STUDYING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FICTION AND KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION

881 STUDYING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FICTION AND KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION Tairova Feruza Fayzullayevna senior teacher, Renaissance University of Education, E-mail:[email protected] DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17933801 Key words: cognitive space, concept, fiction text, discursive situation, cognitive structures, linguistic signs In our view, cognitive structures of a word-for-word nature should not be applied to the content plane of linguistic structures. It differs in terms of both its quantitative and qualitative characteristics. The distinction of quantitative attributes is that not all of an individual's experience is verbalized, for in linguistic expression they only translate a certain part of their cognitive experience. The qualitative distinction is because the use of language is conditioned by the translation into a community-wide code of language semantics. There is no doubt that symbolism plays a significant role in the manipulation of cognitive structures, the means of which are linguistic signs. Symbolism involves the creation of a facilitated mental 'trace' of an object, a sign, in the place of which the entire body of knowledge and experience can be fitted for cognitive operations. The symbol (linguistic sign), if necessary, retrieves from memory precisely the amount of information that is pragmatically needed by a person in a particular discursive situation. However, the notion of a linguistic sign should not be taken simplistically. An individual word is a semantically "fuzzy" unit of the vocabulary, and only a coherent text with its discursive orientation can fully actualize the cognitive structure. It is a transition from an individual image of a situation to a cognitive structure that can be translated into propositional representations. This transformation is connected with deionization. It is the formation of perceptual meaning, which is realized in the process of active structuring under the influence of experience and intention of the author of the text. It is necessary to determine which cognitive structures, passing through the prism of the cognitive and perceptual experience of the author, can be actualized in the text. Reality is projected into language through knowledge about it, and one of the main tasks of cognitive linguistics is "the study of structures of knowledge representation and ways of the conceptual organization of knowledge in the processes of speech generation and perception". Structures of knowledge representation are conditional and simplified models of consciousness, which 882 represent diverse information, acquired because of different cognitive mental mechanisms of a person in his interaction with the surrounding world and in the process of internal reflection. Cognitive structures include prototypes, schemas, frames, domains, etc. In addition to the concept of a cognitive structure, the terms "cognitive models" and "mental models" are also used. J. Lakoff introduced the concept of an idealized cognitive model into linguistic usage. It is regarded as an abstract scheme of a fragment of culturally conditioned experience acquired in interaction with reality. This model is created based on four types of knowledge structures: propositional, figurative-schematic, metaphorical, and metonymic. It has the properties of the gestalt as an integral structure of consciousness. F. Johnson-Laird suggests using the term "mental model", which is a broader category than cognitive structure. The mental model relates directly to the interpreted fragment of reality. The model is independent of language because its main source is sensory perception. At the same time, "mental models can be transformed according to different tasks, in particular culturally interpreted and derived inferences". The semantics of a text can be conveyed as its propositional representation - the structure of the relevant sentences. The text implies at least one mental model projecting the representation of a fragment of the real world. The perception of the text is based not so much on the interpretation of its philological characteristics, as on the model of a fragment of the world picture created under the influence of this text. As mentioned earlier, mental models are formed because of perceptual experience, the author's knowledge system. The author of the text as a multifaceted linguistic personality is characterized by representational thinking, which correlates mental models with language. Representative thinking is impossible without language, remember the famous statement of L.S. Vygotsky "consciousness reflects itself in a word, as the sun in a small drop of water. The word relates to consciousness like a small world to a large one, like a living cell to an organism, like an atom to the cosmos. It is the small world of consciousness. The meaningful word is a microcosm of human consciousness. Thus, speech, the linguistic structures of discourse, are an essential instrument of both authorial conscious reflection and its conscious control. Language structures and text structures are conscious insofar as it relates to the control of discursive content. In cognitive science, the role of text is defined as the linguistic realization of mental models, structures, and concepts, and therefore the text is a means for representing and 883 archiving knowledge, a kind of "clothes for thoughts" or "mediator in the representation of thought". Every writer has a unique perspective on the world, and that perspective is reflected in the text. This distinctive conception of the world is represented by the author's model of the universe. The system of mental models, representing the author's individual experience of cognition of the world, in literary and artistic form expresses both universal, universal knowledge and experience and individual, unique perceptions and personal experience of the author of the text. Thus, universal principles of the universe and individual, distinctive ideas coexist in the mental representation of the world picture in the fiction text. After the author has created a cognitive structure, it interacts with the structures of linguistic thinking, which, according to the terminology of N.F. Aliferenko (2009), is called a verbal network. The verbal network also functions selectively: the structural connections between its elements are quite flexible. The verbal network depends to some extent on the interaction between cognition and discourse. The cognitive structure, feeding on representations of knowledge, finds itself in the difficult situation of choosing how to verbalize (as cognitive units are much richer than word meaning), and the verbal network, burdened by denotative links, tries to place cognitive information in the Procrustean bed of models and schemata known in language. In the issue of the relationship between cognitive and linguistic structures, we find interesting W. Evans' idea of a clear description of the lingual and conceptual systems to determine the attributes of the lexical concept. The lingual system consists of symbolic units, and symbolic units are formed in phonological form and lexical concepts. The conceptual system consists of cognitive models, which in turn frame and are generated by a potentially unlimited set of imitations. Verbal representation - a system composed of symbolic units and cognitive models - and represents the primary substratum used in the construction of meaning by means of language. Semantic representation is a substructure of the lexical representation system, responsible for the interaction between cognitive models and lexical concepts. The semantic structure on its part refers to the content included in lexical concepts and is a type of semantic unit that have information related to the linguistic system. The conceptual structure relies on the meaning embedded in the cognitive models and is a form of representation that carries the information associated with the conceptual system. The conceptual structure relies on the meaning embedded in cognitive models and is a form of representation that carries the information associated with the conceptual system. Of interest to us are V. Evans' ideas about the bipolar structure of lexical concepts (represented by words) in which, on the one hand, the linguistic information associated with the semantic 884 structure is encoded and which, on the other hand, refers to us to the content associated with the conceptual structure. Let us consider only those that more vividly reveal the dependence of the lexical concept on the discursive situation: John opens the window. John opens his mouth. John opened the bank account. The carpenter opened the wall. The surgeon opened the wound. The sapper opened the dam. The skies opened. He opened a dialogue. In all these examples the lexical concept OPEN carries clearly defined linguistic information (time, person), but in each concrete sentence, we are forced to refer to the constantly changing information content according to our experience, from which in a concrete situation the necessary fragment is selected, which together with linguistic information defines the meaning of a word and, hence, the representation of the lexical concept OPEN. In V. Evans' approach to properties of lexical concepts, meaning is not a property of words or even language, but a function of discourse, in which words work as intermediaries linked to socio-cultural, factual context, providing access to a complexly organized array of encyclopedic knowledge concentrated outside of language. The weight of background encyclopedic knowledge, which sets a broad contextual framework for the interpretation of concepts, manifests itself in the profiling of cognitive structures in the author's text. Profile, according to R. Lanecker, provides a general outline of word semantics, like a taxonomic class for a name. In this context, it is an extension of L. Talmy's idea of topological types to the semantic sphere: the speaker in operations with concepts manipulates holistic images rather than individual semantic features. These profiles enable a person to find relationships between different concepts, and to carry out comparison and substitution operations in different contexts. E. Bartminskii investigated the question of «portrait of the subject of cognition». The mechanism of creation of a "portrait of a subject of cognition" includes the gradual formation of an image of the object, during which linguistic cognition makes the selection and interpretation of culturally significant meanings and their sign coding in the form of the semantic structure of a word or a phraseology. Therefore, the formation of a language portrait, according to E. Bartminski, is a way of constructing components of language meaning from the minimal elements - derivatives arising in the process of fixation of signs, qualities, properties, and functions of the object recognized by the person. The scholar calls the features selected in this way a profile. "Different profiles are not different meanings, but ways of organizing the semantic structure of a particular meaning". When covering the issue of actualization and profiling of cognitive structures in a fiction text, one cannot ignore the theoretical studies of the American psycholinguist R. Sternberg, dedicated to the individual's 885 intelligence and the ways of processing linguistic information. According to the scholar, mental representations, in particular conceptual structures, are constructed with the help of executive components, which are semantic features. The receipt and representation of certain information occur through selective coding, which singles out information that is important to a particular purpose, and selective combination, which allows fragments of information to be combined into an internally coherent whole. In perceiving and transmitting information, in combining it into a coherent whole, in relating it to the previously known, a person relies on his previous experience, which is brought under certain scenarios, frames, domains, and schemes. The scientist specifies that despite the universality of abilities, ability to cope with the novelty of information and automation of its processing, manifestations of components of intelligence in empirical experience depend on cultural context, cognitive abilities of the individual, motivation, values, and emotions. This concept by R. Sternberg is applicable in terms of concept profiling in a fiction text. Presenting this or that concept, the author of a fiction text, first, conveys the information known to him about this linguocultural phenomenon, relying on his encyclopedic knowledge and the knowledge acquired by his intellectual and emotional experience; second, in each specific context, the expression of a concept accentuates only certain features important to that context, which is done using selective sign coding; third, using selective combining those lexical units The representation of a concept in a fiction text is closely related to deep cognitive configurations, which rely on the author's inferential knowledge, experience, and mental lexicon. The results of conceptualization are fixed in memory through linking with verbal means; hence, there is a lexicalization of the concept. With this approach, it becomes important what lies behind the word naming the concept. The verbal description of what lies behind this word is inferential background knowledge, which is constructed based on a potential set of representations of entities or events activated in the individual's memory that directly relate to the object of conceptualization. Thus, knowledge in a fiction text is represented through concept profiles, identified based on the correlation of lexeme meanings in the textual context; the lexeme meaning is not reduced to the traditional list of semantic features but is considered as a component of a broader context of the discursive situation, speech-thought activity, in which the concept is verbalized. References 1. Бабенко Л. Г Филологический анализ текста. Основы теории, принципы 2. и аспекты анализа : учебник для вузов / Л. Г. Бабенко. - М. : Академический проект; Екатеринбург : Деловая книга, 2004. - 464 с. 3. Выготский Л. С. Мышление и речь // Собр. соч.: В 6 т. - М. : Государственное соц.- экономическое издво, 1982. - Т.2. - 362 с. 886 4. Гумбольдт В. Избранные труды по языкознанию / В. Гумбольдт. - М.: Прогресс, 1984. - 400 с. 4. Кубрякова Е. С. Язык и знание: На пути получения знаний о языке. Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Роль язика в познании мира / Е. С. Кубрякова. - М. : Языки славянской культуры, 2004. - 560 с. 5. Лакофф Дж. Когнитивное моделирование / Дж. Лакофф // Язык и интеллект [под ред. В. В. Петрова; пер. с англ. В. И. Герасимова и В. П. Нерознака]. - М.: Прогресс, 1995. - С. 143-184. 6. Соссюр Ф. Труды по языкознанию / Ф. Соссюр. - М. : Прогресс, 1977. - 689 с. 7. Тэн И. Очерки Англии / И. Тэн. - СПб. : Тип. дома призрения малолет. бедных, 1872. - 348 с. 8. Bartminski J. Stereotypyjezykowe / J. Bartminski, J. Panasiuk // Wspolczesnyjezykpolski - Lublin, 2001. - 372 s. 8. Chomsky N. Language and Mind [3rd edition] / N. Chomsky. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 9. Evans V How words mean: lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning-construction / V Evans. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. - 400 p. 10. Johnson-Laird P. N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness (Cognitive Science Series) / P. N. Johnson-Laird. - Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1983. - 513 p. 11. Langacker R. W. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar / R. W. Langacker. - Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. - 395 p. 12. Piattelli-Palmarini M. Preface and Introduction to Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (the Royaumont debate) (Harvard University Press, 1980). Part 1 [Електроннийресурс] / M. PiattelliPalmarini - Access mode:http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~massimo/publications/. 13. Sternberg R. Cognitive psychology / R. Sternberg. - Fort Worth: Wadsworth Publishing, 2005. - 624 p. 14. Talmy L. Figure and ground in complex sentences / L. Talmy // Universals of human language [Greenberg et al (eds)]. - Stanford: SUP, 1978. - Vol. 4. - P. 625-649.