Introduction 4
2. Chapter 1: Theoretical background of the present investigation:
methodology and methods 6
2.1. Linguistic concepts. Concept of state 6
2.2. Functional grammar and semantic functions 13
2.3. Gestalt analysis and gestalt functions 16
2.4. Conclusions 18
3. Chapter 2: Means of expressing the concept “State” in Modern
English 20
3.1. Models of non-resultative state 20
3.2. Models of potential resultative state 23
3.3. Models of actual resultative state 24
3.4. Conclusions 32
4. Chapter 3: Representation of the concept “state” viewed
diachronically 34
4.1. XVII century - overall results 36
4.2. XVIII century - overall results 42
4.3. XIX century - overall results 48
4.4. XX century - overall results 54
4.5. Metaphoric usage of resultative constructions 59
4.6. Possible cognitive interpretation of the turning point (XIX c.) in the
development of state semantics 61
4.7. Conclusions 64
5. General conclusions 65
6. Linguistic literature 68
7. Material for analysis 72
8. Supplement 74
9. Teacher resource
As is known, language gradually transforms itself over the centuries adapting to the needs of the times [Aitchinson 2001]. Diachronic approach to cognitive linguistics makes it possible to expand the studies in conceptual analysis to historical explorations and get a better and more prolific view of the content and structure of a concept [Кузнецов 2007].
The goal of the present paper is to observe the diachronic transformations in the representation of the concept “State” from the 17th to the 20th century and trace its possible interface with linguistic worldview.
The subject matter of the present investigation is historical changes of the content and structure of the concept “State” during the 17th, the 18th, the 19th and the 20th centuries. The object of our analysis is language representations of the concept “State” and its subconcepts (Resultative state and Non-resultative state).
To pursue the goal priority is given to functional linguistics, cognitive semantics and diachronic conceptology.
The methodology of the present paper includes functional grammar, construction grammar, diachronic conceptology.
The methods used are functional semantic analysis, conceptual analysis, structural analysis, gestalt analysis, random selection and frequency distribution.
The corpus of the analysed material amounts to 2021 examples taken from twenty written records of the above historical periods.
Structurally, the paper consists of Introduction, three Chapters, General Conclusions, Linguistic literature, Supplement, and Teacher Resource. The actual text is supplied with tables, diagrams, and graphs.
In Chapter 1, the theoretical background of the investigation is presented. The notion of linguistic concept and the concept “State” in English are discussed, the premises of functional semantic and gestalt analyses are considered.
Chapter 2 surveys the representation of the concept “State” in Modern English.
In Chapter 3, we focus on diachronic analysis of the representatives of the concept “State” during the given historical periods and the ways of their metaphorization. A cognitive approach is endevoured to account for the fluctuation in the frequency of some gestalt functions in the XIX century.
General Conclusions summarize the results of the analysis as to the possible interface of the historical changes of the English language and the linguistic worldview.
Supplement presents some examples of semantic functions and gestalt functions revealed in the diachronic analyses of the twenty written records (five for each century under examination).
Teacher Resource offers some exercises based on the research that can be applied in the course of ‘Theoretical grammar’.
Our proposal is as follows: diachronic changes in the representation of the concept “State” reflect the changes in the linguistic worldview resulting from the development and ordering of human conceptual sphere in the process of historic evolution. Metaphorization of resultative constructions goes from fuzzy to concrete in the semantics of the verb during the historical periods under analysis.
