Mathematical models of attitude change: Vol.1. Changes in single attitudes and cognitive structure. Orlando, FL: Academic Press

1986 ◽  
pp. 275-275
Author(s):  
E. Hunter ◽  
E. Danes ◽  
H . Cohen
1987 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 235
Author(s):  
James B. Wiley ◽  
John E. Hunter ◽  
Jeffery E. Danes ◽  
Stanley H. Cohen

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53
Author(s):  
Алла Гнатюк

This article is dedicated to the research of synonymous groups for the designation of doubt “Hesitate, Waver, Vacillate, Falter” and “Hesitation, Hesitancy” in contemporary English-language fictional discourse. Doubt is defined as an epistemic state in the cognitive world of individuals which provides motivation to undertake a further quest for information. The purpose of this work is to investigate how the set of semes identified in each component of the synonymous group is presented in the context of modern English fictional discourse. This research is directed towards verifying whether the use of all the components of the given synonymous groups is of equal importance in modern language discourse, as well as checking whether all the semes of “Hesitate, Waver, Vacillate, Falter” and “Hesitation, Hesitancy” are used correctly, based on the results of the componential analysis. The results of the research make it possible to form conclusions regarding the homogeneity or heterogeneity of contextual sematic representations in discourse, dependent upon the number of constituents which make up the synonymous group. References  Arthur, T. S. (2008). The Good Time Coming. Webster’s French Thesaurus Edition. SanDiego: Icon Classics.  Bisson, T. (2009). Fire on the Mountain. Oakland: PM Press. Clark, M. S. (2011). Don’t Take Any Wooden Nickels. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers. Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Dijk, T. A. (1992). Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics ofDiscourse. Longman. Evans, V. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress. Ortony, A. (1988). The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Plutchik, R., Kellerman H. (1980). A General Psychoevolutionary Theory of Emotion. In:Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience. Vol. 1: Theories of Emotion, (pp. 3−31). NewYork: Academic Press. Thagard, P., Brun G., Doğuoğlu U., Kuenzle D. (2008). How Cognition Meets Emotion:Beliefs, Desires and Feelings as Neural Activity. In: Epistemology and Emotions, (pp.167−184). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Sources Ely, A. (1862). Journal of Alfred Ely, A Prisoner of War in Richmond. New York:D. Appleton and Company. Madrid-Null, M. H. (2006). Navajo Heat. Victoria: Trafford Publishing. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and Drift. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Merriam-Webster, A. (1947). Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms. First Edition. ADictionary of Discriminated Synonyms with Antonyms and Analogous and ContrastedWords. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam Co. Publishers.


1963 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J. Runkel

By supplementing the theory of human communication with the concept of the dimensions of the cognitive field, three stages of communication or three stages in the matching of the cognitive “maps” of the communicators can be distinguished. Different realms of prediction concerning response to a communication are possible (or impossible) at each of these stages. A general hypothesis is that similarity of cognitive structure (“collinearity”) at the second stage permits more pronounced influence effects at the third stage. A related hypothesis (among others discussed) is that the relation between anxiety and susceptibility to attitude-change depends on the cognitive dimensionality required by the communication. This hypothesis is defended by showing that it reconciles some apparently contradictory results in studies of anxiety and attitude change.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document