LINGUISTIC MARKERS OF ANTROPOCENTRISM IN IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2016-3-174-180
Abstract
The paper discusses a type of texts neglected by the Russian linguistics but actively studied in computer and cognitive sciences – image descriptions collected by linguistic experiments. The relevance of the linguistic study of image descriptions for theoretic and applied purposes is argued. The aim of the study was to propose a classification of linguistic anthropocentric markers (including indicators of the subject’s spatial and mental points of view as well as the image object’s anthropomorphism) in animal image descriptions (both domestic and wild, depicted in their natural environment). As a result, a classification is proposed including 20 classes of such markers differentiated by frequency. We discuss the influence of subjective (individual characteristics of respondents) and objective (denotative situation in the photo) factors on anthropocentric markers and the possibility to use the identified parameters for establishing norms of image descriptions and deviations.
References
1. Vekker L. M. Psikhika i real'nost' [Mind and Reality]. Moscow: Smysl, 1984, 364.
2. Gostev P. P., Sidorova M. Iu. Indeksirovanie i imenovanie izobrazhenii: problemy vne russkoi grammatiki ili dlia russkoi grammatiki? [Indexing and naming the images: the problem is Russian grammar or Russian grammar]. Struktury i funktsii: issledovaniia po rusistikе − Structures & Functions: Studies in Russian Linguistics, 2, no. 1 (2015): 94 − 138.
3. Gregori R. L. Razumnyi glaz [Intelligent eye]. Moscow: URSS, 2003, 240.
4. Zolotova G. A., Onipenko N. K., Sidorova M. Iu. Kommunikativnaia grammatika russkogo iazyka [Communicative Grammar of the Russian Language]. Moscow, 1998, 544.
5. Sidorova M. Iu. Semantiko-grammaticheskie svoĭstva imen prilagatel'nykh kak osnovanie dlia ikh klassifikatsii [The semantic and grammatical properties of adjectives as the basis for their classification]. Rusistika segodnia − Russian philology today, no. 2 (1994): 69 – 79.
6. Slovar' obydennykh tolkovaniĭ russkikh slov: Leksika prirody. T. 1: A–M (ABRIKOS – MURAVEĬ) (478 slovstimulov) [Dictionary mundane interpretations of Russian words: Vocabulary nature. Vol. 1: A–M (APRICOT – ANT) (478 words-incentives)]. Еd. Golev N. D. Comp. Basalaeva M. Iu., Vorob'eva M. E., Golev N. D., Dudareva Ia. A., Zamilova A. V., Kim L. G., Kishina E. V., Kuznetsova T. Iu., Mel'nik N. V. Kemerovo: Izd-vo Kem. un-ta, vol. 1 (2011): 500.
7. Khukalenko Iu. S. S tochki zreniia os'minoga: lingvisticheskie sredstva smeshcheniia fokusa empatii v storonu zhivotnogo v stat'iakh po etologii [From the perspective of an octopus: the linguistic means of empathy focus shift towards animal articles on ethology]. Russkiĭ iazyk: istoricheskie sud'by i sovremennost': V Mezhdunarodnyĭ kongress issledovateleĭ russkogo iazyka (Moskva, MGU imeni M. V. Lomonosova, filologicheskiĭ fakul'tet, 18 – 21 marta 2014 g.): Trudy i materialy [Russian Language: its Historical Destiny and Present: Proc. V Intern. Congress of Russian Language Researchers (Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov, Faculty of Philology, March 18 – 21, 2014)]. Moscow: MAKS Press, 2014, 358 − 359.
8. Khukalenko Iu. S. Lingvisticheskiĭ analiz aktsional'nykh glagolov semanticheskogo polia «deĭstviia zhivotnykh» v nauchnykh stat'iakh po biologii [Linguistic Analysis of actional verbs "Animal Action" semantic field in scientific papers on biology]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriia «Istoriia i filologiia» − Bulletin of Udmurt University. "History and Philology" Series, 25, no. 5 (2015): 26 − 32.
9. Khukalenko Iu. S. Iazyk kak sredstvo vyrazheniia kognitivnoi modeli zoologii v sovremennykh nauchnykh tekstakh na russkom iazyke. Avtoref. kand. filol. nauk [Language as a means of expression Zoology cognitive model of modern scientific texts in Russian. Can. filol. Sci. Diss. Abstr.]. Moscow, 2016, 24.
10. Chumirina V. E. Takticheskie priemy modelirovaniia prostranstva v khudozhestvennom tekste. Avtoref. kand. filol. nauk [Tactical modeling techniques of the space in a literary text. Can. filol. Sci. Diss. Abstr.]. Moscow, 2015, 24.
11. Bourlai E. E., Herring S. C. Multimodal Communication on Tumblr: “I have so many feels!” [Multimodal Communication on Tumblr: “I have so many feels!”]. ACM Web Science 2014 Conference. Bloomington, 2014. Available at: http://info.ils.indiana.edu/~herring/tumblr.pdf (accessed 10.01.2016).
12. Kennedy J. M. A psychology of picture perception. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
13. McDonald D. Visual conversation styles in web communities. Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, 2007, 76.
14. Phillips B. J. Advertising and the Cultural Meaning of Animals. Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 23 (1996): 354 – 360.
15. Rubin E. Figure and ground. Readings in Perception. D. Van Nostrand, 1958, 194 – 203.
16. Siersdorfer S., Hare M. Analyzing and predicting sentiment of images on the social web. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Firenze, Italy, October 25 – 29). ACM, New York, 2010, 715 – 718.
17. Yuan J., Mcdonough S., You Q., Luo, J. Sentribute: Image sentiment analysis from a mid-level perspective. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Issues of Sentiment Discovery and Opinion Mining (Chicago, IL, August 11 – 14). ACM, New York, 2013. Available at: http://chbrown.github.io/kdd-2013-usb/workshops/WISDOM/-paper_14.pdf (accessed 10.01.2016).
Review
For citations:
Marina M.Y. LINGUISTIC MARKERS OF ANTROPOCENTRISM IN IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2016;(3):174-180. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2016-3-174-180
Views:
647
Email this article 