THE FRAME-SLOT MODEL OF THE CONCEPT OF MOTIVATION ON THE BASIS OF MOTIVATIONAL SPEECHES BY PUBLIC FIGURES
Abstract
This article introduces the outcomes of the conceptual analysis of motivational speeches delivered by prominent public figures, obtained by means of the UAM Corpus Tool – a cutting-edge software renowned for conducting both automated and manual text annotations. Furthermore, the study is enhanced by a conceptual metaphor analysis, revealing that ontological and structural components are the predominant and efficacious elements in constructing a frame-slot model. In accordance with Minsky’s theoretical framework, the frame-slot model consists of the main concept, and frames as complex structures, resembling multi-layered networks. It is figured out that these intricate structures are formed by slots and subplots [17]. Accordingly, the concept of MOTIVATION comprises a combination of frames reflecting embodied speakers’ experiences such as A LIVING BEING, DIFFICULTIES, PURPOSE, MATERIAL OBJECT, STATE, COGNITION, MOVEMENT, INSPIRATION, LIFE, WORLD, EDUCATION, and LANGUAGE. These components collectively serve as a comprehensive reflection of the perceptual paradigms employed by the selected public speakers, whose speeches serve as the primary corpus for this research. Consequently, the corpus comprises 20 speeches delivered by eminent male and female public figures, featuring Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, Kamala Harris, Melinda Gates, Angelina Jolie Voight, Arianna Huffington, Condoleezza Rice, Sheryl Sandberg, Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, David Beckham, Mark Zuckerberg, Jay Shetty, and Steven Spielberg. This research underscores the significance of conceptual metaphors in understanding how motivational speeches shape our perception of the world and influence our actions. By dissecting the linguistic elements that construct these metaphors, the insights into the strategies employed by public figures to inspire and motivate their audiences are received and elaborated.
References
2. Манакін В. M. Мова і міжкультурна комунікація. Київ : Центр української літератури, 2012. 288 с.
3. Мартинюк А. П. Словник основних термінів когнітивно-дискурсивної лінгвістики. Харків : ХНУ імені В. Н. Каразіна, 2011. 196 с.
4. Приходько А. М. Концепти і концептосистеми в когнітивно-дискурсивній парадигмі лінгвістики. Запоріжжя : Прем’єр, 2008. 331 с.
5. Селіванова О. О. Світ свідомості в мові : монографічне видання ; за ред. Ю. Чабаненка. Черкаси, 2012. 488 с.
6. Цапок О. М. Мовні засоби репрезентації концепту краса в поезії українських шістдесятників : дис. ... канд. філол. наук: 10.02.01. Одеса : Одеський національний ун-т ім. І. І. Мечникова, 2004.
7. Enfield N. J. Linguistic concepts are selfgenerating choice architectures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2022. Vol. 378, no. 1870. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0352
8. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1980. 242 p.
9. Langacker R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford University Press, 1991. 628 p.
10. Kövecses, Z. A Brief Outline of “Standard” Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Some Outstanding Issues. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. 2020. P. 1-21. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127.002
11. Margolis, E., Laurence S., Bang M. Conceptual Mind: New Directions in the Study of Concepts. MIT Press, 2015. 728 p.
12. Medin D. L., Smith E. E. Strategies and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory. 1981. Vol. 7, no. 4. P. 241–253. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.7.4.241
13. Miller, G., Johnson-Laird, P. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press. 1976. 753 p. URL: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
14. Minsky M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. 1974. 82 p. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6089
15. Reddy M. The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. pp. 284–324.
16. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., Boyes-Braem, P. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3). 1976. pp. 382–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X