.png)
UDC 81-13
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.2-21.016
Shitikov Pyotr M.,
Candidate of Philology, Associate
Professor of the Philological Education Department
Mendeleev Tobolsk Pedagogical Institute
(branch office) Tyumen State University
e-mail: petrkifa@mail.ru
Shitikova Maria N.,
PhD student of the Special Pedagogy and
Special Psychology Department
Ural State Pedagogical University
e-mail: petrkifa@mail.ru
This article deals with the application of corpus research methods in metaphorology. The authors evaluate the perspectives of corpus instruments in the context of cognitive linguistics and pedagogy. The authorы present the development of an algorithm for complex analysis of metaphor, including the stages of identification, interpretation and translation of metaphorical statements, as well as identifying their connection with the conceptual bases of thinking. The results of comparative analysis of the implementation of paternity metaphor in the Ancient Greek original and translations into English and Russian of John’s Corpus are presented. The authors have shown that the key words identified by the corpus analysis are representatives of conceptual metaphors determining the author's word usage. A classification of translation models by the criterion of preserving the word — concept connection is proposed. The prospects for adapting the algorithm for studying foreign language and special pedagogy are described separately.
Keywords: metaphor, corpus linguistics, translation, cognitive theory of metaphor, concept, pedagogy.
References
1. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early christian literature / W. Bauer, F. Danker (Eds.). University of Chicago Press, 2000. 1108 p.
2. Andor J. Strategies, tactics and realistic methods of text analysis // Connexity and coherence: Analysis of text and discourse / W. Heydrich, F. Neubauer, J. Petöfi, E. Sözer (Eds.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. P. 28–36.
3. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: an essay on autism end theory of mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1995. 198 p.
4. Harris P. Children and emotion. Blackwell Publishers, 1989. 256 p.
5. Mandelblit N. The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory // Translation and Meaning. Maastricht: Universitaire Press, 1995. Part 3. P. 483–495.
6. Musolff A. Metaphor and political discourse: analogical reasoning in debates about European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. P. 2–4.
7. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2006. 812 p.
8. Pragglejaz Group MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse // Metaphor & Symbol. 2007. Vol. 22 (1). P. 1–39.
9. Quinn N. The cultural basis of metaphor // Beyond metaphor: the theory of tropes in anthropology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991. P. 57–93.
10. Scott M. PC analysis of key words — and key words // System. 1997. Vol. 25 (2). P. 233–245.
11. Sinclair J. Reading concordances. Great Britain: Pearson Education, 2003.
12. Steen G. From linguistic form to conceptual structure in five steps // Cognitive Poetics: goals, gains, and gaps / G. Brône, J. Vandaele (Eds.). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. P. 197–226.
13. Nikolaenko N. Metaforicheskoe myshlenie u zdorovyh detej i bol’nyh autizmom kak pokazatel’ mezhpolusharnogo vzaimodeistviia // Doklady Akademii nauk. 2001. Vol. 379. No. 5.
14. Shitikov P.M. Opyt kompleksnogo analiza konceptual’noi metafory: ot originala k perevodu // Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki. 2017. No. 3. S. 57–62.
15. Shitikov P.M., Shitikova M.N. K voprosu ob obuchenii detei s RAS ponimaniiu metaforicheskih vyskazyvanii // Special’noe obrazovanie. 2020. No. 1. S. 108–119.