Актуальные вопросы лингвистики и лингводидактики: традиции и инновации. Часть 3

Во-вторых, необходим достаточно высокий уровень владения иностранным языком у студентов. Это достигается или путем прохождения вступительных испытаний / установкой высокой планки и критериев отбора на программу, или постепенного совершенствования языковых навыков к уровню магистратуры.

На данный момент большинство вузов в рамках программ по иностранному языку реализуют методику иностранного языка для специальных целей (ESP), где акцент делается на иностранном языке в приложении к определенной области. Предметно-языковое интегрированное обучение является следующим, более высоким по сравнению с ESP уровнем, который выводит на первый план одновременно предметную область и знание иностранного языка как неотъемлемые компоненты курса. Поэтому именно уровень магистратуры представляется первой испытательной площадкой для успешной апробации данной методики. Сама структура спецкурса оптимально отвечает поставленным задачам, включая лекционные и семинарские занятия.

В-третьих, для некоторых курсов необходима академическая база, которая создается постепенным прохождением программы. Исходя из данных вводных, наиболее целесообразным является использование данной методики на уровне магистратуры, а также при чтении дополнительных спецкурсов и курсов по выбору.

В заключении, необходимо еще раз подчеркнуть высокий потенциал предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения.

Литература

1. Зарипова Р.Р. О результатах апробации модели интегрированного предметно-языкового обучения средствами русского и английского языков в высшей школе // Современные проблемы науки и образования. 2014. № 6.

2. Клец Т.Е. К вопросу об использовании предметно-языкового интегрированного обучения CLIL в системе иноязычной подготовки студентов // Иностранные языки: лингвистические и методические аспекты. 2015. № 30. С. 83–89.

3. Комарова А.Б. Предметно–языковое интегрированное обучение // Фундаментальные и прикладные исследования в современном мире. 2013. Т. 3. № 4 (04). С. 143–146.

4. Coombs W. Timothy, Holladay Sherry J. The Handbook of Crisis Communication. 1^st edition. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

5. Coyle D. Hood P. & Marsh D. Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. 2010. URL: http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilprac-tiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf (дата обращения: 05.09.2018).

6. Dalton-Puffer, C. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2007.

7. Fearn-Banks Kathleen. Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach (Routledge Communication Series). 4th edition. New York, Routledge, 2011.

8. Lukanina Maria. Crisis Counselor. Пособие по английскому языку для студентов отделения антикризисного управления. М.: Цифровичок, 2007.

9. Marsh D (Ed). Сontent and Language Integrated Learning: The European Dimensions – Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Jyvaskyla, University of Jyvaskyla. Finland, 2002.

The use of spatial metaphors for notions of time

Мехтиева А.С.

преподаватель

Ленкоранский государственный университет

Аннотация. В данной статье основное внимание уделяется абстрактности времени и рассматривается структурирование времени через пространственные метафоры. Также выделяется набор относительных сходств между концептуальными областями пространства и времени, рассматриваются несколько объяснений того, как эти сходства могли возникнуть. Результаты показывают, что области пространства и времени разделяют концептуальную структуру; пространственная относительная информация так же полезна для размышления о времени, как временная информация, и при частом использовании отображения между пространством и временем заносятся в область времени и поэтому размышления о времени не обязательно требует доступа к пространственным схемам.

Ключевые слова: метафора, пространство, время, понятия, будущее, прошлое, познание.

Abstract. This article focuses on the abstract domain of time and consider whether time is structured through spatial metaphors. I will highlight a set of relational similarities between the conceptual domains of space and time, consider several explanations of how these similarities may have arisen. The results indicate that the domains of space and time do share conceptual structure; spatial relational information is just as useful for thinking about time as temporal information, and with frequent use, mappings between space and time come to be stored in the domain of time and so thinking about time does not necessarily require access to spatial schemas.

Key words: metaphor, space, time, concepts, future, past, cognition.

As we know, for many people, metaphors are a means of poets or writers, in other words, creative people. Just a few people are aware of the fact that we actually use metaphorical expressions every day. It depends on the view everybody what thinks about it. The focus is on the work of Lakoff and Johnson Metaphors we live by, one of the first that brought the approach of omnipresent metaphors.

Before looking on this theory, there will be an overview of definitions as a start into that topic. Functions of metaphors, where already the omnipresence of metaphors will be indicated. After presenting Lakoff’s and Johnson’s approach, there will be a presentation of some fields where metaphors can be used and where, again, the presence of metaphors is proved. Before we can start testing every-day life language for metaphors, one has to define first what this language phenomenon actually means. There are several definitions Metaphors are, above all, means of figurative language, an indirect comparison without a word showing this comparison, e.g. the word like. Aristotle who was first to provide a scholarly treatment of metaphors gives a more detailed definition of the term metaphor. He said that a metaphor consists in giving the thing a name that belongs to something else; the transference being either from genius to species, or from species to genus, or from species to species, or on the ground of analogy [10]. English educator, literary critic I.A. Richards went further. He gave a terminology which is still used nowadays when talking about metaphors. For him a metaphor has two terms, called topic and vehicle. The latter one is the term used metaphorically. These two terms have a relationship called ground. Famous Soviet linguist Arnold gave this definition: A metaphor is a transfer of name based on the association of similarity and thus is actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to another by referring to it as if it were some other one. A cunning person, for instance, is referred to as a fox. All these definitions have in common that they speak of two terms which a related to each other because of the similarities they have. But they also limit the function of metaphors to embellish the language [9, p. 130, 131]. There are other analysts who broadened the functions, namely George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their investigation Metaphors we live by. They proved that metaphors are omnipresent and indispensable in every-day-language. They write in their investigation Metaphors we live by: Metaphor is for most people a device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish-a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language. Moreover, metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. For this reason, most people think they can get along perfectly well without metaphor. We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. The concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the intellect. They also govern our everyday functioning, down to the most mundane details. Our concepts structure what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people. Our conceptual system thus plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. If we are right in suggesting that our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, then the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor [1, p. 3].

Metaphors, H. Paul points out, may be based upon very different types of similarity or comparison, for instance, similarity of shape: head of a cabbage, the teeth of a saw. This similarity may be based on function. The transferred meaning is easily recognized from the context: the head of the school, the key to the mystery. The similarity may be supported also by position: foot of a page. Numerous cases of metaphoric transfer are based upon the analogy between duration of time and space, e.g. long distance-long speech, a short path-a short time [9, p. 130, 131].

The impact of spatial orientation on human thought and, in particular, our understanding of time has often been noted. Lakoff assumes that our metaphorical understanding of time in terms of space is biologically determined: “In our visual systems, we have detectors for motion and detectors for objects/locations. We do not have detectors for time (whatever that could mean). Thus, it makes good biological sense that time should be understood in terms of things and motion.” We need spatio-physical metaphors to speak about time in the same way that we need concrete metaphors to speak about other internal states such as emotions or thoughts. We also address the relationship in cognition and language between space and time. The universality of concepts or categories of space and time has been a key trope of Western thought since the philosophical reflections of Immanuel Kant. In many, if not most, languages, space and time are linked by metaphorical mapping relations. It has been proposed that such mappings reflect a universal conceptual “time is space” metaphor, based upon asymmetries in the nonlinguistic representation of space and time. We noted that spatial metaphors for time abound in the languages of the world, and this has led some cognitive scientists to propose that the “time is space” conceptual metaphor is a human cognitive universal. It is indeed the case that most, perhaps even all, languages have some words that are used with both spatial and temporal meanings; but not all of these are readily classifiable as metaphoric usages, and it is often difficult to decide whether single-word usages involve metaphor or metonymic fusion. To rigorously test the hypothesis that space–time metaphor is universal, we need to focus on usages that are systematic and unambiguously metaphoric in nature. For example, time passes or flows. This has been called the moving time metaphor. Sometimes, it is not time as a “thing,” dimension, or moment that moves, but events in time, as in “my birthday is approaching.” In a complementary schema, the moving ego schema, the speaker “moves” toward an event, as in “he is approaching his birthday.” Moving time and moving ego are the two possible variants of passage metaphor; the movement either of an event past the deictic center, or the deictic center past an event. Positional metaphor relies for its intelligibility on the shared understanding by speaker and hearer of the metaphoric orientation of a timeline in the front–back, vertical, or horizontal plane. In English, the future is ahead and the past is behind. “The best is before you” means that the best is waiting in the ‘future.’ In Azerbaijani and Russian it is the same very often. “The best is before you” is translated into Azerbaijani as “Әn yaxşısı sәnin qabağındadır, yәni irәlidәdir, gәlәcәkdәdir”. It is the same as English. Or into Russian as “самое лучшее перед вами”. This is also the same as English.

But this is not the case in all languages. For the Chinese speakers, qian suo wei jian 前所未見 “it has never been seen before” refers to the event that has never been seen in the past. In the Aymara language family of the Andes and in Yucatec Maya, the timeline orientation is reversed, so that, for example, in Yucatec Maya “my old age is behind me,” means it is in the future. Recall that in Yucatec Maya, there are no equivalent terms to “before” and “after” and it seems that passage metaphors are also absent.

How is the domain of time learned, represented, and reasoned about? Certainly some elements of time are apparent in our experience with the world. From experience, we know that each moment in time only happens once, that we can only be in one place at one time, that we can never go back, and that many aspects of our experience are not permanent (i.e. faculty meetings are not everlasting, but rather begin and end at certain times). In other words, our experience dictates that time is a phenomenon in which we, the observer, experience continuous unidirectional change that may be marked by appearance and disappearance of objects and events.