GRAMMATICAL PARAMETERS OF THE NOTIONAL MODUS OF EMPATHY CONCEPT LEXICALISED IN MODERN ENGLISH DISCOURSE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.107093

Keywords:

concept, empathy, frame, notional modus, slot

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Nataliia Tatsenko, Sumy State University

Department of Germanic Philology, Professor (Assistant)

References

  1. 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
    |
  2. 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
  3. BNC. (2013). British national corpus (CQP-Edition). Retrieved 5 December 2017 from http://bncweb.lancs.ac.uk
  4. Colman, A. M. (2009). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Gopinath, P. P. (2014). Being Moon on 31st Crossroad. Mumbai: Frog Books.
  6. 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
  7. Heritage, J. (2005). Empathic Moments. Talk at UCLA: California.
  8. 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
  9. Kuno, S. (1987). Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
  11. Lipps, T. (1906). Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß [Empathy and Aesthetic Enjoyment]. Die Zukunft, 16, 100-114.
  12. 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
  13. 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/
  14. 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
    |
  15. Powell, R. (2010). What Have We Become. A Blog Book. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
  16. 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/
  17. 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
  18. 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/
  19. 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
  20. 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/
  21. 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
  22. 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

Downloads

Published

2018-06-16

How to Cite

Tatsenko, N. (2018). GRAMMATICAL PARAMETERS OF THE NOTIONAL MODUS OF EMPATHY CONCEPT LEXICALISED IN MODERN ENGLISH DISCOURSE. Advanced Education, 5, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.107093

Issue

2018: Issue 9

Section

Linguistics

License

Copyright (c) 2018 Nataliia Tatsenko

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).