Comparison Category in the Linguo-Cognitive Dimension: Postmodern Artistic Discourse

Vitaliy Kononenko
Doctor of Philology, Professor, Academician of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Head of the Department of General and German Linguistics, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University
57 Shevchenko St., Ivano-Frankivsk 76018, Ukraine
E-mail: kzm@pnu.edu.ua

COMPARISON CATEGORY IN THE LINGUO-COGNITIVE DIMENSION: POSTMODERN ARTISTIC DISCOURSE

Heading: Researches
Language: Ukrainian

Abstract: The article deals with the linguistic and cognitive principles of the category of comparison as a manifestation of cognitive activity, the expression of the conceptual nature of objects and phenomena on the basis of figurative thinking. In the structure of artistic discourse, comparative semantics is implemented by a set of lexical, grammatical, text-based means using the figurative meanings of words and phrases, using various types of methods of input into the context environment. On the material of contemporary postmodern artistic linguistic performance, linguo-stylistic possibilities of forming a comparative sense based on similarity and adjacency have been observed, and new tendencies in the verbal representation of assimilation in its logical-semantic nature have been confirmed. Expression of comparative semantics may be accompanied by the inclusion in its structure of other linguo-poetic features, in particular through the use of literary reminiscences, antinomies, allusions, hyperbolization, symbolization, metaphorization. Understanding the comparative category in the figurative function appears as a problem of studying artistic discourse in its unity and integrity, by adding common fragments or completed texts in a linguistic-aesthetic dimension.

Keywords: comparison, assimilation, text, discourse, semantics, meaning, image, metaphor, metaphorization, allusion, symbol.

REFERENCES

1. Hrihorev, V.P. (1979). Poetics of the word. Moscow: Nauka (in Rus.).
2. Iermolenko, S.Ya. (2009). Language and aesthetic signs of the Ukrainian culture. Kyiv: In-t ukr. movy NAN Ukrainy (in Ukr.).
3. Kviatkovskii, A. (1966). Poetic dictionary. Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsyklopediya (in Rus.).
4. Kondratenko, N.V. (2012). Syntax of the Ukrainian modernist and postmodern artistic discourse. Kyiv: Vydavnychyj Dim D. Buraho (in Ukr.).
5. Kononenko, V.I. (2017). Linguo-cognitive interpretation of hyperbolic and quasi-hyperbolic formations. Ukrainian language, 2, 14 – 26 (in Ukr.).
6. Kononenko, V.I. (2013). Symbols of the Ukrainian language; the 2-nd edition. Kyiv – Ivano-Frankivsk: Vyd-vo Prykarp. un-tu im. V. Stefanyka (in Ukr.).
7. Kononenko, V.I. (2002). Synonymy of syntactic constructions. Language. Culture. Style. Kyiv – Ivano-Frankivsk. P. 102 – 117 (in Ukr.).
8. Potebnia, O.O. (1985). Aesthetics and poetics of the word. Kyiv: Mystetstvo (in Ukr.).
9. Bilodid, I.K. (1973). Modern Ukrainian Literary Language. Stylistics. Kyiv: Naukova dumka (in Ukr.).
10. Toporov, V.N. (1990). Tropes. Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Р. 520 – 521. Moscow (in Rus.).
11. Philosophical Encyclopaedic Dictionary. (2002). Kyiv: Abrys (in Ukr.).