Metaphorical models of youth civic and national self-identification
Abstract
It is substantiated the assumption that civic and national self-identification is stipulated by the metaphors chosen by the youth when characterizing different aspects of interaction with the state, the authorities, the society, etc. It is shown that typical metaphorical practices not only reflect the existing communication processes, but also actively influence their development. They play an important role not only in the construction of the world outlook of an individual, but also in the positioning regarding its separate systems, particularly the “individual – state”, the “individual – society” and the “individual – nation” systems. There are presented the findings of empirical investigation on metaphorical models of youth civic and national self-identification. The results of the factor analysis prove that students’ self-identification is drown from the metaphor, which basic meaning is the value of the state. More than a half of the respondents construct their identity following the exchange model (“the state is valuable for its citizens when it protects their interests”). Every fifth respondent’s identity is based on the model of the unconditional value of the state. The third biggest group of respondents strives for the sake of confidence and stability identification. The smallest group turned out to be the respondents who reject the value of the state. The self-identification of respondents following different metaphorical models corresponds to the logic of the key metaphor. This is proved by the results of analysis of metaphorical meanings of the following factors. The overwhelming majority of the metaphorical models of youth civic and national self-identification corresponds to the discursive level, i. e. metaphorical meanings are limited to connotation and do not stipulate any activity. The conception metaphors of the upper level (ontological ones), which structure the inner world and behavior of an individual, are sporadically represented in the model. They predominantly stipulate national self-identification. In general, the level of conceptualization of the metaphorical practices of youth national selfidentification is higher than the level of civic self-identification practices
References
[1] Baranov, A. N. (2004). Metaforicheskiye modeli kak diskursivnyye praktiki [Metaphorical models as discursive practices]. Izvestiya AN. Seriya literatury i yazyka [News АS. Series of literature and language], 63(1), 33–43 (rus).
[2] Riker, P. (1990). Metaforicheskiy protsess kak poznaniye, voobrazheniye i oshchushcheniye [Metaphorical process as cognition, imagination and feeling]. In Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor] (p. 416–434). Moscow: Progress Publ.
[3] Makkormak, E. (1990). Kognitivnaya teoriya metafory [Сognitive theory of metaphor]. In Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor] (pp. 358–386). Moscow: Progress Publ.
[4] Reshetnikova, O. V. (2010). Metafora v postneklassicheskom poznanii [A metaphor is in after nonclassical cognition]. Retrieved from http://www.dissercat.com/ content/metafora-v-postneklassicheskom-poznanii.
[5] Zinchenko, V. P. (2012). Zhivyye metafory smysla [Living metaphors of sense]. In B. P. Zinchenko (Ed.), Metodologiya psikhologii: problemy i perspektivy [Methodology of psychology: problems and prospects] (pp. 29–50). Moscow; St. Petersburg (rus).
[6] Chepelеva, N. V., Smulson, M. L., Zazimko, O. V., & Gutsol, S.Yu. (2016). Samoproektuvanyia osobystostі u dyskursyvnomu prostorі [Рlanning of itself of personality is in discursive space]. Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka Publ. (ukr).
[7] Volkova, D. E., Orlov, A. B., & Orlova, N. A. (2010). Znak, metafora, simvol – metodologiya subyektnosti [A sign, metaphor, symbol, is methodology of subject]. Psikhologiya [Psychology], 7(3), 89–119 (rus).
[8] Lakoff, G., & Johnsen, M. (2004). Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem [Metafors We live by]. Moscow: Editorial URSS Publ. (rus).
[9] Hutsol, S. Yu. (2007). Metafora yak sposib symvolichnoho vyrazhennia vnutrishnoho dosvidu osobystosti [Metaphor as method of symbolic expression of internal experience of personality]. Filosofiia. Psykholohiia. Pedahohika [Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogics], 21(3), part 2, pp. 109–116 (ukr).
[10] Richards, A. A. (1990). Filosofiya ritoriki [Philosophy of rhetoric] In Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor] (pp. 44–67). Moscow: Progress Publ. (rus).
[11] Lassan, E. (2010). O formakh sushchestvovaniya kontseptualnykh metafor kak indikatorakh sily i bessiliya obshchestva [About the forms of existence of conceptual metaphors as indicators of force and weakness of society]. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics], 1(31), 24–33 (rus).
[12] Anisimova, A. A. (2006). Rol metafory v strukture politicheskogo diskursa [A role of metaphor is in the structure of political discourse]. III Mezhdunarodnyye Boduenovskiye chteniya [III the International Boduen’s reading], Vol. 1, pp. 42–44 (rus).
[13] Belt, T. (2007). Gazetnyye metafory i politicheskoye ubezhdeniye: eksperimentalnoye issledovaniye [Newspaper metaphors and political persuasion : experimental researc]. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics], 3 (23),10–13 (rus).
[14] Saif, A. (2014). Politicheskaya metafora: kognitivnyy i pragmaticheskiy aspеkty [Political metaphor: cognitive and pragmatic aspects]. Filologicheskiye nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice], 10(40), Part. 3, pp. 164–169 (rus).
[15] Nikitina, M. A. (2010). O kognitivnom potentsiale metafory v nauchnom tekste [About cognitive potential of metaphor in scientific text]. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta [Announcer of Irkutsk State Linguistic University], 3(11), 157–161 (rus).