Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Aneta Pavlenko

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
fable 4. Structural and conceptual equivalence in Russian and English emotion vocabu- to transfer the adjectival pattern from L1 English into L2 Russian (Pavlenko & Driagina, 2007).

Table 4 fable 4. Structural and conceptual equivalence in Russian and English emotion vocabu- to transfer the adjectival pattern from L1 English into L2 Russian (Pavlenko & Driagina, 2007).

Related Figures (13)

Table 1. Structural equivalence in Russian and English emotion vocabulary Notably, full structural equivalence may oftentimes be impossible as languages of- en have unique semantic and syntactic specifications and combinatorial proper- ies. Examples in this category show that Russian and English encode emotion erms in the same basic categories — nouns, adjectives, pseudo-participles, verbs, ind adverbs — and that some of these words are linked to their structural coun- erparts in the other language.
Table 1. Structural equivalence in Russian and English emotion vocabulary Notably, full structural equivalence may oftentimes be impossible as languages of- en have unique semantic and syntactic specifications and combinatorial proper- ies. Examples in this category show that Russian and English encode emotion erms in the same basic categories — nouns, adjectives, pseudo-participles, verbs, ind adverbs — and that some of these words are linked to their structural coun- erparts in the other language.
Table 2. Conceptual equivalence in Russian and English emotion vocabulary partial overlap between prototypical referents of the two translation equivalents. For instance, in the word pair jealousy/peenocmp (revnost’), the English-language category is broader and may include ‘envy’ scripts, while the Russian word re- fers exclusively to romantic and sibling relationships (Stepanova Sachs & Coley, 2006). Conceptual non-equivalence is found in cases where words do not have ex- act translation equivalents in the other language, such as the English frustration! or the Russian nepesxcueamp (perezhivat’) (to suffer things through, to worry, to take things hard, to experience something keenly) (Pavlenko, 2002a, b; Pavlenko & Driagina, 2007; Wierzbicka, 1999). Pavlenko and Driasina (2007) considered both structural and conceptual
Table 2. Conceptual equivalence in Russian and English emotion vocabulary partial overlap between prototypical referents of the two translation equivalents. For instance, in the word pair jealousy/peenocmp (revnost’), the English-language category is broader and may include ‘envy’ scripts, while the Russian word re- fers exclusively to romantic and sibling relationships (Stepanova Sachs & Coley, 2006). Conceptual non-equivalence is found in cases where words do not have ex- act translation equivalents in the other language, such as the English frustration! or the Russian nepesxcueamp (perezhivat’) (to suffer things through, to worry, to take things hard, to experience something keenly) (Pavlenko, 2002a, b; Pavlenko & Driagina, 2007; Wierzbicka, 1999). Pavlenko and Driasina (2007) considered both structural and conceptual
Table 3. Word characteristics of the corpora English speakers producing longer narratives than L1 Russian speakers (M= 176.9 vs. M=115.1 words). In the Mr. Bean corpus it was L1 Russian speakers who pro- duced somewhat longer narratives (M=379.8 vs. M=317.2 words) but the differ- ence between the two corpora was not statistically significant, t(47) =-1.47, n.s.. Narratives in the L2 English and L2 Russian corpora were longer than those in the respective L1 corpora: the differences were statistically significant in the Mr. Bean corpus for L2 English, t(48) =-2.27, p<.03, and in The Letter corpus for L2 Rus- sian t(41.9) =-5.86, p<.001. This increased length may be explained by the need to paraphrase and circumlocute to address lexical gaps. It is also possible that some L2 learners and users suspected that the quality of their verbal performance would be subject to judgment and tried to impress the researcher by producing more detailed narratives.
Table 3. Word characteristics of the corpora English speakers producing longer narratives than L1 Russian speakers (M= 176.9 vs. M=115.1 words). In the Mr. Bean corpus it was L1 Russian speakers who pro- duced somewhat longer narratives (M=379.8 vs. M=317.2 words) but the differ- ence between the two corpora was not statistically significant, t(47) =-1.47, n.s.. Narratives in the L2 English and L2 Russian corpora were longer than those in the respective L1 corpora: the differences were statistically significant in the Mr. Bean corpus for L2 English, t(48) =-2.27, p<.03, and in The Letter corpus for L2 Rus- sian t(41.9) =-5.86, p<.001. This increased length may be explained by the need to paraphrase and circumlocute to address lexical gaps. It is also possible that some L2 learners and users suspected that the quality of their verbal performance would be subject to judgment and tried to impress the researcher by producing more detailed narratives.
Table Al. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 30; lemmas = 20; tokens = 70) Table A2. “The Letter” Narratives (n = 30; lemmas = 27; tokens = 147)
Table Al. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 30; lemmas = 20; tokens = 70) Table A2. “The Letter” Narratives (n = 30; lemmas = 27; tokens = 147)
Table B1. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 19; lemmas = 23; tokens =78) Table B2. “The Letter” Narratives (n = 29; lemmas = 36; tokens = 118)
Table B1. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 19; lemmas = 23; tokens =78) Table B2. “The Letter” Narratives (n = 29; lemmas = 36; tokens = 118)
Table C1. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 20; lemmas = 31; tokens =91)
Table C1. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 20; lemmas = 31; tokens =91)
Table C2. “The Letter” Narratives (n= 18; lemmas = 25; tokens = 87)
Table C2. “The Letter” Narratives (n= 18; lemmas = 25; tokens = 87)
Table D1. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 30; lemmas = 27; tokens = 118)
Table D1. “Mr. Bean” Narratives (n= 30; lemmas = 27; tokens = 118)
Related topics:
Language and CognitionBilingualism and MultilingualismLanguage and EmotionMental Lexicon
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved