Axiological concept of LAZINESS as an object of linguistics and psychology

Keywords: concept, cognitive linguistics, conceptualization, cognitive interpretation, linguistic and cultural studies, psychology, assessment, value

Abstract

Modern linguistics is a polyparadigmatic science, which is distinguished, in particular, by its interest in the data of psychology. It is especially important to involve the results of psychology during the study of axiological concepts, since it must be taken into account that the assessments made by people do not always have sufficient grounds. The purpose of the research is to consider the concept of LAZINESS from the point of view of various sciences, in particular cognitive linguistics and psychology, supplementing the linguistic data with knowledge about the causes of the studied condition.

Applying a cognitive approach to the study of linguistic phenomena, we focused on differentiating the contextual meanings of the polysemic word лень: according to the criterion “character of conceptualization”, we distinguish perceptual meanings, meanings of the internal state of the subject-experiencer, and inferential meanings.

The methods of cognitive semantics made it possible to generalize the set of contextual meanings of the word; to reveal the repetitive structure of cognitive processes, in which patterns of understanding and thinking are reflected, to reconstruct such a Gestalt scenario: in the center of the simulated situation is a person who is negatively evaluated from the point of view of attitude towards laziness; assessment arises as a result of the discrepancy between the physical / psychological / psychophysiological state, character, behavior of a lazy person and the expected socio-cultural norm. Evaluation is carried out by the speaker / narrator. Since the concept of LAZINESS is inseparable from its antipode WORK, the socio-cultural norm is associated with opposite meanings: “a person should work hard, be hardworking, etc.”

From the point of view of psychology, the characteristic of a lazy person is often biased and is not always based on the study of the motives of the person being evaluated. The concept of laziness can be a reductionist explanation for why others do not act as expected. At the same time, the real motivation, abilities and qualifications of the evaluated person are almost never taken into account. These problems are explained in the discourse of psychology. Analysis of psychological literature made it possible to identify the main causes of laziness: low level of motivation; weak willpower; desire for satisfaction; a protective reaction against physical or mental stress; a kind of protest against violence against a person and some others.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Lili Wang , V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Doctoral student, Slavic Philology Department, School of Philology

References

Berne, E. Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. URL:http://loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=2086&p=1 (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Wang, Lili (2023). Conceptual semantics of the adjective ленивый and stereotypical image of a lazy person (according to the National Corpus of the Russian Language). The Jornal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Philology”. № 92. P. 64–69. URL: 10.26565/2227-1864-2023-92-09.

Vygotsky, L. S. Psychology. URL: https://goo.su/sHdy (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Eremina, M. A. Laziness and hard work in the mirror of the Russian language tradition: monograph. URL: https://goo.su/l5oNI (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Klimov, E. A. Individual style of activity. URL: https://c.twirpx.link/file/1029330/ (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Kon, I. S. On the problem of national character. General psychology. URL: https://scepsis.net/library/id_903.html (date of the application 19.02.2024).

A brief dictionary of cognitive terms / E. S. Kubryakova, V. Z. Demyankov, Yu. G. Pankrats, L. G. Luzina / under general ed. E. S. Kubryakova. URL: https://b.twirpx.link/file/183196/ (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Petrovsky, V. A. (1975). On the psychology of personality activity. Questions of psychology. No. 3. P. 26–38.

Psychological Dictionary. URL: http://azps.ru/handbook/ (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Rubinstein, S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. URL: https://psylib.org.ua/books/rubin01/ ((date of the application 19.02.2024).

Serio, P. (1999). Russian language and analysis of Soviet political discourse: analysis of nominalizations. Quadrature of meaning: French school of discourse analysis: trans. from fr. and port. / total ed. and entry art. P. Serio; preface Yu. S. Stepanov. M.: OJSC IG “Progress”. pp. 337–383.

Fadiman, J., Frager, F. (1998). Defense mechanisms. General psychology. Collection of texts / edited by. ed. V. V. Petukhov. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House. pp. 94–197.

Frankl, V. Psychotherapy in practice. URL: https://biblioteka-online.info/book/psikhoterapiya-na-praktike/reader (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Freud, 3. (2001). Beyond the pleasure principle. Kharkov: Folio; M: LLC Publishing House AST. 624 р.

Foucault, M. (1977). Words and things. Archeology of the humanities / trans. from french M.: Progress. 408 p.

Foucault, M. (2004). Archeology of knowledge. St. Petersburg: IC “Humanitarian Academy”. 416 p.

Jung K. Psychological types. URL: https://www.litlib.net/bk/49334/read (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Yakimanskaya I. S., Vorobyova V. V. Psychology of laziness: statement of the problem. URL: http://svitk.Ru/004_book_book/8b/1956_yakimanskaya-psihologiya_leni.php#_Toc42951211 (date of the application 19.02.2024).

Bruner, J. (1990). Handling i Mening. (Transl.). Hedin S., H. 1st Arhus 2000, Forlaget Klim. 272 р.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. London: Harvard University Press. 224 р.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things / What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 303 p.

Langacker, R. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol / The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin; NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 395 р.

Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 628 р.

Madsen, T. (2018). The Conception of Laziness and the Characterisation of Others as lazy // Human arenas. 1. P. 288 304. https://doi.org./10.1007/s42087-018-0018-6

Pultz, S., Hviid, P. (2016). Imaging a better future: Young unemployed people and the polyphonic choir // Cultur & Psychology, 24 (1). P. 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X16660853

Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford; NY: Oxford University Press. 634 р.

Published
2024-06-15
How to Cite
Wang , L. (2024). Axiological concept of LAZINESS as an object of linguistics and psychology. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Philology”, (94), 49-56. https://doi.org/10.26565/2227-1864-2024-94-08