Syrotina, O.
(2022).
Morphologized concept ECO- in the processes of conceptual derivation of the english ecological linguo-mental units .
International Journal of Philology,
13(2),
15-23.
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog2022.02.002
The рaper ocuses upon the conceptual derivation of English ecological linguo-mental units formed by the metacognitive mechanism of affixation with the morphologized concept EСO-. Through it a number of lexicalized ecocentric concepts were formed, which are actively used at the verbal level of information explication, reproducing the importance of environmental friendliness. Morphologized concept ECO- participated in the formation of lexicalized concepts that are a replenishment source of such thematic categories in the ecology field as natural phenomena and cataclysms: Ecoanxiety, ecobling, ecoeffiency, ecoscam, ecocatastrophe, ecoinstitute; Environmental activities: Ecotourism, ecomarketing, ecoevaluation, ecoprogramming, ecoproduction, ecoaudit, ecocracy, ecoaction, ecowar, ecofeminism, ecoassay; Property: Ecofavourable, ecoproductive, ecoactive, ecopractical, ecorecreational, ecotonal, subject: Aecoclothes, ecofood, ecomaterials, ecomagazines, ecoproducts, ecobags, eco-house; Ecoarchitecture, ecocar, ecohotel, ecolodge, ecolabel, eco-home; Place of action: Ecoplant, ecozone, ecoterritory, ecotown, ecoburb, ecoregion; Sciences and branches: Ecopsychology, ecohydrology, ecohydrodynamics, ecohistory; Persons: Ecospecialist, ecocoordinator, ecodefender, ecoprogrammer, ecotoxicologist, ecohydrologist, eco-guard, ecoalarmist. A significant number of lexicalized concepts represented in the study indicates the high activity of the morphological concept ECO- in terms of conceptual derivation of English environmental units. Morphologized concept ECO- provides eco-identification of English-language lexicalized concepts in the linguo-mental continuum
ecology sphere; conceptual derivation; morphological concept ECO-; lexicalized concept; thematic categories
[1] Babina, L.V. (2003). Cognitive bases of secondary phenomena in language and speech. Tambov: TSU named after G.R. Derzhavin.
[2] Babina, L.V. (2007). The problem of conceptual derivation. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 86-91.
[3] Balyuta, E.G. (2015). Evolution of environmental awareness and its verbalisation. State and Regions. Series: Humanities, 2, 35-40.
[4] Balyuta, E.Г. (2007). New vocabulary and phraseology of the English language in the field of environmental protection: Structural-semantic and functional parameters. (PhD thesis, Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University, Odesa, Ukraine).
[5] Besedina, N.A. (2010). The role of morphological categories in the organisation of language as a cognitive system. Cognitive studies of language. Types of categories in language. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the RAS.
[6] Besedina, N.A., & Boldyrev, N.Н. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms of morphological representation in language. Proceedings of the RAS. Series of Literature and Language, 66(1), 3-10.
[7] Bevzo, G.A. (2014). The conceptual sphere of “ecology” in English and Ukrainian. Language and Culture: A Scientific Journal, 17(1), 151-158.
[8] Bevzo, G.A. (2017). Sources of origin of environmental terminology in English and Ukrainian. (Dissertation for the degree of PhD in Philology, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine).
[9] Boldyrev, N. (2009). Evaluative metarepresentation: problems of study and description. Cognitive studies of language. In Research of cognitive processes in language. Collection of scientific works (pp. 43-51). Tambov: Derzhavin State University. G. R. Derzhavin.
[10] Buendía-Castro, M. (2020). Bilingual and multilingual online environmental knowledge resources: A comparative study for translation purposes. International Journal of Lexicography, 33(1), 40-72. doi: 10.1093/ijl/ecz022.
[11] Collins English dictionary – complete and unabridged. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ecology.
[12] Gagné, A.-M., & L'Homme, M.-C. (2016). Opposite relationships in terminology. Terminology International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, 22(1), 30-51. doi: 10.1075/term.22.1.02gag.
[13] Garmash, O.L. (2013). Ways of replenishing the affixed content of the concept system of modern English. New Philology, 56, 18-24.
[14] Garmash, O.L. (2014). Verbalisation of English biocentric lexicalised concepts of affixed type. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, 2(34), 47-50.
[15] Garmash, O.L. (2017). English-language morphologised metaconcepts in the processes of conceptual derivation (based on the material of linguistic innovations of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries). (Doctoral dissertation in philology, Zaporizhzhia National University, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine).
[16] Heuberger, R. (2003). Anthropocentrism in monolingual English dictionaries: An ecolinguistic approach to the lexicographic treatment of faunal terminology. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 28(1), 93-105.
[17] Jha, A. (2010). Eco-bling and retrofitting won't meet emissions targets, warn engineers. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/eco-bling-retrofitting-carbon-emissions.
[18] Jowit, J. (2010). British campaigner urges UN to accept “ecocide” as international crime. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage.
[19] Kubryakova, E.S. (2004). Language and knowledge: On the way to obtain knowledge about language: Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in cognition of the world. RAS Institute of Linguistics. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.
[20] Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (2009). Longman: Pearson Education. Retrieved from www.ldoceonline.com.
[21] Macmillian English Dictionary Online. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.macmillandictionary.com.
[22] Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/.
[23] Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com.
[24] Rozmaritsa, I.O. (2004). Linguistic and cognitive features of communication in the field of ecology. (PhD thesis, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine).
[25] Salamaha, M.Y. (2016). The English-language terminology system of environmental protection: Structure, semantics, pragmatics. (PhD thesis, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine).
[26] Salamakha, M.Y. (2014). Studying of the English environmental protection terminology in the aspect of thematic groups and hyper-hyponymic relations. Education’s role in preparing globally competent citizens. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, 12, 663-669.
[27] Salamakha, M.Y. (2015). Semantic models of the English environmental protection terms. Science and education a new dimension. Society for Cultural and Scientific Progress in Central and Eastern Europe, 65, 21-24.
[28] Syrotina, O.O. (2022). Morphological concept BIO- in the processes of conceptual derivation of biotechnological units. International journal of philology, 13(1), 34-40. doi: 10.31548/philolog2022.01.034.
[29] Usyk, G. (2021). Features of creation and semantics of English terminology in the field of environmental protection. Advanced Linguistics, 7, 59-64. doi: 10.20535/2617-5339.2021.7.229025.
[30] Vidal, J. (2008). The green scare. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/apr/03/greenbuilding.