Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

Semantic systems in closely related languages

In each semantic domain studied to date, there is considerable variation in how meanings are expressed across languages. But are some semantic domains more likely to show variation than others? Is the domain of space more or less variable in its expression than other semantic domains, such as containers, body parts, or colours? According to many linguists, the meanings expressed in grammaticised expressions, such as (spatial) adpositions, are more likely to be similar across languages than meanings expressed in open class lexical items. On the other hand, some psychologists predict there ought to be more variation across languages in the meanings of adpositions, than in the meanings of nouns. This is because relational categories, such as those expressed as adpositions, are said to be constructed by language; whereas object categories expressed as nouns are predicted to be “given by the world”. We tested these hypotheses by comparing the semantic systems of closely related languages. Previous cross-linguistic studies emphasise the importance of studying diverse languages, but we argue that a focus on closely related languages is advantageous because domains can be compared in a culturally- and historically-informed manner. Thus we collected data from 12 Germanic languages. Naming data were collected from at least 20 speakers of each language for containers, body-parts, colours, and spatial relations. We found the semantic domains of colour and body-parts were the most similar across languages. Containers showed some variation, but spatial relations expressed in adpositions showed the most variation. The results are inconsistent with the view expressed by most linguists. Instead, we find meanings expressed in grammaticised meanings are more variable than meanings in open class lexical items

Концепт злости в английском и русском языках: сопоставительный анализ по данным, собранным на основе корпусов и по данным анкетирования носителей языка

В данной дипломной работе рассматривается концепт злости в русском языке и концепт anger в английском языке с точки зрения когнитивной этнолингвистики. В этой работе мы стараемся ответить на вопрос какими точно способами концептуализация злости отличается в русской и американской культурах. Таким образом, мы попытались доказать, что связь между грамматическими конструкциями и концептуализацией данной эмоции действительна. Иными словами, цель этой работы – обнаружить и сравнить культурно специфические аспекты народной модели злости в русском и английском языках. Для достижения этой цели с помощью семантико-грамматического анализа мы проанализировали, как предложения из Национального корпуса русского языка и Корпуса современного американского английского, так и ответы на анкету, состоящую из следующего открытого вопроса: Что по Вашему мнению является настоящей злостью?. Анкету заполняли носители американского английского и русского языков. Этнолингвистика исследует проявления культуры в языке, поэтому мы провели как исследование корпуса, так и анкету с носителями языка. Носители языка имеют важнейшую роль в когнитивной этнолингвистике, так как язык – носитель культуры. В течении анализа, мы обнаружили, что существительное злость/anger появляется в трех случаях: существительное злость/anger с премодификатором, существительное злость/anger как часть словосочетания, и существительное злость/anger с глаголом. Мы проанализировали существительное злость/anger как часть словосочетания и с глаголом. Сочетание существительного злость/anger и глагола мы разделили на две группы: группу, в которой злость участвует в схеме событий, и группу, в которой злость не участвует в схеме событий, а является частью абстрактного пространства. Мы проанализировали как метафорические, так и неметафорические выражения. Полученные грамматические категории мы включили в этапы сценария злости по Кёвечешу. Результаты исследования показали, что американцы говорят о причине и попытке контроля злости больше, чем русские, в то время как русские сосредоточены как на воплощение злости и его возмездие, так и на нетипичные для сценария злости этапы. Концептуализация злости в двух культурах отличается и в нетипичных для сценария злости этапах – в английском появляется понятие контролируемой злости, а в русском добавляются еще злость как способ действия и злость как энергия. Более того, в русском языке для выражения злости намного чаще используется схема абстрактного пространства, а в английском схема событий. Этап сценария злости, обозначающий потерю контроля над злостью, является самым проблематичным, так как в исследовании корпуса он лучше разработан в русском языке, а в анкете он луче разработан в английском. Мы предполагаем, что причиной этому является фокус носителей русского языка на воплощение и возмездие злости.The relationship between language, mind and culture has been intriguing the minds of linguists, anthropologists, psychologists and other researchers for over a century. In the recent years, extensive research in various linguistic disciplines was conducted on emotions, as they are a prolific field for the research of language and mind. Conceptual metaphor has always had a crucial role in cognitive linguistic research, but recently some light has been shed on the importance of grammar in such studies. Bearing in mind that language consists of both metaphorical and non-metaphorical expressions, this paper presents a semantic-grammatical analysis of the concept of anger in English and in Russian. As the cognitive model of anger for English has been defined, this paper focuses on the cross-cultural variations of the concept of anger in English and in Russian. The study found that English and Russian share a vast majority of event schemas, and that they are somewhat different in the structure of non-participant roles. The main differences were found in the frequencies and elaborations of different event schemas and non-participant roles, as well as in the elaboration of the anger scenario. Russian speakers focus more on non-participant roles than English speakers do, whereas English speakers focus more on event schemas. They emphasize the offending event and loss of control, while Russian speakers more often talk about physiological effects of anger and retribution acts. By the means of semantic-grammatical analysis, the study has shown that a connection between language and the conceptualization of concepts embedded in culture exists. Since emotions are a vast field of research, this study gives only a glance into anger/zlost cross-cultural variety. In order to elaborate the concept of anger/zlost in more detail, future research should include the analysis of the first semantic-grammatical level in corpora and in the language of native speakers, as well as a greater number of examples. Another interesting notion for further research is the interdependence of and the connection between control over anger and the loss of control. To get a greater picture of this complex emotion, more connections need to be made between the linguistic and psychological research. In this light, the given study represents a small part of what should be an extensive, detailed research into the concept of anger/zlost

Understanding & Translating the heart & the soul

AbstractThis paper will focus on two rival synonyms, the heart and the soul in various languages, but focusing on English, Czech, French and German, in order to understand what they mean and the values they engender. Is the soul a value in itself or the property of other ideals? How does the heart contain or relate to other virtues? Is the heart good in and of itself? This would appear to be the case, if we consider ‘heartless’, and the gift of the heart to men by God. But even at the beginning of Genesis, the heart of men is said to be “evil”. The heart and the soul, are complex in themselves, they follow tortuous paths, and translating them will take us on intriguing but surprising, even upsetting adventures.BioJames W. Underhill was born in Glasgow in 1967. He is Full Professor and lectures on Literature, Poetics, and Translation at Rouen University in Northern France. He has worked as a full-time translator of French and Czech, and published poems in translation from French and German. Underhill's work on worldview and language focuses on both linguistic constraints at a deeper level, and the essential creative impulse by which individuals stimulate the shared language of the community. He is the author of Humboldt, Worldview, and Language (Edinburgh University Press, 2009), Creating Worldviews: Ideology, Metaphor and Language (Edinburgh University Press, 2011), Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: Truth, Love, Hate and War (Cambridge University Press, 2012), and Voice and Versification in Translating Poems (Ottawa University Press, 2017)