LINGUOCOGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF THE OPPOSITION “US–THEM” IN HUMANITARIAN DISCOURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2307-1222.2026-62-12Keywords:
humanitarian discourse, “other”, cognitive linguistics, opposition, sociocultural dimension, “us”, “them”Abstract
The article provides a theoretical and methodological interpretation of the opposition “us-them” as a universal binary structure in the humanities, outlining its linguocognitive and sociocultural dimensions. It is argued that the opposition between “us” and “them” has an established tradition, rooted in mythological modes of thinking, and serves as a fundamental mechanism for categorizing reality, shaping the organization of experience and the formation of worldview orientations. Within the framework of cognitive linguistics, the dichotomy “us-them” is interpreted as a category of thought that reflects the processes of perception, evaluation, and interpretation of the world. It is established that the analyzed opposition is realized in language as a multi-level cognitive structure, verbalized through a system of lexical-semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic means. Particular attention is paid to the factors influencing the functioning of this antinomy, including extralinguistic conditions of communication, cognitive principles of reality categorization, and verbal means of its representation. It is demonstrated that the realization of the dichotomy “us-them” depends on the speaker, the social context, and the communicative situation. In the sociocultural dimension, this opposition functions as an important mechanism of social differentiation and the formation of group identity. The image of “them” often carries negative connotations; however, it is not fixed and changes in the perceiver’s consciousness depending on historical, cultural, and social conditions. In the context of imagology, the opposition “us-them” is interpreted as a key model for constructing the image of the “other,” which is formed both as a representation of a foreign culture and as a projection of one’s own system of values and perceptions. It is emphasized that the perception of “them” is inseparably linked to self-knowledge and self-identification; therefore, the analyzed antinomy performs both delimiting and epistemological functions. The study highlights that contemporary humanities demonstrate a tendency to reconsider the binary nature of the opposition “us-them” in terms of reducing rigid contrasts: the boundaries between “us” and “them” become increasingly relative, while the “other” is viewed as an integral element of intercultural interaction.
References
1. Havryliuk, I. (2015). Opozytsiia “svii – chuzhyi” yak obiekt mizhdystsyplinarnykh doslidzhen [The opposition “us – them” as an object of interdisciplinary studies]. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoho universytetu “Ostrozka akademiia”. Seriia: Filolohichna, 56, 65–68. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nznuoaf_2015_56_24
2. Shuma, L. (2015). Folklorystychna viziia antynomii “svii – chuzhyi” u konteksti suchasnykh humanitarnykh doslidzhen [Folkloristic vision of the antinomy “us – them” in the context of modern humanitarian studies]. Mifolohiia i folklor, 3–4, 61–68. URL: https://publications.lnu.edu.ua/journals/index.php/mythology/article/view/628/631
3. Morenets, N. (2002). Obraz “inshoho” – vid pervynnoho nartsysyzmu do arhumentu ideolohichnoi rytoryky [The image of the “Other” – from primary narcissism to an argument of ideological rhetoric]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA: Teoriia ta istoriia kultury, 20–21, 10–16. URL: https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/8555
4. Dubchak, O. (2011). Kontseptualna opozytsiia “svii” – “chuzhyi” yak bazovyi rehuliatorychnyi frahment ukrainskoi movnoi kartyny svitu [The conceptual opposition “us” – “them” as a basic regulatory fragment of the Ukrainian linguistic worldview]. Naukovyi chasopys NPU imeni M. P. Drahomanova. Seriia 9: Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku mov, 5, 92–99. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nchnpu_9_2011_5_20
5. Shepel, Yu. (2021). Shchodo opysu dykhotomii “svii – chuzhyi” z pozytsii struktury movnoi svidomosti [On the description of the dichotomy “ us – them” from the perspective of language consciousness structure]. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. Vernadskoho. Seriia: Filolohiia. Zhurnalistyka, 32(71), 2(1), 249–255. URL: https://philol.vernadskyjournals.in.ua/journals/2021/2_2021/part_1/44.pdf
6. Slobodian, N. (2024). Retseptsiia Nimechchyny v usnykh avtobiohrafichnykh naratyvakh ukraintsiv [Reception of Germany in oral autobiographical narratives of Ukrainians] (PhD thesis in Philology, 035 Philology). Ternopil, 209 p.
7. Levinas, E. (1963). La trace de l’autre. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 25(3), 605–623. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40881053
