of the corresponding linguistic units - the representatives of the concept. The concept reflects the categorical and value characteristics of knowledge about some fragments of the world. In the structure of the concept, signs that are functionally significant for the corresponding culture are displayed "(Pimenova MV Introduction to cognitive linguistics. - Kemerovo, 2004). The structure of the concept content includes the literal meaning (internal form), the passive, historical layer, the newest, current and active layer, evolutionary semiotic series of concepts, images, associations. A concept may or may not have a name, but it is always verbalized in linguistic units.
')
Verbalization - verbal display of concept content. Representing the concept as a field, emit nuclear, near-nuclear zones, zones of near and far periphery. The nuclear zone includes units that call a concept, and those around the nucleus that characterize it. By the near and far periphery are the words and expressions, respectively, more and less closely related to the concept in meaning. Here is a fragment of the analysis of the concept “House” in Russian and German.
The structure of the concept “House” in the Russian and German concept spheres is represented by a set of microfields of the first stage: “Residence”, “Building, structure”, “People living together”, “Establishment”, “Homeland”, “Rod, Dynasty”, “Outbreak” , each of which, in turn, also has a field structure and incorporates various components, designated by us as the microfields of the second and subsequent steps. The content of these microfields is most fully represented in Russian and German with the help of lexical means of language representation, which are located in varying degrees of distance from the core and the core zone of the concept being studied, forming fragments of its near and far periphery.
The dominant and most extensive microfield of the “House” concept is the first-level microfield “Dwelling”, consisting of four microfields of the second degree: “Elements of the internal space (types of rooms)”, “Parts (borders) of a residential house”, “Home decoration”, “Environment” space". The lexical means of representing the microfield “Types of rooms” and, therefore, the near periphery of the concept “House” are the key lexeme Room (das Zimmer, der Raum) and its text synonyms: Svetelka, Gornitsa (die Stube), as well as lexemes that call premises on their functional grounds in a residential building: Hall (das Vorzimmer, die Diele); Corridor (der Flur); Kitchen (die Kuche); Living room (das Gastzimmer, das Wohnzimmer); Children's (das Kinderzimmer), etc. The periphery of the concept “House” is explicated by lexemes that call the “borders” of the house: Door (die Teig); Window (das fenster); Threshold (die (Tiir) schwelle); Roof (das dach); Gender (der Boden, der Fufiboden), etc., which carry the semantic components “locus of space”, “element (part) of the house”, “protective function”, “connection between the inner and outer world”.
The microfield "Dwelling" is also represented by lexemes with the common semey "furniture": Table (der Tisch), Chair (der Stuhl), Armchair (der Sessel); “Interior details”: Carpet (der Teppich), Crucifixion (das Kruzifix), (Deer) Antlers (das Geweih); “Houseware”: Glass (das Glas), Cup (die Tasse), Plate (der Teller), Skillet (die Pfanne), which together form a representative foundation of the microfield of the second stage, “Housekeeping”.
The space of the House covers not only the living space itself, but also the space surrounding the house, represented in the nominations Yard (der Hof), Garden (der Garten) and including border elements: Fence (der Zaun), Gate (das Tor), which are the means linguistic objectification of the far periphery of the concept under study.
The living space of the House can be expanded to the space of the City, Country, Fatherland, Motherland. The linguistic material made it possible to reveal that the token Rodina (die Heimat) is located in the core of the microfield “Motherland”. Priyadnaya zone is represented in the nominations Fatherland, Fatherland (das Vaterland '), and the periphery - in specific geographical names: Russia (Russland), Petersburg (Petersburg) and their contextual synonyms: hometown (die Heimatstadt), the second capital die zweite Hauptstadt) and etc. In the novel Petersburg as one of the representatives of the microfield “Motherland” is updated through the museum nomination, acquiring the spatial characteristics of a certain house, building, structure.
Near periphery of the “House” concept is represented by representatives of the microfields of the I stage “Building, structure”, which are combined into the microfields of the II stage: “Types of buildings”, “Construction parts of the house”, “Building materials used in the construction of the house”. The numerous means of language objectification of the microfield “Types of Buildings” include the tokens Palace (das Palais, der Palast); Mansion (das Palais, die Villa); Shack, Khibara, ((kleine, elende) Hiitte, die Kate, die Bude); Cabin (das Bauernhaus, die Bauernhiitte); Temple (der Tempel, das Gotteshaus); Barn, Barn (der Schuppen, die Scheune, der Speicher) and others, which are subject to group division with the isolation of the dominant semes: “destinations for living / staying”, “destinations for worshiping”, “destinations for * household, household needs ". At some distance from the core there are representatives of the microfields “Building Parts of the House”: Foundation (das Fundament); Entrance, Parade (der Hauseingang); Ladder (das Treppenhaus, die Treppe); Floor (das Stockwerk, der Stock, das Geschoss), characterizing the house as a structure, including a high-rise, and "Building materials used in the construction of the house": Wood, Wood (das Holz); Ax (dieAxt); Log (der Balken); Brick (der Ziegel).
The following fragment of the peripheral part of the concept “House” is represented by the lexical means of verbalization of the microfield “People living together”, within which the microfields of the second stage are distinguished: “Family”, presented in such nominations as Parents (die Eltern); Children (die kinder); Mother, Mother (die Mutter, die Mama); Father, Papa, (der Vater, der Papa); Grandfather, Grandfather (der Grofivater, der Opa) and “People having a particular attitude to the house”, presented in the nominations with common families: “the one who owns the house” - the Master (der Hausherr, der Hauswirt); Homeowner (der Hausbesitzer); “The one who lives in the house, near the house” - the tenant (der Mitbewohner); Neighbor (der Nachbar); Neighbor (die Nachbarin) \ "he who works in (at) the house" - Housekeeper (die Hausgehilfin, Hausangestellte); Janitor (der Hausmeister).
<...>
The national specificity of the semantics of the compared lexemes reflects the peculiarities of the linguistic consciousness of Russians and Germans and allows the concept to be modeled with the isolation of its national-specific features. When comparing the lexical content of the above microfields in the Russian and German languages, the following differences were identified:
1. Discrepancy in seminal composition (denotative differences). In one of the languages ​​one lexical unit is used, and in the other two or more: Living room - das Gastzimmer, das Wohnzimmer \ Cabinet - das Kabinett, das Btiro, das Studierzimmer, Floor - das Geschoss, der Stock; Wall, - die Wand, die Mauer; Boss - der Hausherr, der Hauswirt. On the other hand, Bed, Bed - das Bett; Entrance, Parade - der Hauseingang; Bath, Bathroom (room) - das Bad, etc. Moreover, these units contain specific differential semes that are absent in the matching language.
2. The discrepancy between the emotional and evaluative components (connotative differences). In one of the languages, the lexical unit acquires additional connotations that are absent in the matching language (the Bathrobe token in the meaning of “type of home clothes” in Russian, besides these “convenience”, “comfort”, “practicality”, contains negative connotations “untidiness”, “ negligence ”, absent in German correspondences der Schlafrock, der Morgenrock).
3. Discrepancy between lexical and grammatical characteristics {Gates - only pl. H., Das Tor (die Tore) - units. and many others h .; Khoromy - pl., Das Gemach (die Gemacher) - ed. and many others h.).
4. The discrepancy between the functional and stylistic characteristics (husband of the interstil., Der Gemahl-ect. And poet; cellar - mouth., Das Kellerlokal - general).
<...>
All microfields included in the macrofield of the “House” concept have “blurred” boundaries. Representatives of one of the microfields can simultaneously act as explicants of the other microfield. For example, many representatives of the “Home decoration” microfield, which we considered within the “Dwelling” microfield, can represent the filling of the “Hearth” microfield, as they acquire additional connotations and become attributes of the house as a symbol of homeness and comfort.
The concept of “House”, in turn, intersects with the fields of other concepts: “Freedom”, “Fate”, “City”, “Nature”, “Love”, “Family”, acquiring a number of additional semantic increments: “space of personal freedom”, “ spiritual unity "," breadth, open space "," territory, where people are united by a common culture, living conditions ", etc.
( Bazylova L.A., 2010 )
However, in practical terms, we will have to talk more about “microconcepts”, since such categories as “furniture”, “food” are unlikely to pull into real, full-fledged concepts. The latter are usually referred to more global concepts: "Time", "Death", "Motherland", etc.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/145737/
All Articles