GRAMMATICAL PARAMETERS OF THE NOTIONAL MODUS OF EMPATHY CONCEPT LEXICALISED IN MODERN ENGLISH DISCOURSE
The article provides a comprehensive consideration of the notional modus frame of EMPATHY concept embodied in modern English discourse. It is aimed at analysing the grammatical parameters of the frame which encode semantic characteristics of EMPATHY concept (lexicalised by literal linguistic means) and their organisation in discourse. The grammatical parameters represent different slots of the frame: empathy (n) – INSTRUMENT/AGENT, empathiser (n) – AGENT/PATIENT, empathisee (occasionalism) (n) – PATIENT/AGENT, empathise (v) – ACTION, empathetic/empathic (adj), empathising (adj) – SUCH, empathetically/empathically (adv), empathisingly (adv) – SO. These slots speak for the diversity of the ways in which they have fixed the “grounding” of EMPATHY concept on a communicative situation. Applying corpus methodology, the research proves that in the human epistemic space the notional modus of EMPATHY concept exists as an abstract entity or idea about empathy rather than a specific event represented by the verb. Context analysis shows that at present the noun empathy has lost its original meaning of the ability to enter into emotional harmony with a certain work of art. The analysis of the British national corpus (BNC) allows making a conclusion that in the frame of the notional modus slots empathiser and empathisee are mostly irrelevant. In the semantics of the frame slots, there are numerous shifts of the prototype meaning based on extension, narrowing, metaphorical and metonymical transitions. However, they do not lead to the disintegration of the standard norm which is stored in the memory of the individual.
Banissy, M. J., Kanai, R., Walsh, V., & Rees, G. (2012). Inter-individual differences in empathy are reflected in human brain structure. NeuroImage, 62, 2034-2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.081
Barnett, G., & Mann, R. E. (2013). Empathy deficits and sexual offending: A model of obstacles to empathy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 228-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.010
BNC. (2013). British national corpus (CQP-Edition). Retrieved 5 December 2017 from http://bncweb.lancs.ac.uk
Colman, A. M. (2009). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gopinath, P. P. (2014). Being Moon on 31st Crossroad. Mumbai: Frog Books.
Harder, P. (1999). Partial Autonomy: Ontology and Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In Janssen, Th., Redeker, G. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, Methodology (pp. 195-222). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.195
Heritage, J. (2005). Empathic Moments. Talk at UCLA: California.
Kenneth, S. (2016). “You just don’t get it”: discovering empathy. An essay on what’s missing in too many relationships. Retrieved 3 May 2017 from http://www.kennethstewart.com/-you-just-don-t-get-it---discovering-empathy2.html
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
Lipps, T. (1906). Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß [Empathy and Aesthetic Enjoyment]. Die Zukunft, 16, 100-114.
Martinovski, B., Traum, D., & Marsella, S. (2006). Rejection of Empathy in Negotiation. Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 16, (1), 235-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9032-z
Maysles, A. (2013) Advice to Doc filmmakers from Albert Maysles: establish an empathizing relationship. Retrieved 18 November 2015 from Indiewire, http://www.indiewire.com/2013/12/indiewires-ultimate-guide-to-documentary-filmmaking-advice-31833/
Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2012). “I help because I want to, not because you tell me to”: Empathy increases autonomously motivated helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (5), 681-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211435940
Powell, R. (2010). What Have We Become. A Blog Book. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
Rutz, D. (2014). Hillary Clinton wants us to empathize with our enemies. Even these enemies? Retrieved 9 December 2015 from The Washington Free Beacon, http://freebeacon.com/national-security/hillary-clinton-wants-us-to-empathize-with-our-enemies-even-these-enemies/
Salem, R. (1982). Community Dispute Resolution Through Outside Intervention. Peace and Change Journal VIII, 2 (3), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.1982.tb00652.x
Sequeira, Ph. (2017). Let’s empathize with our trees. Retrieved 21 February 2018 from FORCAGOAblog, http://blog.forcagoa.org/2017/05/27/lets-empathize-with-our-trees/
Sullivan, D. (2014, November 7). Mark Zuckerberg On Facebook Organic Reach: We Optimize For Users Not For Business. Retrieved 7 November 2015 from https://plus.google.com/+DannySullivan
Tatsenko, N. V. (2016a). Empathy in Discourse: Towards an Embodied Cognitive Semantics. Filologichni Traktati, 8 (1), 79-86. Retrieved 25 May 2016 from http://tractatus.sumdu.edu.ua/ru/tatsenko-n-v-empatiya-v-diskursi-na-shlyahu-do-materializovanoyi-kognitivnoyi-semantiki/
Tatsenko, N. V. (2016b). Leksyko-hramatychne profiliuvannia poniatiinoho modusu kontseptu EMPATIIA [Lexical and grammatical shaping of the notional modus of EMPATHY concept]. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoho universytetu “Ostrozka akademiia”. Seriia “Filolohichna”: zbirnyk naukovykh prats, 60, 237-239. Retrieved 16 July 2016 from http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/46089/1/Tatsenko_concept.pdf
Zhabotynska, S. A. (2010). Principles of Building Conceptual Models for Thesaurus Dictionaries. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 1, 75-92. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from https://sites.google.com/site/cognitiondiscourse/vypusk-no1-2010/zabotinskaa-s-a
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Наталія Віталіївна Таценко
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)