CONCEPTUALISATION OF ECONOMIC CRISIS IN DISCOURSE: FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION TO THE GREAT RECESSION

Natalya Oliynyk, Iryna Shevchenko

Abstract


The article considers conceptual representation of ECONOMIC CRISIS in the economic mass-media discourse of the two historical periods: 1929–1933 and 2007–2010 to reveal its synchronic and diachronic distinctions and dichotomies. More specifically, it is aimed to study linguistic means representing the concept in the 20th century and determine their diachronic variations. Applying cognitive linguistic instruments, such as component analysis and conceptual metaphor theory, it has been determined that conceptual content, structure and metaphorical representation of ECONOMIC CRISIS are subject to historical variations. Terminologically motivated name of the concept “economic crisis” provides historical stability of its content and structure formed by historical constants DECLINE, UNSTABLE SITUATION, TURNING POINT on the one hand, and affects its historical change: extension with new constituents – variables DISORDER, LANDMARK, ACCIDENT, on the other. Propositional schemas of the concept, mainly those of action and identification, form the cognitive structure of ECONOMIC CRISIS and vary diachronically in the degree of prominence. The dominant conceptual metaphors of ECONOMIC CRISIS of a target domain CRISIS is MOVEMENT DOWN and CRISIS is A STATE OF EMERGENCY are stable through history while their further division into clusters of metaphors varies both in the set of source domains and in their frequency in discourse.


Keywords


conceptual metaphor; concept; economic crisis; diachronic variation; terminological motivation.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Economic crisis. (2016). BusinessDictionary.com. WebFinance Inc. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/economic-crisis.html

Fauconnier, G. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (pp. 1 14). https://doi.org/10.1002/0470018860.s00214

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39-74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Leitchik, V.M. & Shelov, S.D. (2003). Some basic concepts of terminology: Traditions and innovations. Terminology Science & Research, 14, 86-101.

Oliynyk, N.A. (2015). Koncept EKONOMICHESKIJ KRIZIS v anglojazychnom ekonomicheskom diskurse 1930-h i 2000-h godov [The concept ECONOMIC CRISIS in the English economic discourse of the 1930s and 2000s]. Harkov, Ukraine: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Retrieved from http://dspace.univer.kharkov.ua/bitstream/123456789/10992/3/dis_Oliynyk.pdf

Pells, R. (1998). Radical visions and American dreams: culture and social thought in the Depression years. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, B. L. Lloyd (Eds), Cognition and categorization (1-25): Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4610/9778_083247.pdf

Shevchenko, I.S. (2015). Transformations of expressives through history in cognitive-communicative perspective. V.N. Karazin Univ. messenger, 1155, 64-68. Retrieved from: http://dspace.univer.kharkov.ua/handle/123456789/11086

Winters, M.E. (2010). Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In Winters, M.E, Tissari, H & Allan, K (Eds), Historical Cognitive Linguistics (pp.3-28). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Zhabotynska, S.A. (2010). Principles of building conceptual models for thesaurus dictionaries. Cognition, communication, discourse. International On-line journal, 1, 75-92. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/cognitiondiscourse/vypusk-no1-2010

References of illustrative material:

The Economist. (1929, 16 Nov). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The Economist. (2008, 19 March). Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com

The Economist. (1929, 26 Oct). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The Economist. (2008, 7 Aug). Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com

The Financial Times. (1932, 12 Feb). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The Financial Times. (1930, 13 Dec). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The Financial Times. (2008, 17 Sep). Retrieved from: http://www.ft.com

The Financial Times. (2008, 18 Dec). Retrieved from: http://www.ft.com

The Financial Times. (1929, 29 Oct). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The Financial Times. (1932, 18 March). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The Financial Times. (1931, 7 Jan). Retrieved from: http://gale.cengage.co.uk

The New York Times. (2008, 1 Aug). Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com

The New York Times. (2009, 12 Sep). Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com

The New York Times. (2008, 8 Oct). Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com




DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.78867

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Natalya Anatoliyivna Oliynyk, Iryna Semenivna Shevchenko

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)