“When a chicken thinks she’s a swan”: discourse construal through dichotomization

Rad predstavlja primjer analize gradbe diskursa na društvenim mrežama putem parova leksema koji u tom diskursu nose suprotna značenja. Diskurs koji se ovdje analizira izgrađen je oko situacije u kojoj je bivša predsjednica Republike Hrvatske, Kolinda Grabar Kitarović, uspinjanjem na pozornicu Hrvatskog narodnog kazališta u Zagrebu nakon predstave Labuđe jezero izazvala negodovanje dijela javnosti, što je dovelo do uporabe novih i kontekstno uvjetovanih parova leksema suprotnih značenja. Leksemi kokoš i labud u kontekstu ovoga diskursa poslužili su kao podloga za razvoj daljnje komunikacije njegovih sudionika koju odlikuje dihotomizacija pojmovnoga znanja kao odraza konteksta situacije, ali i konteksta kulture (Žic Fuchs 1991) u kojoj se diskurs razvio. Razumijevanjem antonimije u širemu smislu (Jones et al. 2012) kao značenjskoga odnosa koji izvire iz suprotstavljanja pojmova s obzirom na njihove stvarne ili prividne karakteristike, možemo objasniti kako i zašto su leksemi kokoš i labud, ali i drugi leksemi uporabljeni kao antonimi u predmetnome diskursu, dovedeni u odnos suprotnosti, iako nisu standardno ni konvencionalno primjer antonimije (Jeff ries 2010, Jones 2002, Murphy 2003). Putem takvih parova leksema sudionici diskursa mogu uputiti snažne društveno relevantne poruke. Budući da je predmetni diskurs izrazito kulturološki specifičan, analiziran je s obzirom na pripadajuće mu pojmovne domene koje predstavljaju pozadinsko znanje njegovih sudionika (Sharifi an 2011), ili makro–kontekst (Van Dijk 2009). Taj makro–kontekst potom služi za gradbu mikro–konteksta (Van Dijk 2009) putem dihotomizacije pojmova, odnosno leksema koji uobičajeno ne predstavljaju antonimiju (Jones et al. 2012). Ovakav primjer može nam približiti važnost odnosa suprotnosti u svakodnevnom diskursu, ali i njihov značaj u strukturi pojmovnoga sustava. Spoznaja da se čak i nekonvencionalizirani parovi leksema mogu dovesti u odnos suprotnosti ukoliko gradba diskursa to zahtijeva ide u prilog tezi da je antonimija u širemu smislu fleksibilan i kreativan značenjski odnos koji bi mogao rasvijetliti neke spone između jezika i uma.h e paper presents a social network discourse analysis example that uses pairs of lexemes that carry opposite meanings only in that particular discourse. Th e analyzed example appeared as a form of negative public opinion of Croatia’s former President, Kolinda Grabar Kitarović, after she climbed on stage after a ballet performance at the Croatian National Th eatre in Zagreb, taking a bow with the ensemble. Th is led to the use of new contextually conditioned pairs of lexemes with opposite meanings. Th e lexemes kokoš and labud (ENG chicken and swan), are used in this discourse as the basis of further communication among its participants. Th is discourse is characterized by the dichotomization of conceptual knowledge as the mirror image of the context of situation, as well as the context of culture (Žic Fuchs 1991) which spawned the discourse itself. By understanding antonymy in the widest sense (Jones et al. 2012) as a semantic relation that arises from the juxtaposition of concepts with respect to their real or perceived characteristics, we can explain how and why the lexemes kokoš and labud, along with other lexemes used as antonyms in this discourse, were construed as antonyms even though they are not conventionally seen as such (Jeff ries 2010, Jones 2002, Murphy 2003). Th rough these kinds of pairs of lexemes, discourse participants are able to communicate powerful social messages. Since the discourse in question is highly culturally specifi c, it is analyzed according to its comprising conceptual domains that represent the background knowledge of its participants (Sharifi an 2011), or its macro–context (Van Dijk 2009). Th is macro–context then enables the construal of a micro–context (Van Dijk 2009) through the dichotomization of concepts, and the juxtaposition of lexemes that do not usually represent semantic opposition (Jones et al. 2012). An example such as this can show us the value of semantic opposition in everyday discourse structuring, but also its relevance for the construal of our conceptual system. Th e notion that even unconventionalized pairs of lexemes can be construed as semantically opposite if the discourse allows it corroborates the claim that antonymy in the widest sense is a fl exible and creative meaning relation that could unveil some of the bounds between language and the mind