METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY OF THE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ETHICAL SYSTEM IN COGNITIVE AND SYNERGISTIC DIMENSIONS
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to highlight the principles of linguosynergistic and linguocognitive analysis of the English-language ethical system. The object of research is the English language ethical system. It is noted that the parameters and characteristics of the English language ethical system can be manifested exclusively in relation to a certain system of coordinates, in particular etymological, categorical, conceptual and synergistic. The subject of the submitted scientific work is the methodology of research of the linguistic ethical system in relation to the cognitive and synergistic frames of reference. It was established that the application of a complex cognitive-synergistic methodology allows one to more fully characterize the parameters of the linguistic macrosystem. The use of linguistic-cognitive methodology involves carrying out an inventory of the component composition of the nominative field of the concept, carrying out its core-peripheral stratification, highlighting the range of metaphor and modelling the macrostructure of its cognitive content. The study of the conceptual macrostructure involves the stratification of its cognitive content into three separate zones: informational content, image, and interpretive field. Highlighting the informational content and image is made possible by applying the method of semantic-cognitive analysis of the nominative field of the concept. The study of the interpretive field is carried out by analyzing the frequency and semantic-contextual proximity of the units of the associative field based on the MI indicator in the iWeb corpus. The synergetic coordinate system allows characterizing the parameters of selforganization and self-regulation of the English language ethical system. The main methods are the method of complex synergistic analysis and the method of synergistic modelling. The research algorithm assumes the presence of two stages: highlighting the process of autopoiesis of the system in diachrony and in synchrony. At the first stage, etymological attractors of self-organization are established, the result of which is the construction of a synergistic model of the system in diachrony. At the second stage, the synchronous attractors of autopoiesis are determined, the degree of their importance is established, and the self-organization scheme of the system is modulated at the macro level.
References
2. Єнікєєва С.М. Система словотвору сучасної англійської мови: синергетичний аспект : дис. … докт. філол. наук : 10.02.04. Запоріжжя, 2011. 423 с.
3. Кубрякова Е.С. Проблемы представления знаний в современной науке и роль лингвистики в решении этих проблем. Язык и структура представления знаний. Москва, 1992. С. 4–38.
4. Никитин М.В. Курс лингвистической семантики. Санкт-Петербург : Науч. центр проблем диалога, 1996. 760 с.
5. Приходько А.М. Самоорганизация концептивных систем и межкультурный трансфер концептов. Синергетика в филологических исследованиях : монография / под общ. ред. Л.С. Пихтовниковой. Харьков : ХНУ им. В.Н. Каразина, 2015. С. 135–154.
6. Синергетика в филологических исследованиях : монография / под ред. Л.С. Пихтовникововй. Харьков : ХНУ В.Н. Каразина. 2015. 340 с.
7. Чабан В.М. Вербалізація концепту dignity в англійській мові. Вісник Львівського університету. Серія «Філологічні науки». Львів, 2019. Вип. 70. С. 262–271.
8. Bartlett S., Rudolph T., Spekkens R. Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information. Reviews of Modern Physics. Maryland, 2007. V. 79. P. 555–609.
9. Bateson G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1972. P. 533.
10. Bykov A. The Concept of Moral Conscience in the Sociological Tradition. Sociological Journal. 2017. V. 23. P. 26–43.
11. Corpus of the English language iWeb. URL: https://www.english-corpora.org/
12. Fields C., Levin M. How Do Living Systems Create Meaning? Philosophies. Medford, 2020. Is. 5. V. 36. P. 1–24.
13. Fillmore Ch. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul, 1982. P. 111–137.
14. Isaacson W. Einstein: His Life and Universe. New York : Simon & Schuster, 2007. P. 675.
15. 15. Kövecses Z. Conceptual Metaphor Theory / ed. by Semino and Demjén. Routledge. London, 2017. P. 13–27.
16. Lakoff G. The contemporary theory of metaphor / ed. by A. Ortony. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993. 2nd ed. P. 202–252.
17. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1980. 242 p.
18. Langacker R.W. Foundations of cognitive grammar. V. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford : Stanford University Press, 1987. 516 p.
19. McComb W.D. Dynamics and relativity. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999. P. 22–24.
20. Tatsenko N.V. Empathy as a self-organized cognitive model: a linguistic synergetic perspective. In Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw, 2020. P. 390–423.
21. Zhabotynska S.A. The active learner’s construction-combinatory thesaurues: userdriven principles of compiling (a cognitive linguistic approach). Cognition, communication, discourse. Kharkiv, 2020. P. 93–107.
ISSN 
.png)
