MEANING MODIFICATIONS OF BORROWED NAMES IN THE PROCESS OF DISCOURS TYPES CHANGING

This article attempts to study the major mechanisms and methods for transformation of certain aspects of semantic construction through the process of borrowing terminologized units within new discoursive practices. The critical discourse-analysis and semasiology analysis, which implies revealing nuclear, adjacent and peripheral components in the generalized structure of the meaning, serves to identify the basic vectors of the individual meaning objectivation and desobjectivation. This meanings due to frequent objectified use, join the general scientific turnover of the receiving specialized field of knowledge as far the new discourse, and differ from the initial use of conventional initial discourse of the donor-sphere. The author explores rational, episodic, discoursive, situational and etymologically determined variants of various types of comprehension interaction while defining and distributing generalized meaning, which play a key role in shaping a clear and unambiguous idea of “ways for representing the cognitive-content principle” in various discourse types. The research is carried out following the terms of the institutional discourses belonging to cognitive linguistics, concept and discourse studies, which are currently going through the stage of formation and consolidation. The representation of a significant cognitive unit with a new term borrowed from a related discoursive practice, while its entering as a potential core of the lexical housing of associative binding depends on the degree of mastering and sharing of peripheral semantics by discourse agents as well as on the adequacy of extralinguistic discourse components. It is the production of verbal-mental integration, in view of the remaining associative parameters that were not involved in the interaction of nuclear, etymological and episodic discoursive components, which will represent the actual meaning of the occasional borrowed term. The desobjectivation of the terminological meaning in this case should be based on the background knowledge realized in generated discourse, on the specific field of information-knowledge continuum, as well as on “action schemes” introduced intentionally by the producer of the term.