.png)
http://dx.doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6-15.016
Murashova Ludmila P.,
a senior teacher at the Department of Linguistics and Translation of the Southern Institute of Management, Krasnodar
Е-mail: L-P-Murashova@mail.ru
This article analyzes the different approaches to the description of the conceptual-cognitive frame as a form of conceptualization, adresses the history of the frame theory of organization of conceptual knowledge, distinguishes such related concepts as “concept”, “frame”, “schema”, “scene”, “script”, “prototype” and “idealized cognitive model”. It also summarizes the basic characteristics of a conceptual-cognitive frame recognized in all the described approaches.
Key words: conceptual-cognitive frame, frame theory, concept, frame, schema, scene, script, prototype, idealized cognitive model.
References
1. Boldyrev, N.N. Kognitivnaja semantika: Kurs lekcij po anglijskoj filologii. — Izd. 2-e. — Tambov: TGU, 2001. — 123 s.
2. Van Dejk T.A. Jazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikacija. — Blagoveshhensk: BGK im. I.A. Bodujena de Kurtenje, 2000. — 308 s.
3. Kratkij slovar' kognitivnyh terminov. Sost. E.S. Kubrjakova, V.Z. Dem'jankov, Ju.G. Pankrac, L.G. Luzina / Pod red. E.S. Kubrjakovoj. — M.: MGU, 1997. — 245 s.
4. Minskij, M. Frejmy dlja predstavlenija znanij / Per. s angl., pod red. F.M. Kulakova. — M.: Jenergija, 1979. — 151 c.
5. Popova, Z.D., Sternin, I.A. Kognitivnaja lingvistika. — M.: ACT: Vostok — Zapad, 2010. — 314 s.
6. Tarasova, P.A. Frejmovyj analiz v issledovanii ideostilej // Filologicheskie nauki. — 2004. — No. 4. — S. 42–49.
7. Frumkina, R.M. Konceptual'nyj analiz s tochki zrenija lingvista i psihologa // Nauchno-tehnicheskaja informacija. — Ser. 2: Informacionnye processy i sistemy. — No. 6. — 1992. — S. 1–8.
8. Chesnokov, P.V. Slovo i sootvetstvujushhaja emu edinica myshlenija. — M.: Prosveshhenie, 1967. — 192 s.
9. Coleman, L., Kay P. Prototype semantics: the English word lie // Language. — 1981. — Vol. 57. — No. 1. — P. 26–44.
10. Fillmore, Ch. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning / Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Cathy Cogen et al. — Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1975. — P. 123–131.
11. Fillmore, Ch. Frames and the semantics of understanding / Quaderni di semántica. —1985. — Vol. VI. — No. 2. — P. 222–254.
12. Fillmore, Ch. Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. — The Hague: Mouton, 1961. — 49 p.
13. Fillmore, Ch. The case for case / Universals in linguistic theory. B. Emmon, R. Harms (eds.). — New York: Holt, 1968. — P. 1–88.
14. Fillmore, Ch., Atkins, B. Towards a Frame-based organization of the lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors / Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization. A. Lehrer, E. Kittay (eds.). —Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992. — P. 75–102.
15. Lakoff, G. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. — 614 p.
16. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. Family resemblances / Cognitive Psychology. — 1975. — No. 7. — P. 573–605.
17. Rosch, E. Principles of categorization / Cognition and Categorization. — Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1978. — P. 27–48.
18. Rumelhart, D., Ortony, A. The representation of knowledge in memory / Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. R. Anderson, R. Spiro, W. Montague (eds.). — Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977. — P. 99–135.
19. Sanford, A., Garrod, S. Understanding Written Language: Explorations of Comprehension Beyond the Sentence. — Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1981. — 224 p.
20. Shank, R., Abelson, R. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. — Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. — 248 p.