Please cite as:

Shevchenko, Iryna (2017). Had We Never Loved So Kindly: Conceptualisation of

communicative behavior. In E. Chrzanowska-Kluczewska, & O. Vorobyova (Eds.) Language
– Literature – the Arts: A Cognitive-Semiotic Interface. Series: Text – meaning – context:
Cracow Studies in English Language, Literature and Culture. (pp. 307-320). Frankfurt-am-
mein: Peter Lang. doi: https://doi.org/10.3726/b10692 Retrieved from:
https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631702505/xhtml/chapter16.xhtml

Iryna Shevchenko
V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

HAD WE NEVER LOVED SO KINDLY:

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF COMMUNICATIVE
BEHAVIOUR
This article analyzes the mental issues of interactional styles or modes of verbal communication in
English and Ukrainian. Using the of notion of conceptualization, Discourse Analysis and the Theory
of cognitive pragmatics which integrates cognitive and communicative (pragmatic) issues as the
analytic approaches, the article explicates the cognitive and pragmatic difference between interactional
acts and their styles, or properties, in terms of concepts-events and concepts-properties. The analysis
singles out a particular type of cultural concepts – concepts of communicative behaviour and shows
the difference in the conceptualization of speech acts or speech events, on the one hand, and their
ethical properties, on the other, as corresponding to processual or atemporal concept varieties. The
former, concepts-events of communicative behaviour, are mental schemata of certain situations, which
can be modelled as dynamic frames-scenarios. In discourse, they are manifested by speech acts while
defining their leading illocutionary force. The latter, concepts-properties, are internalized ethic norms
of communicative behaviour that regulate, as ethno-cultural stereotypes, various instances of verbal
(through different strategies of politeness) and non-verbal interaction.

1. Introduction
Concept and conceptualization are probably the best known aspects of cognitive linguistic
studies. In the domain of linguistic interaction between the speaker and the hearer the research
mainly concentrates on the conceptualization of specific speech acts and speech events –
genres, emotions, rituals, and ethnocultural scripts such as English judgments expressed
through verbs such as blame, accuse, criticize (Fillmore 1971). The mental issues of
interactional styles or modes of communication, however, are equally important. Central to
this study is the idea that people’s communication is a cluster of acts and their properties: a
love confession can sound bold or shy, a knight’s challenge can be rude or polite.
In this article specific attention is paid to the mental representation of linguistic
interaction properties in terms of cognitive pragmatics – a subparadigm of linguistic
pragmatics which integrates cognitive and communicative (pragmatic) issues within a
functional megaparadigm. In linguistics, to understand the essence of the cognitive-pragmatic
vector which accounts for its difference from traditional pragmatics and cognitive linguistics,
I have to introduce one of the main ideas of cognitive pragmatics – the idea that pragmatics of
communication and concepts construed in interaction should not be described separately but
should be treated as an inherently integrated complex.
My objectives include: (1) showing the inadequacy of purely communicative models
of linguistic interaction and introducing a broader integrated cognitive-pragmatic vector of
discourse analysis; (2) explicating the cognitive and pragmatic difference between
interactional acts and their styles, or properties, in terms of concepts-events and concepts-
properties.
To support this claim, I will discuss the difference in the conceptualization of speech
acts or events, on the one hand, and their ethical properties, on the other. The data on English
and Ukrainian discourses is drawn from the 17th – 20th centuries texts which provide samples
of both linguistic and non-linguistic means of interaction.

2. Conceptualizaion of communicative behaviour

The cognitive approach in modern linguistics is based on the assumption that linguistic
meaning is experientially grounded, encyclopedic and not separate from other forms of
knowledge of the world (Geeraerts 2006). These ideas correspond to the anthropocentric,
functional and explanatory view of linguistics, and lead to the formation of “cognitive-
discursive paradigm” of knowledge (Kubryakova 2004), within the framework of which
discursive activities are described against the background of internal mental processes. This
approach dates back to the Relevance Theory, the essence of which is integration of pragmatic
and cognitive studies in search of principles and mechanisms for decoding the speaker’s
meanings as interpretation of his/her intentions (Sperber and Wilson 1986). Understanding
pragmatics as a system of mental information processing corresponds to a new orientation
known as Cognitive Pragmatics:

Pragmatics is a capacity of the mind, a kind of information-processing system, a system for interpreting
a particular phenomenon in the world, namely human communicative behaviour.
(Carston 2002: 128-129)

Cognitive Pragmatics focuses on mental operations related to meanings construed in

discursive situations; its subject is meaning production and interpretation viewed as mental/
cognitive phenomena in linguistic interaction. At the same time, traditional and cognitive
pragmatics do not exclude each other; rather, this is an issue of preference given to this or that
set of research parameters. In other words, there are two vectors of analysis depending on the
investigator’s focus: “the pragmatic (communicative) one and the intentional (cognitive) one
which correspond to the two hypostases of an integrated scientific approach – linguistic
pragmatics” (Shevchenko, Susov and Bezuglaya 2008: 7) [translation into English throughout
the article – I. S.].
The style of communication in a certain culture can be interpreted in terms of
people’s communicative behaviour guided by “a set of communicative norms and traditions
of certain groups of people”, respectively, a specific “national communicative behaviour”
serves as a distinctive characteristic feature of a linguistic-cultural community (Sternin et al.
2003: 8). National culture is “a mode of activities established through history” (Markaryan
1978: 8-9). In the philosophic approach to communicative behaviour based on social practice,
culture appears to be a mode of activity, a system of mechanisms which stimulate, program
and implement human activities in a society (Lur’e 1998: 155). The mental perspective of
communicative behaviour, including “verbal skills and knowledge – standards of verbal and
nonverbal communication, communication categories, genres, speech and functional styles –
constitutes a system of communication concepts and values in a certain culture or its
communicative conceptual sphere” (Dement’ev 2006: 6).
The concept is understood here as a “quantum of knowledge”, a result of
epistemological operations of construing meanings in certain situations of discourse. Being
related to linguistic predication, these operations are either nominal or relational:

A nominal predication designates a thing, and functions as the semantic pole of a noun. Relational
predications are divided into two basic groups, depending on whether they designate a process or an
atemporal relation. Processual predications correspond to the class of verbs […], atemporal relations
correspond to adjectives, adverbs […]. (Langacker 1987: 214)

In Cognitive Linguistics, taking into account the influence of a linguistic form (the name of
the concept) on the mental representation, there is a tendency according to which structures of
knowledge about things are called “substantive” concepts, and those about processual and
atemporal relations –“processual” and “relational” concepts, respectively (Kubriakova 2004:
252-267), corresponding to the onomasiological categories.

2.1. Mental representations of speech acts

Cognitive Linguistics singles out a class of concepts with predominantly culture-based
meanings and treats them as unities of three mandatory cognitive characteristic features:
notional, image-perceptive, and evaluative (Karasik et al. 2009). Among such “cultural”
concepts there are both “substantive” concepts like GOD or POWER (Polina 2004) and
“relational” (atemporal) ones, such as SIN or GOOD (Vahovskaja and Shevchenko 2013;
Shevchenko and Zmiyova 2008). The classification of cultural concepts, however, has not
been completed yet. In the domain of linguistic communication, the latest studies have
revealed a new type of concept – that of communicative behaviour (APOLOGY, COURTSHIP,
REVENGE). Ivan Chesnokov claims:

The concept of communicative behaviour (“behavioural concept”) is a mental reflection of the

speaker’s pattern of behaviour (activity) […] described in terms of social interaction – from the point of
view of its motives, goals, as well as strategies and tactics of achieving them. (Chesnokov 2009: 6)

Thus, in the linguistic-cultural perspective, behavioural concepts incorporate both mental

representation of the concept and its actualization in the communicative behaviour or
discourse, where they emphasize “conscious purposeful symbolic activities associated with
the expression of the concept in the practice of social interaction including linguistic activity”
(Chesnokov 2009: 26).
Addressing this issue, Chesnokov studied the emotional behavioural concept
REVENGE, using an algorithm of research procedures targeted consequently from the forms
of a concept’s linguistic representation to the ways of its actualization in discourse. On the
basis of the lexical-semantic analysis he arrived at the following definition of the concept
REVENGE:

A mental formation consisting of an emotional state (anger, hatred, contempt) and (behavioural) scripts
activated against their background; one of the scripts provokes an aggressive behavioural response of an
individual to the source of frustration, and the other – to the source-replacing object.
(Chesnokov 20009: 6)

According to Chesnokov, the purpose of the activities prescribed by the concept REVENGE
lies in transforming the communicative space and establishing a border to separate one’s own
(safe) space from another’s (hostile) one. To achieve this goal, the speaker uses strategies of
intimidation and perversion (Lat. pervertere (v.) – ‘ruin, spoil’), i. e., causing physical and/or
moral damage to the threatening object (ibid.). In particular, REVENGE is embodied in the
form of ritualized and indirect vindictive statements (pseudo-comforting, sarcastic, etc.), as
well as multi-intentional statements of the type “We will meet again”, whose illocution can
only be determined for a certain communicative event. Chesnokov instantiates REVENGE
with a letter (written in 1676) from Ivan Sirko, a chieftain of Ukrainian Cossacks, to the
Turkish Sultan Mekhmed IV:

(1) Ti, sultan, chort turetskiy, i proklyatogo chorta sin i brat, samogo Lyutseferya sekretar. Yakiy tyi v
chorta litsar, koli goloyu [...] yizhaka ne vb’esh?! He budesh ti, sukin sin, siniv hristiyanskih pid
soboy mati, tvoyogo viyska myi ne boyimosya, zemleyu i vodoyu budem bitsya z toboyu,vrazhe ti
rozproklyatiy sinu!
You sultan, Turkish devil, and cursed devil’s brother and comrade, Lucifer’s secretary. What hell
of a knight are you […] if you cannot kill a hedgehog with your naked […]. Never ever you, son of
a bitch, will have Christian sons under you; we are not afraid of your army, we will fight you on
land and sea, you archenemy and damned son! (Friedman 1978: 25-37)

The main purpose of the letter is to humiliate the Sultan and demonstrate the Cossacks’
superiority, which is achieved through the use of discursive strategies of intimidation and
malediction, the latter being embodied in the tactics of defilement through the use of
invectives. In fact, the concept of communicative behaviour corresponds to speech events
characterized by specific rituals whose individual tactics are embodied in the corresponding
speech acts: in the commissives (those in the above letter) we find menaces (we will beat
you!), expressives (statements with abusive vocabulary), etc. Chesnokov’s findings open up
perspectives of a further insight into behavioural concepts.
In psychology, behaviour is viewed as a goal-oriented activity of an organism in
response to external and internal stimuli (Weiner 2013: 101-114). In modern philosophy,
behavior is understood in terms of individual abilities to act in the material, intellectual, and
social areas of life (SEP 2015). Sociologists clarify: behaviour is all that a person deliberately
does or does not; a set of person’s acts and non-acts (BESO). In this regard, I would suggest
that a mental representation of a specific action corresponding to a speech act or speech event
should be considered a concept-event of communicative behaviour.
In this paper, I would suggest a set of criteria to single out key features, characterizing
concepts of communicative behaviour and distinguishing their types:
- the nature of the concept (processual vs. atemporal),
- the method of concept modelling (various mental schemata),
- the linguistic form (lexemes vs. speech acts and discursive strategies),
- the illocutionary force (primary vs. secondary).
As Ronald Langacker (1987), Suzanne Kemmer (2000), Timothy Klausner and
William Croft (1999) claim, concept modelling requires the use of schemata as a
generalization, abstracted from linguistic forms and meanings. Schemata, or patterns of
experience embedded in the mind, are cognitive representations comprising similarities
observed in multiple cases of the sign use. According to Marvin Minsky (1975), concepts can
be modelled as frames consisting of slots corresponding to the ontological schemata for the
lexical representation of concepts. Dynamic, or prosessual, concepts correspond to a frame
scenario – a sequence of episodes which occur in certain time and place.

2.2. Mental representations of speech acts’ properties

To determine the type of concepts of communicative behaviour, it is important to emphasize
that mental representations of actions are not limited to concepts-events, such as REVENGE,
which match a frame-scenario, but also includes characteristics of actions or states, which can
be found in processual concepts-properties like COURTESY, POLITENESS, RESTRAINT,
TOLERANCE, HEDGING, OPTIMISM, KINDNESS, etc. Consider now the following quotation
from Robert Burns’ poem “Ae Fond Kiss”:

(2) Had we never lov’d sae blindly,

Had we never lov’d sae kindly,
Never met or never parted,
We would’ve never been broken hearted. (Burns 1791/2003, IS)

Properties of communicative behaviour can be represented by a word (usually an adjective:

evasive apology, discreet reprimand) or a sentence − including a proverb or saying: “Nothing
is so strong as gentleness, nothing so gentle as real strength” (pastor Ralf W. Sockman,
1889–1970, IS); according to the propositional relations they are modelled as slots of
manner/quality in the activity-frame [SOMETHING/SOMEBODY acts SO] or subject-frame
[SOMETHING/SOMEBODY is SUCH]. These and similar concepts exemplify the dominant
features of English communicative behaviour: politeness, reserve, tolerance, etc. They
correspond to the ethnic-specific traits of the British as pointed out by Tatiana V. Larina:
“restraint, poise, tact, exquisite courtesy, elegance of manners, inner self-esteem, self-respect,
friendliness, isolation, alienation, tolerance, non-interference in other people’s affairs,
snobbery” (Larina 2009: 124).
A distinctive feature of concepts-properties of communicative behaviour is that they
are verbalized not only by words or sentences, but also by speech strategies or tactics
(apologies, thanks, compliments, etc). Using the conventional semantic metalanguage of
description (Wierzbicka 1997: 36-40), one can interpret concepts encoded in apology speech
acts as the following scenario:
[I feel sorry because I have done smth bad to you
Now I want to get rid of this feeling
I say this to ask for your forgiveness].
A schematic representation of a speech act in communicative behaviour usually comprises the
method slot (I humbly apologize [SOMEBODY acts SO]) which characterizes not a separate
entity in the scenario but rather the entire frame (cf. profiling processes and atemporal
relations in Langacker 1987) .
Concepts-events of communicative behaviour, as a rule, form the basis of speech acts,
they are ritualized and culture specific. Coulmas (1981: 81) elaborates on this subject: “After
all, ‘thanks’ and ‘apology’ are Western words”. But their applicability to other cultures
“should not be taken for granted”. Thus, GRATITUDE as one of the key concepts in all
European Christian ethical systems manifests in them similar conceptual frameworks and
common etymological layers but displays different axiological characteristics and means of
discourse actualization.
The Online Etymology Dictionary (OED) points out that such key concepts of
Christian ethics as gratitude, thankfulness arise from the Greek evharisteo (v.), hara ‘joy’.
The Old English þanc, þonc in later use came to denote ‘grateful thought, gratitude’, the
plural form thanks originating from the mid-13th c. thank (v.) (cf. Old Saxon thank, Old
Frisian thank, Old Norse þökk, Dutch dank, German Dank). The Old English noun originally
used to mean ‘thought, reflection, sentiment; mind, will, purpose’, also ‘grace, mercy, pardon;
pleasure, satisfaction’. This concept brings a person closer to God and opens the door for
him/her to the mysteries of the heavenly world (Psalm 49: 23).
In European languages, the etymology of gratitude demonstrates a tangible impact of
both Latin and Germanic roots. The English thank – the Old English þancian ‘to give thanks’,
from the Proto-Germanic thankojan, accentuates the idea of grace (‘good thoughts, gratitude’,
1000 AD), while Romance languages single out the divine nature of thanks: gracia dates back
to the 12th c. ‘God’s favour or help’ from the Old French grace – ‘pardon, divine grace,
mercy; favour, thanks; elegance, virtue’ (OED). In non-Christian societies the axiological
component of the concept GRATITUDE is different: in Japanese culture the role of this
concept becomes so high that it comes to form the basis for the entire moral system of the
Japanese (BOE). This difference in the concept interpretation explains the existence of a
cross-cultural cognitive dissonance, especially noticeable in everyday communication.
In contemporary discourse, GRATITUDE is actualized through appropriate speech acts
– expressives, performatives (Allow me to express my gratitude ...; Dozvol’te vyslovyty
vdiachnist’ ...), and tactics – compliments and the like, as well as non-verbally (do sth in
gratitude). In the respective speech act, this concept defines its leading illocutionary force
which can be combined with secondary illocutions (expressiveness – I can’t thank you
enough, questioning How can I possibly thank you?, etc).
Comparing pragmatic issues of the concept-event and the concept-property proves that
the latter determines secondary speech act illocutions in communicative behaviour, being
mostly manifested through discourse strategies or tactics, mainly politeness strategies. While
the concept-event of communicative behaviour underlies the speech act as such, the concept-
property determines its characteristics. Compare two discourse fragments from Charlotte
Brontë’s novel Jane Eyre, which actualize the concept-event LOVE CONFESSION:

(3) “Am I a liar in your eyes?” he asked passionately. “Little sceptic, you shall be convinced. What
love have I for Miss Ingram? None and that you know. What love has she for me? None as I have
taken pains to prove I caused a rumour to reach her that my fortune was not a third of what was
supposed, and after that I presented myself to see the result; it was coldness both from her and her
mother. I would not—I could not—marry Miss Ingram. You—you strange, you almost unearthly
thing!—I love as my own flesh. You—poor and obscure, and small and plain as you are—I entreat
to accept me as a husband.”(Brontë 1847/2011: 191)

The first example demonstrates a chain of speech acts used by Mr. Rochester to entreat Jane
to marry him. His rhetorical questions shape an intensifying tactics, while the informatives
and requestives focus on AFFECTION (I would not, I could not, unearthly thing, love as my
own flesh) as expressing his psychological state through their secondary illocutionary force.
The second example, related to St. John Rivers’ marriage proposal, includes
informatives devoid of any sign of affection, but rather suggestive of his hypocrisy. The two
declaratives (you must, you shall be) are obviously “bald on record” face threatening acts:

(4) “God and nature intended you for a missionary’s wife. It is not personal, but mental endowments
they have given you, you are formed for labour, not for love. A missionary’s wife you must—shall
be. You shall be mine. I claim you—not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign’s service.<…>
and, passing over all minor caprices—all trivial difficulties and delicacies of feeling—all scruple
about the degree, kind, strength or tenderness of mere personal inclination—you will hasten to
enter into that union at once.” (Brontë ibid.: 306)

Both examples demonstrate a significant difference in the functioning of the concept LOVE
CONFESSION in the situations of marriage proposals arising from different concepts-
properties − AFFECTION vs. HYPOCRISY.
The discourse strategies and tactics in the above examples demonstrate how concepts
of communicative behaviour are linked to ethics, thus revealing a certain degree of
compliance/non-compliance of communicative behaviour with moral norms, in particular,
those of linguistic and non-linguistic etiquette. The etiquette system, understood as a set of
mandatory stereotypical rules of behaviour, is in fact courtesy. The latter explicates the nature
of the concept of communicative behaviour as a “presentation concept – a special linguistic
class of regulatory cultural concepts conveying ethical norms of presentation of self to others
as their constitutive features, which serve to maintain a balance between preserving one’s own
face and the face of others” (Mushayeva 2008: 5).
The ethical component of concepts of communicative behaviour suggests that they are
stereotypes, fragments of a conceptual worldview, “mind clichés” conveying information
about the patterns of behaviour mandatory for all members of a community. Thus, positive
politeness strategies have always been based on the behavioural concept COURTESY/
POLITENESS. According to my data, starting with the 17th century through the 21st century,
the concepts of communicative behaviour, regulated by the norms of English etiquette, such
as RESERVE, TOLERANCE, HEDGING, COMMUNICATIVE OPTIMISM, etc., have been
mostly manifested through negative politeness strategies, in Penelope Brown and Steven
Levinson’s parlance (1987: 162-169) to “avoid interfering (question, hedge)”. This accounts
for an abundant use of indirect speech acts, e.g., offers in the question form, etc., in everyday
talk reflected in fiction. Consider a citation from Evelyn Waugh’s novel Decline and Fall:

(5) “I'm Prendergast,” said the newcomer. “Have some port?”

“Thank you, I’d love to.” (Waugh 1928/1980:46)

Ubiquity of the situations requiring polite behaviour in compliance with etiquette

norms accounts for the fact that POLITENESS becomes one of the dominant cultural
stereotypes and historical variables in English discourse.

3. Evaluation
As our research shows, the most significant distinctions between concepts-events and
concepts-properties of communicative behaviour come down to the ways of their schematic
presentation as well as means and ways of their actualization in discourse.
1. Schematic representations of concepts-events may be regarded as a model of the
respective communicative situation where concepts-events unfold in time, being schematized
as dynamic frames-scenarios. For example, REVENGE, APOLOGY and similar concepts
develop along the scenario line [motive → intention → estimation of situation parameters →
the choice of linguistic/non-linguistic means → corresponding speech/communicative act] (cf.
a cognitive scenario for emotions like ANGST/ANGER in (Wierzbicka 1998)).
On the contrary, concepts-properties of communicative behaviour characterize the
entire situation and therefore do not have a separate scenario (POLITENESS, RESTRAINT,
HEDGING are features of various actions or states); they are modelled as slots of quality or
manner within the frame of the respective concept-event, i.e., when apologizing, the speaker
can be polite or impolite, when reproaching – restrained or evasive, etc.
2. In discourse, concepts-events of communicative behaviour are mostly presented by
speech acts whose leading illocutionary force corresponds to the given concept. For example,
the concept GRATITUDE is explicitly realized by expressive speech acts with the leading
illocution of expressing one’s psychological state.
In contrast to concepts-events, concepts-properties of communicative behaviour
determine a secondary illocutionary force in a speech act, e.g., TOLERANCE can accompany
the expression of reproach as a dominant illocution in expressives. However, concepts-
properties with their appropriate discourse strategies and tactics characterize the speakers’
communicative behaviour most vividly. Thus, the concept EVASIVENESS is usually
actualized via negative politeness strategies, such as hedging, whereas the concept OPTIMISM
– by positive politeness strategies, mainly through the “be optimistic” tactics.

4. Conclusion
To conclude, the use of cognitive pragmatics and discourse analysis as a methodology
for analysis allows for singling out a particular type of cultural concepts – concepts of
communicative behaviour and distinguish their processual and atemporal varieties: concepts-
events and concepts-properties.
Concepts-events of communicative behaviour are mental schemata of certain
situations, which can be modelled as dynamic frames-scenarios. In discourse, they are
manifested by speech acts while defining their leading illocutionary force.
Being related to the ethical domain, concepts-properties are internalized norms of
communicative behaviour that regulate, as ethno-cultural stereotypes, various instances of
verbal (through different strategies of politeness) and non-verbal interaction. As concepts-
properties, they specify the whole situation in its dynamic and gradual features, schematically
they fill in a quality/manner slot of the respective frame. In discourse, they are marked by
words, sentences, and discourse strategies or tactics, depending on a set of socio-cultural
discursive parameters of the communicative situation, such as its context, speakers’ goals and
intentions; in turn, in speech acts they determine the secondary illocution.
 Finally, the cognitive-discursive vector chosen in this research offers a deeper insight
into discourse structure, offering resources for further linguistic studies of cross-cultural and
diachronic variations of communicative behaviour concepts in English and other languages.

References
Literary Sources
Brontë, Charlotte. (1847/2011). Jane Eyre. Available from:
http://brontesisters.ru/writings/novels/jane-eyre. (Accessed on 6.04.2014).
Burns, Robert. (1791/2003). Ae Fond Kiss. Available from:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173054. Accessed on (7.04.2014).
Psalm 49. The Online Searchable Bible: Bible Gateway. New International Version.
Available from: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%2049%3A23
(Accessed on 10.04.2014).
Waugh, Evelyn. (1928/1980). Decline and Fall. In: Waugh, Evelyn, Prose. Memoirs. Essays.
Moscow: Progress Publ. 35– 202.
Critical Literature
BESO – The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online. George Ritzer (ed.) Available
from: http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/ (Accessed on 10.04.2014).
BOE – Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Available from: http://www.britannica.com/
(Accessed on 10.04.2014).
Brown, Penelope and Steven Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Use. London, New York, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robin. (2002”. “Linguistic Meaning, Communicated Meaning and Cognitive
Pragmatics”. Mind and Language 1-2 (2002): 128-129.
Dement’ev, Vadim. (2006). “Var’irovanie kommunikativnykh kontseptov” [Variation of
Communicative Concepts] In: Dement’ev, Vadim, Chelovek v kommunikatsii:
kontsept, zhanr, diskurs. [Person in Communication: Concept, Genre, Discourse]:
Collection of papers, Volgograd: Volgograd University Publ. 5–23.
Chesnokov, Ivan. (2009). Mest’ kak emotsional’nyy povedencheskiy kontsept (opyt
kognitivno-kommunikativnogo opisaniya v kontekste russkoy lingvokul'tury: avtoref.
diss … dokt. filol. nauk [Revenge as Emotional Behavioural Concept: Dr. philol. sci.
diss. synopsis]. Volgograd: Volgograd State Pedagogic University.
Coulmas, Florian. (1998). “Poison to Your Soul: Thanks and Apologies Contrastively
Viewed”. In: Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in
Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague:
Mouton. 69-91.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1971). “Verbs of Judging: An Exercise in Semantic Description”. In:
Fillmore, Charles J. and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic
Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 272-289.
Friedman, Victor A. (1978). “The Zaporizhian Letter to the Turkish Sultan: Historical
Commentary and Linguistic Analysis”. In: Raskin, Victor and Dmitri Segal (eds.),
Slavica Hierosolymitana: Slavic Studies of the Hebrew University 2 (1978): 25-37.
Geeraerts, Dirk. (2006). “Introduction. A Rough Guide to Cognitive Linguistics”. In:
Geerarts, Dirk, Dirven, René, Taylor, John R. and Ronald W. Langacker (eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton. 1-28.
Karasik, Vladimir, Krasavski, Nikolai and Gennadi Slyshkin. (2009). Lingvokul’turnaya
kontseptologiya [Linguistic-Cultural Conceptology]. Volgograd: Peremena.
Kemmer, Suzanne. (2000). “Schemas and Lexical Blends.” LAUD Series B, No. 299: 1-28.
Klausner, Timothy and William Croft. (1999). “Domains and Image Schemas”. Cognitive
Linguistics 10 – 1 (1999): 1-31.
Kubryakova, Yelena. (2004). Yazyk i znanie: Na puti polucheniya znaniy o yazyke: Chasti
rechi s kognitivnoy tochki zreniya. Rol' yazyka v poznanii mira [Language and
Knowledge]. Moscow: Yazyki slavianskoj kultury.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.
Larina, Tatiana V. (2009). Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil' kommunikatsii [The Category of
Politeness and Communication Style]. Moscow: Yazyki slavianskikh kultur.
Lur’e, Svetlana. (1998). Istoricheskaya etnologiya: Uchebn. posobie dlya vuzov [Historic
Ethnology]. Moscow: Aspekt-Press.
Markaryan, Eduard. (1978). Ob iskhodnykh metodologicheskikh predposylkakh issledovaniya
etnicheskikh kul'tur [About Methodological Prerequisites of the Study of Ethnic
Cultures] In: (editor not stated) Mat-ly simpoziuma [Symposium Materials]. Yerevan:
AN ASSR Publ. 8–9.
Minsky, Marvin. (1975). “A Framework for Representing Knowledge”. In: Winston, Paul.
(еd.), The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill. 99-128.
Mushaeva, Olga. (2008). Prezentatsionnye regulyativnye kontsepty v kalmytskoy, russkoy i
angliyskoy lingvokul'turakh: avtoref. diss …kand. filol. nauk. [Presentation
Regulative Concepts in Kalmyk, Russian and English Linguistic Cultures: Kandidat
philol. sci. diss. synopsis]. Volgograd: Volgograd State Pedagogic University.
OED – Online Etymology Dictionary. Available from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php.
(Accessed on 5.04.2014).
Polina, Anna. (2004). Yazykovaya ob’’ektivatsiya kontsepta BOG v angliyskom diskurse XVI–
XX vekov: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. [Verbalization of the Concept GOD in the
English discourse of the 16th – 20th centuries: Kandidat philol. sci. diss. synopsis].
Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University.

Shevchenko, Irina S., Susov, Ivan and Lilia Bezuglaya. (2008). “Abris kognitivnogo vektora
pragmalingvistiki” [The Shape of Cognitive Vector in Linguistic Pragmatics]. Vіsnyk
Kharkіvs'kogo Natsіonal'nogo Unіversitetu іmenі V. N. Karazina [V. N. Karazin
Kharkiv National University Messenger]. 811 (2008): 3–7.
Shevchenko, Iryna S. and Iryna V. Zmiyova. (2007). “Ponyatiynaya kategoriya DOBRO v
angliyskoy yazykovoy kartine mira” [Conceptual Category GOOD in the English
Linguistic Worldview] In: Karasik, Vladimir and Iosif Sternin (eds.), Antologiya
kontseptov [Anthology of Concepts]. V. 5. Volgograd: Paradigma. 4–16.
SEP – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2015). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Available from:
http://plato.stanford.edu (Accessed on 10.04.2014).
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. (2005). “Relevance Theory”. In: Horne, Laurence and
Gregory Wars (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell: 607–632.
Sternin, Iosif, Larina, Tatiana and Maria Sternina. (2003). Ocherk angliyskogo
kommunikativnogo povedeniya [A Study of English Communicative Behaviour].
Voronezh: Istoki.
Stockman, Ralph Washington. Wikipedia Quotations. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Washington_Sockman#Quotations (Accessed on
10.04.2014).
Vahovskaja, Olga V. and Irina S. Shevchenko. (2013). Koncept GREH v anglojazychnoj
kartine mira. Jevoljucija v diskurse XIV-XXI vekov [Concept SIN in the English World
View. The Evolution in the 14th-21st Centuries Discourse]. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert
Academic Publishing.
Weiner, Bernard. (2013). “Ultimate and Proximal (Attribution-related) Motivational
Determinants of Moral Behaviour”. In: Heinrichs, Karin, Oser, Fritz and Terence
Lovat (eds.), Handbook of Moral Motivation: Theories, Models, Applications.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 101-114.
Wierzbicka, Anna. (1998). “‘Sadness’ and ‘anger’ in Russian: The Non-universality of the
So-called ‘Basic Human Emotions’". In: Athanasiadou, Angeliki and Elżbieta
Tabakowska (eds.), Speaking of Emotions: Conceptualisation and Expression. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 3-28.
Wierzbicka, Anna. (1997). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words: English,
Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.