UTILITARIAN EVALUATION IN GERMAN ENGINEERING DISCOURSE
- Authors: Klyoster A.M.1, Shnyakina N.Y.2
-
Affiliations:
- Omsk State Technical University
- OmskState Pedagogical University
- Issue: Vol 46, No 1 (2024)
- Pages: 26-33
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2542-1077/article/view/293251
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.15393/uchz.art.2024.987
- ID: 293251
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The article studies the means of expressing utilitarian evaluation in German engineering discourse. Theaim of the study is to examine the presuppositions that form a person’s perception of the usefulness or uselessness ofmaterial and ideal manifestations of scientific and technological progress. Using the method of cognitive interpretationand definitional analysis, the work reveals the conditionality of characterizing an evaluation object as having or notbeing beneficial or useful, taking into account the areas of its positive impact on society. The theoretical significance ofthe study lies in clarifying the cognitive foundations of object qualification in terms of additional (background)knowledge, while its practical significance derives from the possibility to use the key research results within cognitivedisciplines. The study resulted in making a list of presuppositions significant for utilitarian evaluation, including such substantiations of utility as efficiency, obtaining benefits, saving resources, ease of use, dynamism, value to society, reliability, and optimality related to the feasibility of resource consumption and predicted results.
About the authors
A. M. Klyoster
Omsk State Technical University
Author for correspondence.
Email: annaklyoster@mail.ru
Cand. Sc. (Philology)
N. Yu. Shnyakina
OmskState Pedagogical University
Email: zeral@list.ru
Cand. Sc. (Philology)
References
- Arutyunova, N. D. The concept of presupposition in linguistics. Izvestiya of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Literature and Language Series. 1973;32(1):84–89. (In Russ.)
- Zharina, O. A. Essence of the terms “presupposition” and “presumption” in modern cognitive linguistics. Baltic Humanitarian Journal. 2017;6(4(21)):70–72. (In Russ.)
- Ivanova, Yu. A., Pershina, M. A. Lexical and semantic classification of words used for utilitarian evaluation in political discourse (using the materials of the English and Russian languages). In: Linguistic and cultural realities of the modern world: All-Russian research and practical conference. Penza, 2015. P. 98–102. (In Russ.)
- Naumova, L. A. Presuppositions in logic and linguistics. In: Philosophy: In search of ontology: Collected papers of Samara Humanitarian Academy. Samara, 1998. Issue 5. P. 236–255. (In Russ.)
- Paducheva, E. V. The concept of presumption in linguistic semantics. Semiotics and Computer Science. 1977. Available at: https://codenlp.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/presumption-77.pdf (accessed 23.12.2022). (In Russ.)
- Savelyeva, E. A. The structure of utilitarian evaluation (object, subject, basis). Surgut State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2012;6(21):31–34. (In Russ.)
- Khoroshunova, I. V. National features of Russian utilitarian evaluation (study of the lexical and semantic utilitarian evaluation field “benefit/harm”). In: Language and National Consciousness. Voronezh, 2004. P. 12–17. (In Russ.)
- Chelak, E. A. Utilitarian evaluations in advertising discourse. In: Speech Communication in Modern Russia. Omsk, 2011. P. 80–85. (In Russ.)
- Shnyakina, N. Yu. Cognitive interpretation in the studies devoted to the construction of the world by means of language. Philology and Culture. 2015;4(42):180–184. (In Russ.)
- Keenan, E. L. Two kinds of presupposition in natural language. In: Studies in Linguistic Semantics. (Ch. J. Fillmore, D. T. Langendoen, Eds.). Irvington, 1971. P. 45–54.
- Klyoster, A. M., Shnyakina, N. Yu. Evaluative aspect of engineer’s world view (the German language case study). Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2020;131:942–950.
- Klyoster, A. M., Shnyakina, N. Yu. Ways of expressing general evaluation in German scientific discourse. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2021;102:513–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.02.02.64.
Supplementary files
