Хорижий филология.
№1, 2018 йил
39
GENDER RELATED TERMS THROUGH COGNITIVE SEMANTICS LENS:
FRAME ANALYSIS.
Ergasheva Guli Ismoil qizi,
Doctoral student of Uzbekistan state university of world languages
Key words
: gender discourse, language and gender, applied linguistics, socio-cognitive
terminology, cognitive categories, frame analysis, the term discrimination.
The conception I deal with expresses
how language functions for me as a linguist,
explores the power of words, words which
can do more than just stand for things, words
affecting our understanding the world, words
which can make us ―move‖ forward, reveal a
language power in enhancing the social-
cultural life of society. Since, we attempt to
explore some of the consequences of bringing
the
power of words to move
to the discipline
of Gender discourse
17
.
Modern researches dealing with the
topic ―language and gender‖ work from the
premise that we should not take the language
of gender for granted. Since the very topic in
the form of linguistic forms in the special
language has intricate, interesting, and
sometimes debatable histories to study, as
―Debates about language are really about
issues of race, gender, class, or culture‖ [6,5].
In recent decades the interconnection
between gender issues and applied linguistics
has become one of the most researched
subjects
among
scholars.
The
very
interconnection, in particular in the aspect of
terminology and translation, is the main
concern of the present study.
The following work challenges the
principles of traditional Terminology testing
the perspective relevance of some of the
insights and methodologies of cognitive
semantics for descriptive Terminology. Since
a very pressing issue on the agenda of the
Uzbek linguistics is the introduction of new
approaches towards terminology studies.
We claim that modern national
researches in the scope of terminology,
dealing with the vocabulary of specialized
17
The scope of our research covers the
interpretation of
gender
as the social cultural
construction of both sexes.
subjects, are cut from the natural functionality
of language; the study how social gender
discourse terminology, in international and
national contexts and language in general, is
determined by the conscious and unconscious
way we categorize and conceptualize the
world.
Thus, traditional Terminology has
been integrated into a totally different space
in
the
1990s;
the
approach
from
communicative
[1],
and
sociocognitive
terminology [7] viewpoint.
Scientific terminology as it occurs in
gender discourse is not given any attention
from a perspective of ‗understanding‘, since
terminology is condemned to be studied as a
meta-language only, almost on a par with
nomenclature.
The present study is made on the main
thesis of Lakoff ―that we organize our
knowledge by means of structures called
idealized cognitive models,
or ICMs, and that
category structures and prototype effects are
the by-products of that organization‖ [4].
Each ICM is a complex structured whole
which uses four kinds of structuring
principles: propositional structures (as in
Fillmore‘s
frames),
image
schematic
structures (as in Langacker‘s cognitive
grammar, 1987), metaphoric and metonymic
mappings (as described by Lakoff and
Johnson, 1980).
Aiming
at
making
categories
understood by frame analysis method we will
consider how categories get defined in human
rights texts, hence to understand a category is
part of understanding the frames or idealized
cognitive models of the category inherent to
different cultures.
It is worth noting that that the ICMs of the
category ―discrimination‖ have been studied
within the scope of the article published in the
Хорижий филология.
№1, 2018 йил
40
East Journal of Translation. CIUTI (
China)
[3]. The process of compiling a glossary of
Gender terms urged us to deal with human
rights texts such as the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women – CEDAW. The term
discrimination
has been analysed as a means
to shed light on related concepts, since it
is
considered to be the basic term around which
gender issues at a national and international
level are being discussed and introduced. To
justify our claim that using a metaphor theory
approach (Lakoff and Johnson) gives the
translator and terminologist a substantial
evidence of the text producer‘s language and
world, which will undoubtedly be a helpful
tool in the process of translation of gender
terms, the denotative descriptors of the term
discrimination
have been constructed on the
basis of data provided by British National
Corpora:
DISCRIMINATION
IS
THE
ENEMY;
DISCRIMINATION
IS
A
THREAT; DISCRIMINATION IS UNDER
THE
LAW;
LAW
IS
UP,
DISCRIMINATION IS DOWN; EQUALITY
IS UP, DISCRIMINATION IS DOWN; LAW
IS AN ENTITY; DISCRIMINATION ACT
IS AN ENTITY; LAW (DISCRIMINATION
ACT) IS CONSUMING; LAW IS A
POWER, LAW IS A SUBSTANCE, LAW IS
A CONTAINER, LAW IS A PERSON (more
in the mentioned article).
The support for proposition that the
frame structure of knowledge is viable for
understanding the category
discrimination
in
human rights texts will be studied in the
following analysis.
Framing is one of the most well-
known cognitive categories. According to
M.Minsky, framing is a declarative way of
representing knowledge, formulated in terms
of descriptions. The essence of M.Minsky's
conception, as one of the first scientists who
developed the theory of frames, is the
following: facing a new situation, a person
extracts from his memory a certain model
(frame) that, if necessary, changes it
according
to
reality.
Thus,
frame
is
understood as the structure of knowledge
about a typified object or stereotyped
situation [10,155].
Modern cognitive theory claims that
categorisation is based on similarity in terms
of a holistic gestalt, which can imply
perceptual,
interactional
and
functional
attributes. Yet, because
frames
provide the
possibility of understanding, the gestalt
structure of frames is directed towards more
detailed extension of the knowledge about
particular concept.
V.Krasnih considers frame-structures
of knowledge as components of the of native
speakers cognition – "a certain structured set
of basic-necessary knowledge and minimized
ideas of the given national lingua-cultural
community" [9,54].
Dealing
with
terminology
from
cognitive viewpoint P.Faber notes that
―Frames also fall within cognitive linguistic
approaches, and are a type of cognitive
structuring device based on experience that
provide the background knowledge and
motivation for the existence of words in a
language as well as the way those words are
used in discourse < … > a description of
conceptual relations as well as a term‘s
combinatorial potential [5,123]‖.
It is worth noting that frames are not
considered as arbitrarily allocated "pieces" of
knowledge. According to Teun Van Dijk
, i
n
contrast to a simple set of associations, these
units contain the basic, typical and potentially
possible information that is associated with a
particular concept. ... It is possible that frames
are more or less conventional by nature and
therefore can define and describe what is
typical for a given society [8,35].
On the ground of the above mentioned
views
a
metaphorically
constructed
hypothesis in terms of the window may be
formulated,
i.e.
―
frames
are
rigidly
constructed elements of the gestalt
window
‖,
since the unity of separate frames presents an
image (knowledge) of the window‖.
The analysis below demonstrates a
schematic representation, i.e. a combinatorial
potential
(Faber,
2009)
of
the
term
discrimination
; how the language gestalt
provides a didactic frame model for
discrimination
.
General
forms
of the category
discrimination:
age, caste, class, color,
Хорижий филология.
№1, 2018 йил
41
disability, genotype, height, language, looks,
mental type, race /ethnicity / nationality,
rank, religion, sex / gender, sexuality.
Types
of
Discrimination
:
direct
discrimination,
indirect
discrimination,
multiple
discrimination
harassment,
victimization.
Specific forms
of the category are
implied in the social forms, in the forms of
manifestations, countermeasures, etc.:
Social forms
: AIDS stigma, Adultism,
Anti-albinism,
Anti-
autism,
Anti-
homelessness, Anti-intellectualism, Anti-left
handedness,
Genderism,
Handicapism,
Heteronormativity,
Heterosexism,
Homophobia,
Intersex
discrimination,
Lesbophobia, Misogyny.
Manifestations
:
Class
conflict,
Democide, Employment, LGBT hate crime,
Gay bashing, Gendercide, Sex-selective
abortion, Slavery, Wife selling, White flight,
Supremacism.
Countermeasures
: Anti-discrimination
law, Affirmative action, Cultural assimilation,
Desegregation,
Diversity
training,
Empowerment,
Ethnopluralism,
Human
rights,
Intersex
rights,
Masculism,
Multiculturalism, Racial integration, Self-
determination, Social integration, Toleration.
CEDAW
formally
prohibits
discrimination
on basis of the following
frames:
stereotyped roles for men and women
(article 5a)
responsibility of men and women in the
upbringing the children (5b)
traffic in women and exploitation of
prostitution (article 6)
political and public life of the country
(article 7)
represent the Governments at the
international level (article 8)
nationality (article 9)
education (article 10)
employment (article 11)
health care (article 12)
economic and social life (article 13)
rural women (article 14)
civil matters (article 15)
marriage and family relations (article
16)
To understand how discrimination is
conceptualized
and
categorized
in
international context, in particular
in the
context of the UK,
the frame structure of
discrimination
has been studied in the
category
employment (CEDAW article 11),
in
which
discrimination
was formally prohibited
on grounds of:
race (1965)
gender (1975)
disability (1995)
sexual orientation (2003)
religion (2003)
age (2006)
The adoption of the
EQUALITY ACT
2010
in the UK demonstrates that frames have
been renewed and multiplied:
Age Discrimination
Disability Discrimination
Race Discrimination
Discrimination by Religion/Beliefs
Marriage/Civil
Partnership
Discrimination
Sex Discrimination
Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Gender Reassignment Discrimination
Pregnancy/Maternity Discrimination
The
frame
analysis
due
to
―understanding‖
of
the
term,
from
hermeneutic approach, will undoubtedly
contribute to any process of inter-linguistic
mediation, such as translation. In this sense,
cognitive linguistics approaches have the
virtue of regarding conceptual structure as a
fundamental part of language. As Cliff
Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka consider the
cognitive linguistics is to be seen as ―a
movement or a coalition‖ [2,124], rather than
a single approach and the subject we deal
with can rightly be seen as one of the research
programs within this broad movement or
coalition.
The flexibility of frame organised
lexical items is to a large extent the result of a
mechanism of polysemisation. The category
discrimination
has exploited its polysemic
potential several times in the course of its
history. This is an issue that will be dealt with
in the following studies.
Хорижий филология.
№1, 2018 йил
42
The list of used of literature
1. Cabre Teresa. Terminology. Theory, methods and applications. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 1999. Web. 27.04.16.
2. Cliff Goddard, Anna Wierzbicka. Men, women and children: the conceptual semantics of
basic social categories // Goddard Cliff C., Wierzbicka Anna A. Words and Meanings: Lexical
Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford University Press. 2014. - 352 p.
3. Ergasheva G.I. ―Translation and cognitive linguistics: metaphorical models of the concept
discrimination‖.
East Journal of Translation. CIUTI, -
pp.39-48.
4. LAKOFF GEORGE. WOMEN, FIRE AND DANGEROUS THINGS,
CHICAGO: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. 1987. - P.68. WEB. 04.11.10.
5. Pamela Faber Benítez. The cognitive shift in terminology and specialized translation.
University of Granada. 2009.
6. Romaine Suzanne.
Sociohistorical Linguistics
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Temmerman Rita. Towards New Ways Of Terminology Description. The sociocognitive-
approach. – John Benjamins B.V. 2000.
8. Ван Дейк Т.А. Контекст и познание. Фреймы знаний и понимание речевых актов //
Язык. Познание. Коммуникация. – М.: Прогресс, 1989. – С. 12-41.
9. Красных В.В. Строение языкового сознания: фрейм-структуры. Когнитивная
семантика. Часть 1. – Тамбов, 2000. – С. 53-55.
10. Минский М. Остроумие и логика когнитивного бессознательного // Новое в
зарубежной лингвистике. – Вып. 23. – М.: Прогресс, 1988. – С. 281-308.
Эргашева Г. Гендерга оид терминлар когнитив семантика нуқтаи назаридан:
фрейм таҳлил.
Мақолада жинслар тенглигига комплекс ѐндашув дискурсининг асосий
тушунчаларидан дискриминация – камситилиш терминининг фрейм таҳлили ўтказилади.
Зеро, ушбу таҳлил терминолог ва таржимоннинг гендер тадқиқотларига оид ишлари
жараѐнида тўғри стратегияни танлашида муҳим аҳамиятга эга.
Эргашева Г. Гендерные термины сквозь призму когнитивной семантики:
фреймовый анализ.
В статье проводится фрейм анализ одного из ключевых терминов
дискриминация в рамках дискурса комплексного подхода к проблеме равенства женщин и
мужчин. Анализ послужит инструментом для терминолога и переводчика в выборе
правильной стратегии в работе с гендерной проблематикой.
