Creation and Extension of Meaning in Professional Communication

• Authors: Larisa Iļinska , Oksana Ivanova

Abstracts

EN

The application of different language resources in professional communication reveals the role of cognition in information processing, the interpretive function of language in knowledge construction, and the interrelation of linguistic and extra-linguistic environments. The aim of the present paper is to examine the development of the language of science and the way it is influenced by history, technology, media, genre, and culture. Integrating cognitive approach and pragmatic analysis, the ways of meaning creation and meaning extension have been studied in the popular science texts. Creative thinking and imagination are considered responsible for innovative, creative and insightful thought in general, and, sometimes, for a much wider range of mental activities.

Keywords

EN

professional communication; cognition; meaning creation; information structure; intertextuality; associative thinking

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 18
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 283-297

Dates

published

2020

Contributors

author

Larisa Iļinska

• Riga Technical University, Latvia

author

Oksana Ivanova

• Riga Technical University, Latvia

References

• Bastien, Claude. 1999. Does context modulate or underlie human knowledge? In Anna Cristina Quelhas and Frederico Péreira (eds.), Cognition and Context. Analise psicologica: Lisbonnes.
• Barthes, Roland. 1968. Elements of Semiology. Hill and Wang.
• Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
• Botha, W. James. 2012. How does language create meaning? A cognitive perspective. South African Journal of Linguistics 13. 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10118063.1995.9724027
• Brown, Ellen Hodgson J.D. 2008. Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth about Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. Louisiana: Third Millennium Press.
• Carnap, Rudolf. 1937. The Logical Syntax of Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.
• Chorafas, Dimitris N. 2011. Cloud Computing Strategies. New York: CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439834541
• Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2012. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. London: Longman.
• Davis, Wayne A. 2002. Meaning, Expression, and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498763
• Domaneschi, Filippo, Carrea, Elena, Penco Carlo and Alberto Greco. 2016. Selecting presuppositions in conditional clauses. Results from a psycholinguistic experiment. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 149–158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02026
• Doncaster, Sarah. 2013. Representations of Nature in Shakespeare’s King Lear. [Online]. Available from: http://www.shakespeare-online.com [Accessed: 24th April 2018].
• Doniger, Wendy. 2011. The Implied Spider: Politics and Theology in Myth. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Einstein, Albert and Leopold Infeld. 1938[1971]. The Evolution of Physics. The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellin, Nan. 2006. Integral Urbanism. London: Routledge.
• Eskey, David E. 1986. Theoretical foundations. In Fraida Dubin, David E. Eskey and William Grabe (eds.), Teaching Second Language Reading for Academic Purposes. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2011. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
• Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582
• Freeman, Margaret. 2006. Blending: A response. Language and Literature 15(1). 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947006063528
• Gärdenfors, Peter. 2017. Cognitively Oriented Theories of Meaning. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.306
• Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0058
• Ghiazza, Silvana. 1985. Elementi di Metrica Italiana e Cenni di Retorica, Edizioni Levante. Bari: Edizioni levante.
• Gonzalo, Roberto and Karl J. Habermann. 2012. Energy-Efficient Architecture: Basics for Planning and Construction. Boston: Birkhauser-Publishers for Architecture.
• Harbison, Robert. 2009. Travels in the History of Architecture. Great Britain: MPG Books Ltd.
• Hezaveh, Leyla R., Abdullah, Nurul F. L. and Md Salleh Yaapar. 2014. Revitalizing identity in language: A Kristevan psychoanalysis of Suddenly Last Summer. GEMA Online, Journal of Language Studies 14(2). https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-01
• Iļinska, Larisa, Platonova, Marina and Tatjana Smirnova. 2015. Information structure of contemporary popular scientific and technical text. In ICT for Language Learning (8th ed.), Italy, Florence, 12–13 November 2015 (pp. 296–300). Padova: Libreriauniversitaria.it edizioni.
• Irvine, Martin. 2016. The grammar of meaning making: Sign systems, symbolic cognition, and semiotics. Communication, Culture & Technology Program. Georgetown University. 1–48.
• Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
• Janssens, Leen and Walter Schaeken. 2016. ‘But’ implicatures: A study of the effect of working memory and argument characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 159–170. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01520
• Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015. Where Metaphors Come from. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
• Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
• Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (vol. 1). Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524
• Leech, Geoffrey. 2008. Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. Great Briatin: Pearson Education.
• Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The Study of Meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• Leppihalme, Ritva. 1997. Cultural Bump: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Levy-Strauss, Claude. 1978 [2014]. Myth and Meaning. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442654112
• Montes-Alcalá, Cecilia. (2013). Writing on the border: English y español también. In Imelda Martín-Junquera (ed.), Landscapes of Writing in Chicano Literature. USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137353450_19
• Pasco, Allan H. (2002). Allusion: A Literary Graft. Charlottesville: Rookwood Press.
• Peer, van Willie. 1986. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. Routledge Kegan & Paul.
• Pohl, Gabriela. 2004. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure and implications for language teaching. SLLT 4, 1–10.
• Schlefer, Jonathan. 2012. The Assumptions Economists Make. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065529
• Skrebnev, Yury. 2000. Fundamentals of English Stylistics. М: Астрель.
• Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186
• Stephens, James. 1975. Francis Bacon and the Style of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Tarski, Alfred. 1944. The semantic conception of truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4. 341–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/2102968
• Taylor, John. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25. 637–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7
• Tendahl, Markus and Raymond. W. Gibbs Jr. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics 3. 1823–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
• Trask, Robert L. 2004. Language: The Basics. UK: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203165287
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1974. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Tras. D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness. New York: Humanities Press.
• Worton, Michael, and Judith Still. 1990. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1731-7533.18.3.03

Biblioteka Nauki

1368405