CATEGORIZATION OF ACTS BASED ON THE ACTS OF THE CATEGORY MISCHIEVOUS ACT

Main Article Content

Lyudmila A. Bushuyeva

Keywords

categorization, frame, slot, act, prototype, semantic group

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to argue and represent the way general cognitive model of acts in English, speech and verbal associations.


Methodology: The article presents the results of a frame analysis of the situation of the acts of the mischievous act in the English language (prank, antic, mischief) via comparative qualitative research methods.


Main Findings: As a result, in the English-language associative material, the elements of the mischievous act frame are explicated in minimal. In conclusion, the considered material indicates a stable conceptualization of the category mischievous act, as indicated by the stability of the semantic content of the frame slots, regular and similar updating of the frame elements in language, speech, verbal-associative network.


Implications: This study indicated that the stability of the semantic content of the frame slots, regular and similar updating of the frame elements in the language, speech, verbal-associative network.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 113 | PDF Downloads 101 XML Downloads 0

References

APRESYAN, Y. 1986. Daixis in vocabulary and grammar and the naive model of the world. Semiotics and Informatics: Coll. scientific articles. M. Issue. Vol. 28. pp. 5-33. USA.
AYDAROVA, A. 2013. Lexico-semantic group of verbs as a reflection of the main characteristics of human behavior (on the material of verbs of behavior in Russian and English). Philology and Culture. Philology and Culture. Vol. 4, No 34: 13-17. Russia.
Bakhshandeh, M., Sedrposhan, N., &Zarei, H. (2015). The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Group Counseling to Reduce Anxiety, Marriage; Single People have to be Married in Esfahan City (2013-2014). UCT Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 3(1), 10-13.
BAKHTIN, M. 1984. To the philosophy of the act. Philosophy and sociology of science and technology. Yearbook M.: Science. pp. 8-160. USA.
Bakhyt, S., Kalimbetov, B., &Khabibullayev, Z. (2018). Possibilities of mathematical problems in logical thinking. Development of secondary education pupils. Opción, 34(85-2), 441-457.‏
BUSHUEVA, L. 2016. Categorization of knowledge about heroism, deed, self-sacrifice in the English language and English speech. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, Philological Sciences. Vol. 103. No 12 (394): 13-19.Russia.
DAKE, T. 1989. Van. Tongue. Cognition Communication. Van Dyck. M.: Progress. P. 312. Netherlands.
DEMYANKOV, V. 2016. Language Techniques of Knowledge Transfer, Linguistics and Semiotics of Cultural Transfers: Methods, Principles, and Technologies. Collective monograph. M.: Cultural Revolution. pp. 61-85. UK.
Haghshenas, S., Iravani, M. R., &Nasrabadi, H. A. B. (2015). Study Of Effective Factors On Job Satisfaction Of Omid Hospital Staff In Isfahan City. UCT Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 3(1), 15-17.
IRISKHANOVA, O. 2014. Focus games in the language. Semantics, syntax, and pragmatics of defocusing. M.: Publishing House of YKM: Languages of Slavic Culture. P. 320.France.
LETYAGIN, L. 2014. Aesthetics of act // Society. Wednesday. Development (Terra Humana). Vol. 4, No 33: 173-174.France.
LEVITSKY, A. 2010. The problem of parts of speech in the aspect of categorizing language units. Cognitive studies of language. Issue VII. Tambov. pp. 110-118. Russia.
Matandare, M. A. (2018). Botswana Unemployment Rate Trends by Gender: Relative Analysis with Upper Middle-Income Southern African Countries (2000-2016). Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, 2(2), 04.https://doi.org/10.20897/djfm/3837
Mulyono, D., Asmawi, M., & Nuriah, T. (2018). The Effect of Reciprocal Teaching, Student Facilitator and Explaining and Learning Independence on Mathematical Learning Results by Controlling the Initial Ability of Students. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 199-205.https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3838
MURASHOVA, L. 2014. Conceptual cognitive frame. Scientific Bulletin of UIM. Vol. 4. Pp. 40-43. Balkan.
OBIDINA, N. 2008. Model of human behavior, represented by the phraseological fund of modern Russian and English languages. News of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A.I. Herzen. pp. 222-227. Russia.
Peres, P., Moreira, F., &Mesquita, A. (2018). Are Really Technologies at the Fingers of Teachers? Results from a Higher Education Institution in Portugal. Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 3(1), 08.https://doi.org/10.20897/jisem.201808
RADBIL, T. 2017. Language and World: Paradoxes of interrelation. M.: Publishing House JASK: Languages of Slavic Culture. P. 592. India.
ROSCH, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale. pp. 27-48. USA.
RYABKO, O. 2016. Cognitive-frame approach to the study of terminology. Bulletin of ASU. Vol. 4, No 187: 95-99. USA.