The purpose of the paper is to describe the essence of orientation as an attribute of the terminological sign. The novelty of the research is determined by the fact that the nature of terminological orientation has been scarcely studied so far. The effectiveness of taking into account the specifics of orientation characteristics of the term both in analyzing the existing units of languages for specific purposes and in creating new scientific words makes the present work timely and necessary.
The article deals with the problems of idioms production and perception related to the foresign forms emergence of information accumulation and storage contained in the cognitive-based derivation of phraseme building. It is suggested that presign stage of the semiosis process and the phraseme understanding is a cognitive model that precedes not only the formation of the phraseme semantic structure, but its perception. Since the cognitive model of phrasemic semiosis is a diagram of discursive meaning embodiment and discourse itself is form of its indirectly derivative existence, there is a need to show how the cognitive-discursive mechanisms of phraseme building is associated with foresign forms of sense accumulation and storage.
The paper is an attempt, both factographic and methodological, to compare the uncomparable: a Swiss philosopher and a Czech linguist, and thereby even two disciplines. Although both of them lived in Prague, the Swiss Anton Marty and the Czech Vilém Mathesius, with an age difference of 35 years between them, their paths do not seem to have crossed very much, if at all. Reports about their contacts on Marty’s part are non-existent, and there is only one mention made by Mathesius, which suggests that they had only a passing knowledge of one another. Marty was a philosopher, later placed among phenomenologists, with a strong psychologizing bent, who also concerned himself with linguistic topics and whose sources of inspiration were clearly philosophy and psychology. In contrast, Mathesius draws primarily on the work of contemporary European linguists. The paper briefly reviews the relevant parts of their work, especially with the aim of confirming or refuting the claim (made by Leška) that Mathesius was to some extent indebted to and influenced by Marty. The search has revealed very little by way of influence, i.e. little sense of the two having something in common or shared.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.