Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  conceptual system
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Research in Language
|
2020
|
vol. 18
|
issue 2
173-203
EN
This paper is mainly concerned with the implications of cognitive linguistics for translation teaching and pedagogy. It sets out to succinctly chart some presumed shortcomings of replacement-based pedagogical methods that have long been centred around linear mechanical substitution of linguistic signs and patterns. Replacement approach, the paper argues, falls short of reinforcing what it takes to be the conceptual competence. In this connection, we account for our main assumption that translation teaching should be based on a sound theoretical footing that takes the conceptual system and the frames, or other structuring entities, populating it on board. Experimentally focusing on the conceptual system, cognitive linguistics’ framework, we contend building on some relevant literature, provides a wide range of far reaching procedural models conductive to the innovation of translation pedagogy and practice. The examples investigated in the paper reveal that translation teaching may be more prolific if it is equally based on such models, which inform our understanding of textual lexico-semantic units in terms of their surface functioning as prompts serving for dynamically constructing semantic-conceptual equivalence.
EN
Once a part of the social experience of a relatively small minority, eventually cricket, with its rich terminology, became a fixed concept for a large part of the English nation. With the passage of time, cricket started to lend vocabulary and phrases to areas of experience outside the sport and its literal domains. However, it is not the origin of a phrase that is responsible for its comprehension, nor is it its literal meaning; it is the fact that the phrase has become an established part of a conceptual system of the nation. The literal meaning of an idiomatic expression or the meaning of its individual components will generally be of little help in its interpretation. Frequently there does not seem to be a direct correlation between them and if a connection exists, it is often arbitrary. The main purpose of the article is to present a selection of nine idioms/metaphors the source domain of which is the English sport of cricket. An attempt is also made to show the possible degrees of correlation between the literal and non-literal meanings of the examples considered. For the analysis of the metaphors the conceptual metaphor theory developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) has been applied.
XX
The lack of Polish fixed equivalents of Austro-Hungarian military rank names is caused by the fact that these terms are culture-bound elements that belong to the historical legal reality and by the incongruence of A-H and Polish (conceptual) military rank systems. This lack leaves a great multitude of possible solu-tions. In the article the compared systems of military ranks are perceived as systems of concepts and ana-lyzed in terms of Jost Trier’s lexical field theory. This approach is supported with some examples of monolingual dictionary definitions of military ranks that are clearly based on an item’s relations within a field. Despite some etymological parallels between A-H and Polish military rank names the systems they constitute belong to different “traditions” of military terminology — respectively to the German and French — which is to be observed mainly in the names of general ranks. Being bilateral signs, the rank names allow different translation solutions that constitute a continuum spread between two poles: a formal and a conceptual one that are analogous to the poles of formal and dynamic (conceptual) equivalence. The first one is achieved mainly by calques or loan translations whereas the latter by using ranks with similar position within the system.
EN
On Concepts, Conceptual Systems and Terminology of OnomasticsThe main aim of this paper is to propose a terminological approach to the standardization of onomastic terminology. Attention is paid to the primary importance of conceptual systems and to the onomasiological approach typical of terminological work. Terminology is presented as a discipline devoted primarily to the study of concepts. Then the main concepts of terminology are discussed and the relations between a conceptual system and a terminological system are explained. An outline of the issue of conceptual systems of onomastics and of their internal structure is made. Then two important metatheoretical concepts are introduced and defined: 1) the concept of theoretical legitimacy of concepts and 2) the concept of economy of conceptual systems. In the final part of the article, several suggestions concerning the standardization of onomastic terminology are made: 1) terms referring to concepts belonging to separate conceptual series are not to be used interchangeably; 2) terms based on different roots (in the English onomastic terminology: -onym, -onymy, -onomastics, in the Polish terminology: -onim, -onimia, -onomastyka) are to be reserved respectively for the concept of a single (type of) proper name, for the concept of a set of proper names and for the concept of a specific onomastic discipline; 3) concepts used or newly introduced in a text are to be defined clearly in onomastic works, 4) onomasticians aiming for standardization of onomastic terminology should start their work by (re)constructing conceptual system(s) of onomastics and only then assign terms to concepts; 5) one completely unitary conceptual (and terminological) system of onomastics cannot be achieved due to the theoretical pluralism of the discipline; 6) the first goal of any conceptual and terminological standardization of onomastics is to define its range: should the standardization cover the concepts of philological or general onomastics? should it cover only empirical (descriptive) concepts or highly abstract theoretical concepts as well?
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.