A Psycholinguistic Cross-Cultural Study of the Concept 'Conflict' in India and Ukraine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2021.8.2.girKeywords:
conflict, cultures, semantic field, similarity, difference, India, UkraineAbstract
The paper presents a comparative study of the semantic field of the concept of conflict in Ukrainian and Indian cultures. The literature review has shown that there has not been any discussion on the abstract general concept of conflict. However, we consider such data exceptionally important for a better understanding of the worldview and cultural differences in diverse countries. Our study aimed to identify cultural features, similarities, and differences in the perception of the concept of conflict by representatives of various cultures. To investigate the way the concept of conflict is perceived, we used a set of methods, including speech activity analysis, free-listing for data gathering and processing, mathematical calculation, systematization, and generalization of results We conducted our study in three phases: at the first stage we gathered data, at the second we processed them, and at the third phase we generalized the findings and drawing conclusions. The students from Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine) and Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (India) participated in the research (19-24years old). In general, we got 292 questionnaires. The experiment revealed that the common semantic core of the concept of conflict in Ukrainian and Indian cultures contains seven words: fight, misunderstanding, war, disagreement, quarrel, struggle, aggression. But in contrast to the Ukrainian culture, in India, the associations with the given concept predominantly depict the person’s emotional state (sadness, anger, fear, confusion, and misunderstanding). Participants from India also mention caste discrimination and religious diversity. In Ukraine, the word conflict is much associated with negative interaction (quarrel, aggression, argument, dispute, etc.). Besides, in contrast to the Indian culture, there are no associations with social discrimination and religious diversity. The importance of our findings cannot be stressed too much since they can potentially be used in mediation, social advertising, and international negotiations.
Downloads
References
Анисимова А.Т. Лингвистические проекции конфликта (дескриптивный аспект): дисc. канд. филол. наук. Краснодар, 2004. 212 с.
Балясникова О.В., Уфимцева Н.В., Черкасова Г.А., Чулкина Н.Л. Языковое сознание: региональный аспект. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика, 2018. Т. 22, № 2. C. 232—250. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-2-232-250
Боргоякова А.П. Национальнокультурная специфика языкового сознания хакасов, русских и англичан (на материале ядра языкового сознания): дисс. канд.филол.наук. Москва, 2002. 179 с.
Вежбицкая А. Понимание культур через посредство ключевых слов. Монография. Москва: Языки славянской культуры, 2001. 288 с.
Гірник А. М. Теоретичні засади і процедура фрілістингу. Наукові записки НаУКМА. Педагогічні, психологічні науки та соціальна робота, 2016. Т. 188, 50-55.
Дашиева Б.В. Образ мира в культурах русских, бурят и англичан. Языковое сознание: формирование и функционирование. Сб. статей. Москва, 1998. C. 200-211.
Дридзе Т.М. Текстовая деятельность в структуре социальной коммуникации. Проблемы семиосоциопсихологии. Москва: Издательство «Наука», 1984. 232 с.
Залевкая А.А. Языковое сознание: вопросы теории. Вопросы психолингвистики. 2003. №1. C. 30–34.
Залевская А.А. Значение слова и возможности его описания. Языковое сознание: формирование и функционирование. Сб. статей. Москва, 1998. C. 35-54
Караулов Ю.Н., Филиппович Ю.Н. Лингвокультурное сознание русской языковой личности. Моделирование состояния и функционирования. Москва: Изд. центр «Азбуковник», 2009. 336 c.
Крилова-Грек Ю.М. Психолінгвістичні особливості перекладу семантичних одиниць іншомовних текстів: дис. канд. психол. наук: 19.00.01. К.: Інститут психології ім. Г.С.Костюка АПН України, 2007.
Кубрякова Е.С. В поисках сущности языка: Когнитивные исследования. Ин-т. языкознания РАН. Москва: Знак, 2012. 208 с.
Літературознавча енциклопедія: у 2 т., авт.-уклад. Ю. І. Ковалів. Київ : ВЦ «Академія», 2007. Т. 1. C. 229.
Мельников Г.П. Системная типология языков: Синтез морфологической классификации языков со стадиальной. Москва: Изд-во РУДН, 2000. 78 с.
Мельников Г.П. Внутренняя форма русского языка — ключ к пониманию его особенностей на всех уровнях, ОРЛС, 1998. URL: http.//philologos.narod.ru/melnikov-vf.htm
Нгуен Тхи Хыонг. Мир в образах сознания вьетнамцев. Языковое сознание и образ мира. Сб. статей. Москва, 2000, URL: https://iling-ran.ru/library/psylingva/sborniki/Book2000/html_204/4-3.html.
Потебня А. А. Мысль и язык. Избранные работы. Москва: Издательство Юрайт, 2019. 238 с.
Попова З. Д., Стернин И. А. Язык и национальная картина мира. Воронеж: Истоки, 2003. 60 с.
Уфимцева Н.В. Этнопсихолингвистика: вчера и сегодня. Вопросы психолингвистики. 2006, №4. C. 92-100.
Эртельт-Фит А, Денисова-Шмидт Е. Лакуны и их классификационная сетка. Вопросы психолингвистики, 2007. Т. 6. С. 39-51.
Bloom, P., Keil, F. C. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind & Language, 16(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00175
Borgatti, S.P. (1998). Elicitation Methods for Cultural Domain Analysis. In: J.Schensul& M. LeCompte (Eds.). The Ethnographer's Toolkit, V. 3. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press
Comrie, B. (2021, March 21) Language and Thought. Linguistic Society of America. Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/language-and-thought
Cliff, G. (ed.). Wierzbicka, A., Amberber, M. at al. (2008). Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins: Studies in Language Companion Series. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.102
De Deyne, S., Navarro, D., and Storms, G. (2012). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 480—498.
Kiss, G. (1968). Words, associations, and networks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 707—713.
Kiss, G., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R. (1972). The Associative Thesaurus of English. Edinburg: Univ. of Edinb., MRC Speech and Communication Unit.
Krylova-Grek Yu. (2016) The Psycholinguistic Aspects of Influence of the Symbol Used in Media. Psycholinguistics, 20(1), 136-145.
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., and Wong, J. (2016). “Walking” and “running” in English and German: The conceptual semantics of verbs of human locomotion. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2
Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Savvinova, G. (2018). Special Features in Expressing the ‘Homeland’ Concept in the Yakut Heroic Epic Olonkho. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(5), 168-179. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i5.1910
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (translated and edited by Alex Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986069
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.
References (translated and transliterated)
Anisimova, A.T. (2004). Lingvisticheskiye proyektsii konflikta (deskriptivnyy aspekt) [Linguistic projections of the conflict (descriptive aspect)]. Doctoral dissertation, Krasnodar: Kuban State University,.
Balyasnikova, O., Ufimtseva, N., Cherkasova, G. and Chulkina N. (2018). Yazykovoye soznaniye: regionalnyy aspekt [Language and Cognition: Regional perspective]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika, 22(2), 232-250. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-2-232-250
Borgoyakova, A.P. (2002). Natsionalnokulturnaya spetsifika yazykovogo soznaniya khakasov. russkikh i anglichan (na materiale yadra yazykovogo soznaniya) [National and cultural specifics of the linguistic consciousness of the Khakassians, Russians and Englishmen (based on the material of the core of linguistic consciousness)]. Doctoral dissertation. Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University.
Wierzbicka, A. (2001). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. [Ponimaniye kultur cherez posredstvo klyuchevykh slov]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoy Kultury.
Gіrnik, A. M. (2016). Teoretichnі zasadi і protsedura frіlіstingu [Theoretical principles and freeling procedure]. Naukovі zapiski NaUKMA. Pedagogіchnі. psikhologіchnі nauki ta sotsіalna robota, 188, 50-55.
Dashiyeva, B.V. (1998). Obraz mira v kulturakh russkikh. buryat i anglichan [The image of the world in the cultures of the Russians, Buryats and English]. Yazykovoye soznaniye: formirovaniye i funktsionirovaniye, 200-211.
Dridze, T.M. (1984). Tekstovaya deyatelnost v strukture sotsialnoy kommunikatsii. Problemy semiosotsiopsikhologii [Text activity in the structure of social communication. Problems of semiosociopsychology]. Moscow: Nauka.
Zalevkaya, A.A. (2003). Yazykovoye soznaniye: voprosy teorii [Linguistic consciousness: theoretical questions]. Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 1, 30–34.
Zalevskaya, A.A.(1998).Znacheniye slova i vozmozhnosti ego opisaniya [The meaning of the word and the possibility of its description]. Yazykovoye soznaniye: formirovaniye i funktsionirovanie, 35-54.
Karaulov, Yu.N., Filippovich, Yu.N.(2009). Lingvokulturnoye soznaniye russkoy yazykovoy lichnosti. Modelirovaniye sostoyaniya i funktsionirovaniya [Linguocultural consciousness of the Russian language personality. Modeling state and functioning]. Moscow: “Azbukovnik”.
Krylova-Grek, Yu. (2007). Psykholinhvistychni osoblyvosti perekladu semantychnykh odynyts inshomovnykh tekstiv [Psycholinguistic features of translation of semantic units of foreign language texts]. Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Psychology. Kyiv: The Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine.
Kubryakova, E.S. (2012). V poiskakh sushchnosti yazyka: Kognitivnyye issledovaniya [In Search of the Essence of Language: Cognitive Research]. Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: Znak.
Lіteraturoznavcha entsiklopedіya [Literary Studies Encyclopedia] (2007). In 2 Volumes. Yu. Kovalіv, Ed. Vol. 1. Kyiv: Akademіya, 229.
Melnikov, G.P.(2000). Sistemnaya tipologiya yazykov: Sintez morfologicheskoy klassifikatsii yazykov so stadialnoy [Systemic typology of languages: Synthesis of morphological classification of languages from stadial.]. Moscow: RUDN.
Melnikov, G.P. (1998). Vnutrennyaya forma russkogo yazyka — klyuch k ponimaniyu ego osobennostey na vsekh urovnyakh [The internal form of the Russian language is the key to understanding its features at all levels]. ORLS. Retrieved from: http://philologos.narod.ru/melnikov-vf.htm
Nguyen, Tkhi, Khyong (2000). Mir v obrazakh soznaniya vyetnamtsev [The world in the images of the consciousness of the Vietnamese]. Yazykovoye soznaniye i obraz mira, collection of articles. Retrieved from: https://iling-ran.ru/library/psylingva/sborniki/Book2000/html_204/4-3.html
Potebnya, A. A.(2019) Mysl i yazyk. Izbrannyye raboty [Thought and language. Selected works]. Moscow: Yurayt.
Popova, Z. D.. Sternin I. A.(2003). Yazyk i natsionalnaya kartina mira [Language and national picture of the world]. Voronezh: Istoki.
Ufimtseva, N.V.(2006). Etnopsikholingvistika: vchera i segodnya [Ethnopsycholinguistics: yesterday and today]. Voprosy Psikholingvistiki, 92-100.
Ertelt-Vieth, A., Denisova- Schmidt, E. (2007). Lakuny i ikh klassifikatsionnaya setka [Gaps and their classification grid]. Voprosy Psikholingvistiki, 6, 39-51.Bloom, P., Keil, F. C. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind & Language, 16(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00175
Borgatti, S.P. (1998). Elicitation Methods for Cultural Domain Analysis. In: J.Schensul& M. LeCompte (Eds.). The Ethnographer's Toolkit, V. 3. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press
Comrie, B. (2021, March 21) Language and Thought. Linguistic Society of America. Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/language-and-thought
Cliff, G. (ed.). Wierzbicka, A., Amberber, M. at al. (2008). Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins: Studies in Language Companion Series. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.102
De Deyne, S., Navarro, D., and Storms, G. (2012). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 480—498.
Kiss, G. (1968). Words, associations, and networks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 707—713.
Kiss, G., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R. (1972). The Associative Thesaurus of English. Edinburg: Univ. of Edinb., MRC Speech and Communication Unit.
Krylova-Grek Yu. (2016) The Psycholinguistic Aspects of Influence of the Symbol Used in Media. Psycholinguistics, 20(1), 136-145.
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., and Wong, J. (2016). “Walking” and “running” in English and German: The conceptual semantics of verbs of human locomotion. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14(2), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2
Gumperz, J. J., and Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Savvinova, G. (2018). Special Features in Expressing the ‘Homeland’ Concept in the Yakut Heroic Epic Olonkho. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 7(5), 168-179. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i5.1910
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (translated and edited by Alex Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986069
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0