THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING LINGUISTIC CULTURE BASED ON NARROW CONTEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LEXEME “MORALS”

JOURNAL: «Scientific Notes of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Philological sciences», Volume 11 (77), № 1, 2025

Publication text (PDF): Download

UDK: 811’373.612

AUTHOR AND PUBLICATION INFORMATION AUTHORS:

Murashova L. P., Kuban State Technological University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation

Sereda P. V., Kuban State Technological University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation

TYPE: Article

PAGES: from 146 to 157

STATUS: Published

LANGUAGE: English

KEYWORDS: lexical analysis, morals, ethical discourse, societal norms, moral judgment, contextual distribution.

ABSTRACT (RUSSIAN):

Представленное исследование направлено на изучение контекстуальной дистрибуции лексемы «morals» в Британском национальном корпусе (BNC) на материале 345 примеров, охватывающих различные жанры – от художественной литературы и научных текстов до журналистики, юридического дискурса и разговорной речи. Работа фокусируется на многогранности использования лексемы: исследуются её семантические, синтаксические и прагматические аспекты с целью более глубокого понимания её функции и роли в языке. Семантический анализ выявил три основные категории употребления лексемы: этические рамки, субъективные интерпретации и предписывающее использование. Эти категории иллюстрируют, как лексема «morals» передает общественные нормы, личные убеждения, моральное лицемерие и регулирующие принципы. Исследование показывает, как «morals» используется для обозначения этических норм, личных убеждений и моральных ценностей, а также как эта лексема может отражать моральные противоречия и общественные ожидания. Через подробный синтаксический анализ можно проследить, как «morals» часто встречается в сочетаниях с такими терминами, как «standards», «values», и «behavior», что позволяет обозначить её абстрактную и множественную природу. Также внимание уделяется прагматическому аспекту, где анализируется роль лексемы в выражении моральных суждений, оценки поведения и обсуждении моральных конфликтов. Лексема «morals» активно используется для критики, осуждения или обсуждения расхождений между личными и общественными нормами, что подчеркивает её важность в формировании моральных оценок и моральной дискуссии. Результаты исследования подчеркивают, что лексема «morals» является не только важным элементом лексического состава языка, но и важным инструментом выражения культурных и этических норм, регулирующих общественные отношения и поведение. Вклад в лексические и дискурсивные исследования заключается в более глубоком понимании взаимодействия языка, морали и социальных ожиданий в современном английском языке, а также способствует дальнейшему азвитию теории морального дискурса в лингвистике.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of morals has been a subject of rigorous investigation by scholars, philosophers, and psychologists throughout history. Although definitions vary, morals can be broadly understood as the principles or norms that guide individuals and societies in distinguishing between right and wrong. These principles are rooted in ideas about the highest good and are influenced by cultural, social, and personal values.

Philosophers have approached these ideas from different angles, providing rich theoretical foundations for understanding morality. Aristotle (384–322 BCE) took a different approach by focusing on virtue ethics – the cultivation of character and the pursuit of a balanced life. In his seminal work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that moral virtue lies in the Golden Mean, a balanced state between extremes of deficiency and excess.

He explains: “Moral virtue comes in the middle or mean between two vices, one on the side of excess, the other on the side of defect; and, secondly, inasmuch as, while these vices fall short of or exceed the due measure in feeling and in action, it finds and chooses the mean, middling, or moderate amount” [2, p. 106].

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), a pivotal figure in deontological ethics, believed that moral principles are grounded in duty and universal laws. In his work Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant introduced the concept of the categorical imperative, which serves as the cornerstone of his ethical theory.

According to Kant, moral actions are those performed out of duty rather than personal inclination or consequence. The categorical imperative is a rule that applies unconditionally and requires individuals to act in ways that could be universally applicable. He succinctly states: “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” [8, p. 30]. For example, telling the truth is a moral duty because a universal law allowing lies would undermine trust and social cohesion. Kantian ethics emphasizes rationality, autonomy, and consistency, highlighting the importance of treating all individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) advanced the ethical theory of utilitarianism, which defines morality in terms of the consequences of actions. In Utilitarianism (1861), Mill proposed that the rightness of an action depends on its ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He articulated this principle as: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” [14, p. 24].

Happiness, according to Mill, is characterized by the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to mere physical pleasures. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing well-being and considers the collective impact of individual actions, making it a consequentialist ethical framework.

These three philosophers – Kant, Aristotle, and Mill – offer distinct but complementary approaches to morality: Kant emphasizes duty and universal principles, focusing on the intrinsic nature of actions; Aristotle centers on the cultivation of virtue and the pursuit of a balanced, fulfilling life and Mill evaluates morality through the lens of consequences and the overall happiness generated by actions. While Kantian ethics stresses moral obligations regardless of outcomes, Aristotelian virtue ethics highlights character development, and Mill’s utilitarianism prioritizes outcomes that maximize happiness. Together, these perspectives provide a comprehensive understanding of moral values and ethical behavior.

In contemporary discussions, respect for individual rights (Kant), the development of ethical character (Aristotle), and the pursuit of collective well-being (Mill) are parts of ethical decision-making and moral philosophy. Despite variations in moral interpretation, key values such as respect, responsibility, honesty, and integrity are often seen as universal components of morality.

In Russian scientific research, the concept of morality is more frequently explored within philosophical frameworks than philological ones. For instance, “Morality as a Discursive Formation” by Bolotnikova (2006) shows morality through discourse analysis, combining philosophical and linguistic perspectives. The study examines how morality is constructed in discourse, referencing classical philosophers like Plotinus and Augustine [17]. In contrast, Ayupov’s work, “Law and Morality in the Context of Globalization”, focuses on the philosophical relationship between legal norms and moral standards during socio-political changes in Russia, particularly in the context of globalization [16].

The relevance of this study lies in its examination of morality through linguistic analysis rather than purely philosophical discourse. While the research described above  has focused on moral philosophy, this article investigates how the concept of morals is reflected in English-speaking linguistic culture based on the narrow contextual distribution of the lexeme ‘morals.’ This study also offers a fresh perspective compared to other contemporary research on morality from a linguistic standpoint, as will be shown in the following section.

The aim of this study is to analyze the contextual usage of the word ‘morals’ within English-speaking linguistic culture through distributional semantics. (Explicitly stated aim to align with academic requirements.) To achieve this, the study pursues the following objectives:

1. To examine key linguistic representations of morality, keeping in mind philosophical perspectives.
2. To apply distributional semantics to analyze the contexts in which the word ‘morals’ appears.

3. To identify dominant patterns of moral discourse within English-language corpora.

Morality fundamentally encompasses the ways in which people relate to others and the world around them. Two essential components underpin many moral frameworks:

1. Respect: Respect involves acknowledging the dignity and worth of oneself and others. It includes respect for diverse beliefs, cultures, and perspectives, promoting tolerance and understanding within societies.
2. Responsibility: This entails being accountable for one’s actions and decisions, as well as contributing positively to the well-being of the community. Responsibility implies ethical awareness and active participation in social, economic, and cultural life.

By examining the linguistic representation of ‘morals,’ this study contributes to a broader understanding of how moral values are embedded in English-speaking cultures.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Morality can be understood as a system of rules that governs how people interact and relate to one another in society. This system is based on key principles such as goodness, trust, and fairness. People rely on these principles to guide their actions, using their cognitive abilities to interpret social situations. Essential skills involved in applying morality include reasoning, problem-solving, self-control, and adaptability.

In this article, we explore the concept of morality within English-speaking culture by examining the narrow contextual usage of the word “morals”.

Distributional semantics is an approach to studying word meaning through its usage, where “the statistical distribution of words in context plays a key role in determining their semantic behavior” [11, p. 1]. This field advanced with the development of computational methods and text corpora, which allow large-scale analysis of word distributions. A corpus serves as a “repository” of word usage examples, though it captures only linguistic, not extralinguistic, contexts.

The method was pioneered by Zellig Harris [6; 7], who viewed distributional analysis as crucial in linguistics, initially in phonology, and later in morphology and semantics. The foundational idea of distributional semantics is that the semantic similarity of words can be explained by their linguistic distributions, a concept known as the Distributional Hypothesis: “Certain aspects of a word’s meaning depend on its distributional properties, i.e., the contexts in which it appears” [6, p. 6].

There are two versions of this hypothesis. The weak version suggests that distributional analysis can help study word meaning. As summarized by J. R. Firth, “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” [4, p. 11]. The weak version uses quantitative methods to analyze word distributions and determine paradigmatic properties. Researchers like Beth Levin and Rappaport Hovav [12], Merlo and Stevenson [13] support this view.

In contrast, the strong version argues that distributions actively shape semantic representations at a cognitive level. Frequent contextual usage forms an abstract contextual representation, influencing how we understand word meanings [11]. This approach is supported by scholars such as Landauer and Dumais [10] and Ping and Burgess [15].

The distributional hypothesis has faced criticism from embodied cognition theorists, like Barsalou, who argue that meanings derive from sensory experiences [3]. However, language itself is part of experience, suggesting that contextual data also shape word meanings. Therefore, distributional analysis offers valuable empirical insights into conceptualization processes.

We adopt the strong version of the distributional hypothesis, which asserts that words play a central role in shaping semantic representations. This differs from the weaker version, which offers a less definitive connection between word use and meaning. The strong hypothesis is a cognitive theory about how semantic representations are formed and where they originate.

According to this approach, a word’s frequent occurrence in various linguistic contexts leads to the creation of a contextual representation – an abstract profile of the most common situations in which the word appears. This distribution is believed to explain not only the word’s semantic behavior but also its meaning at a cognitive level. In other words, the contexts in which a word appears shape how we understand and interpret its meaning.

In contemporary linguistic analysis of how morals are expressed, advanced linguistic methods and approaches have been widely used. For example, our previous study on the narrow contextual distribution of the lexemes «man» and «woman,» analyzed through the framework of distributional semantics, is based on data from the British National Corpus. Similarly, other recent studies also rely on automatically extracted linguistic data [18].

The article «Moral concerns are differentially observable in language» investigates how individual moral concerns, as conceptualized by Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), manifest in language use. Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, the researchers analyze a dataset of Facebook status updates (N = 107,798) linked to self-reported moral values from the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. The study finds that moral concerns are indeed reflected in language but with varying degrees of detectability – Purity being the most traceable and Fairness the least. Additionally, distinct patterns of relational, emotional, and social language correlate with different moral foundations. This research challenges prior assumptions that moral language directly maps onto moral concerns, emphasizing that morality is embedded not only in explicit moral rhetoric but also in broader linguistic patterns [9].

The article by Jeremy A. Frimer revisits the Moral Foundations Hypothesis (MFH), which suggests that liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral values in their language. Liberals are thought to rely more on harm/care and fairness/cheating, while conservatives emphasize loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and purity/degradation. Frimer conducts two replication studies and six extensions to test this claim in religious, political, media, and organizational contexts and finds that differences in moral language between liberals and conservatives are weaker than previously thought [5].

The article «MoralStrength: Exploiting a moral lexicon and embedding similarity for moral foundations prediction» by Oscar Araque, Lorenzo Gatti, and Kyriaki Kalimeri presents MoralStrength, an enhanced moral lexicon expanding the Moral Foundations Dictionary (MFD) using WordNet synsets. It introduces numeric moral valence scores for 1,000 lemmas and evaluates three predictive models on Twitter data (MFTC corpus). This research aids in understanding moral judgments in user-generated content, benefiting policy-making and communication strategies [1].

The novelty and distinction of this work on morals lie in its unique approach to analyzing moral language through the lens of cognitive metaphor theory and corpus-based methods. While previous studies focus on the narrow contextual distribution of specific lexemes within distributional semantics, present research goes beyond mere lexical co-occurrence to explore deeper conceptual structures underlying moral discourse. Similarly, studies like Kennedy et al. (2021) and Frimer (2020) employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) and moral foundations theory to detect moral concerns in social media or political discourse, but they primarily assess explicit moral rhetoric rather than the underlying metaphorical and conceptual mappings.

Our study also differs from Araque et al. (2020), who enhance the Moral Foundations Dictionary (MFD) with a moral lexicon and embedding similarity for predictive modeling. Instead of focusing solely on classification and prediction, we aim to uncover the cognitive mechanisms that shape moral reasoning in language. By integrating metaphor theory with corpus linguistics, we provide a more nuanced understanding of how moral concepts are structured and realized in discourse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study analyzes the lexeme «morals» using a corpus-based approach, drawing on the British National Corpus (BNC). A total of 345 samples containing the lexeme “morals” were extracted for this analysis, with nearly half of them falling under semantic classification. The samples were identified through a systematic search for the term «morals» within the BNC. These samples encompass a variety of genres, including fiction, academic discourse, journalism, legal texts, and conversational data.

To explore the contextual distribution of «morals,» the analysis considered three primary dimensions: semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic use. These dimensions were examined through qualitative categorization and contextual interpretation.

1. Semantic Analysis: The semantic use of «morals» was categorized based on the meaning of phrases and contextual connotations. Because the term «morals» often illustrates multiple contextual and semantic categories, some examples were included in more than one category where appropriate. This included:

1.1 Ethical Framework and Value Systems: Instances where «morals» reflect systems of principles distinguishing right from wrong.

1.1.1 Judgments on Standards: Emphasizing ethical boundaries and judgments.

1.1.2 Loose Morals: Reflecting permissive or less rigid ethical stances.

• Subjective Interpretations: Examples reflecting individual or collective moral standards, including divergence or moral hypocrisy.

1.3 Prescriptive and Judgmental Use: Contexts involving a prescriptive set of rules, particularly linked to religious or social expectations.

1.3.1 Morals and Religion: References where «morals» intersect with religious teachings.

1.3.2 Morals in Social and Legal Contexts: Contexts relating to societal regulations and legal principles.

1. Syntactic Analysis: The syntactic behavior of «morals» was examined to understand its function as a plural abstract noun.
2. Pragmatic Analysis: The pragmatic use of «morals» was assessed to understand its role in discourse, particularly in expressing judgment, comparison, or conflict.

Each sample was manually examined within its context to determine the appropriate semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic characteristics. After that, the examples were  classified into categories, sometimes multiple, if they illustrated more than one dimension. The analysis focused on identifying patterns, themes, and variations in the use of «morals» across different contexts.  Thus, the semantic analysis method, categorization method, and contextual analysis method have been used in this article.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To analyze the narrow contextual distribution of the lexeme «morals» in the BNC, we consider its semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic use within these contexts. 

Semantic Observations

1.1 Ethical Framework and Value Systems

1.1.1 Judgments on standards.

The term «morals» predominantly conveys a system of principles or values distinguishing right from wrong, which is central to ethical discourse. It relates to cultural or societal ethical boundaries, emphasizing the collective understanding of behavior norms. The lexeme «morals» relates to an individual’s or group’s ethical standards and judgments. The characters are often judging, criticizing, or defending the behavior or values of others. In some instances, «morals» is used to reflect a set of personal standards (e.g., «your morals might reek of the dustbin,»), while in others it reflects expectation (e. g., «You monster! I was criticizing us, not you. Your morals are too tight…»).   

Examples of this category include the following contexts:

“For Boutet, the concluding morals of the fabliaux are a final inscription of the truth of traditional values.”

«I was making a point about my morals,» she said primly.

«Hundreds more Herefordians are expected to risk their morals at the first show in the city early next month.»

«…conspired with certain other young persons to produce a magazine that would corrupt the morals of young children…»

«‘Your morals might reek of the dustbin, but the scenery is magnificent.’ Claudia bit…»

«…Besides, it doesn’t matter. Your morals are your own business…»

“The questions are similar in that both are a reflection of the values and morals of society at the time.”

“…I don’t want to enforce my morals onto someone else, or my ethics, and I really would like to ask…” etc.

1.1.2 Loose morals

In some instances, «morals» is used in a way that describes a more relaxed, permissive, or less rigid ethical stance. This often happens when characters refer to others who seem to lack restraint or exhibit behavior that deviates from traditional or expected norms, indicating a moral decay or a lack of control.

Examples of this subcategory include:

«Sadly, morals and behaviour ashore had deteriorated too with more drunks and ladies of easy virtue…»

«Your morals are too tight and ours too loose?»

«Shocked at her lack of morals and the ease with which he’d reduced all her defences to nothing, Meredith…»

«…her new husband had ruined her father, and themselves, with his loose morals, and looser tongue.»

«Vitor would now associate her with casual sex and loose morals. It hadn’t been like that, she wanted to howl.»

«Mother never stopped telling me she didn’t care for the lax morals that had become so fashionable…»

«He was accusing her of having the morals of an alley cat again, and she was tired of it.»

«They have the morals of alley cats.»

«Some people’ve got the morals of alley cats.»

«That man hasn’t got the morals of a ferret.»

«…I thought morals and loyalty were laughable attributes.» etc.

1.2 Subjective Interpretations

The term «morals» appears with subjective connotations, reflecting individual or collective moral standards. It is nuanced by the influence of personal beliefs or cultural codes. Examples of this category suggest divergence or debate over what constitutes «morals,» indicating its dependency on subjective viewpoints. The texts even frequently highlight situations of moral hypocrisy or perceived moral contradictions, where one person accuses another of lacking morals while the accuser’s own behavior may not align with their moral assertions.

Examples of this category include:

«…you’d passed judgment on my morals and decided to punish me for something you could only have had the vaguest idea…»

«…you’re special, all right. You’re an opportunist; I beg you to put aside your prejudice? Ask you to believe that I have morals…»

«‘Ask you to believe that I have morals, principles? That I’m not the kind of woman who deliberately exercises her…'»

«…calling her morals into question while at the same time engaging in far more dubious behaviour himself…»

«…who am I to judge the poor man’s morals? Look at my chaplain!»

«He was accusing her of having the morals of an alley cat again, and she was tired of it.»

«Mother never stopped telling me she didn’t care for the lax morals that had become so fashionable since the outbreak of the war.»

“Now one can argue indefinitely about the morals and the merits of the decisions of the House of Lords…” etc.

1.3 Prescriptive and Judgmental Use

The lexeme is often used to imply a prescriptive set of rules or judgmental stance, rather than a neutral observation. «Morals» is connected to more formal, religiously or traditionally rooted and tied to institutional expectations.

1.3.1 Morals and religion

Examples of this subcategory include:

«The question about the relationship between law and morals is not a question about the content of the law but one about its form.»

«Most oriental codes deal with legal matters only: morals and religion belong elsewhere. In the Bible legal, moral and religious laws are…»

«An Anglican institution for the ‘care and training of lads in Religion, Morals and Physique’ during the important years prior to manhood…»

«The moral decline of the West cries out for a return to the morals of protestant Christianity which will tell the nation what they must do to be strong.»

«Robert had read the chapter on lavatories in Morals and Manners in Islam by Dr. Marwan Ibrahim Al-Kaysi of the University of Yarmouk.»

«Wimbledon School was falling short of Dr. Al-Kaysi’s, admittedly high, standards. Morals and Manners in Islam was the only book on the subject he had been able…»

«…his entire stock of knowledge about Islam was derived from Morals and Manners in Islam by Dr. Marwan Ibrahim Al-Kaysi.»

«While religion and philosophy, for example, deal with values and morals, science deals only with facts.»

«…its own particular view of human behaviour, and all have their own standards of morals. The Christian believes that since the Christian teaching is true, it will be…»

«The issue also raises questions about love, sex, marriage, religion and morals.»

«Essentially, Mrs. Whitehouse’s argument was that ‘traditional’ Christian morals were no longer adequately presented on television…»

«…rather than Darwin as a philosopher or as an influencer of morals and religious beliefs and so on.»

«…the rituals, dogmas and morals found in myths and various religions, including Christianity.»

«They concern religion, morals, art and social organization, especially political authority, in human society.»

«…Perhaps the most symbolically significant event in the general area of religion and morals in the early 1960s…»

«…Religion shouldn’t allow us to sit on our morals! (pause) I think it’s a great tragedy that Wales (pause)…»

«A teacher who does nothing but teach and leaves morals, religion, and entertainment to the family…»

«…they pray every day, that they attend a place of worship, that their morals and/or their life is ruled according to religious precepts…»

“…non-Christian can accept, without offence to his convictions, the fact that Christian morals are the basis of the criminal law and that he can recognize…»

«While religion and philosophy, for example, deal with values and morals, science deals only with facts. A scientific approach to child abuse, therefore, would focus on…» etc.

1.3.2 Morals in social and legal contexts

«Morals» is sometimes invoked in social or legal, or philosophical discussions, reflecting its role in structuring societal expectations, often in relation to public behavior. This includes references to enforcement or regulations of morals, and/or consequences associated with these regulations.

Examples of this subcategory include:

“…non-Christian can accept, without offence to his convictions, the fact that Christian morals are the basis of the criminal law and that he can recognize …»

«While religion and philosophy, for example, deal with values and morals, science deals only with facts. A scientific approach to child abuse, therefore, would focus on…»

«The publishers were convicted on charges of ‘conspiring to corrupt public morals’ and ‘conspiring to outrage public decency…»

«…the criminal law has always been concerned with morals or moral principles…»

«It represents the morals, ethics and law of the nation.»

«…criminal law legislation was the key to improving the nation’s morals.»

«Values and morals are independent of religious faith.» etc.

Syntactic Observations

The lexeme «morals» consistently functions as a plural abstract noun, aligning with its use to denote a collective set of principles. Phrases like «standards of morals» or «debating morals» point to its role as a conceptual entity rather than a tangible. one.  Common collocations include standards, behavior, norms, and values, suggesting frequent pairing with terms that emphasize codified or evaluative elements.

Modifiers such as «societal,» «individual,» or «ethical» narrow the focus of «morals,» specifying the scope in which it applies. For example, the use of such collocation as «societal morals» underscores its contextualization within cultural frameworks.

Syntactic Observations

As we have already noted, the lexeme «morals» is contextually anchored in cultural or societal discourse, underscoring its role in defining acceptable behavior within specific groups. The contexts suggest conflict or comparison of moral standards, implying a divergence between idealized and practiced morals. For example, the phrase «debating morals» illustrates this conflict, hinting at differences in perception or application. «Morals» is also frequently used in contexts indicating judgment or disapproval, particularly when societal expectations clash with individual actions.

CONCLUSION

This study of the lexeme «morals» within the British National Corpus reveals several key aspects of its use across different contexts. The semantic analysis identified three primary categories: ethical frameworks, subjective interpretations, and prescriptive uses. In the ethical framework category, 132 examples demonstrated how «morals» functions to express standards of right and wrong, often reflecting societal or cultural norms. The subjective interpretations category included 8 instances where «morals» conveyed personal or collective moral standards, highlighting moral hypocrisy or divergence in viewpoints. The prescriptive and judgmental use category, with 34 examples, with religious connotations prevailing.

The syntactic analysis showed that «morals» consistently functions as a plural abstract noun, frequently occurring with collocates such as «standards,» «values,» and «behavior.» Modifiers like «individual,» «societal,» and «ethical» demonstrate the contextual specificity of «morals.» The analysis also found that «morals» often occurs in judgmental phrases, reflecting disapproval or critique.

The pragmatic analysis revealed that «morals» is frequently used to express judgment, conflict, or comparison. It highlighted conflicts between societal expectations and individual actions.

This study provides a detailed understanding of the varied semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic uses of «morals» in contemporary British English. The findings highlight the importance of context in interpreting moral discourse, showing that the lexeme «morals» serves as a versatile term that reflects societal values, personal beliefs, and ethical judgments. This analysis contributes to the broader field of lexical and discourse studies, and helps to understand how moral concepts are articulated and negotiated within language.

References

1. Araque O., Gatti L., Kalimeri K. MoralStrength: Exploiting a moral lexicon and embedding similarity for moral foundations prediction. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2020, vol. 191, p. 154–160.
2. Nicomachean Ethics. Book II. Translated by W. D. Ross. Indianapolis, Hackett Publ. Co., 1993. 504 p.
3. Barsalou L. Perceptual Symbols Systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 1999, vol. XXII, pp. 577–609.
4. Firth J. Papers in Linguistics. London, Oxford University Press, 1957. 233 p.
5. Frimer J. A. Do liberals and conservatives use different moral languages? Two replications and six extensions of Graham, Haidt, and Nosek’s (2009) moral text analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 2020, vol. 84, p. 1–41.
6. Harris Z. Distributional Structure. Word, 1954, vol. X (2–3), pp. 146–162.
7. Harris Z. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951. 384 p.
8. Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 76 p.
9. Kennedy B., Atari M., et al. Moral concerns are differentially observable in language. Cognition, 2021, vol. 212, p.663–
10. Landauer T., Danielle S., et al. (eds.). Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. 544 p.
11. Lenci A. Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. In: Lenci A. (ed.). From Context to Meaning: Distributional Models of the Lexicon in Linguistics and Cognitive Science. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2008, vol. 20 (1), pp. 1–31.
12. Levin B., Rappaport Hovav M. Argument Realization. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005. 278 p.
13. Merlo P., Stevenson S. Automatic Verb Classification Based on Statistical Distributions of Argument Structure. Computational Linguistics, 2001, vol. XXVII (3), pp. 373–408.
14. Mill J. Utilitarianism. Auckland, The Floating Press, 2009. 120 p.
15. Ping L., Burgess C. et al. The Acquisition of Word Meaning through Global Lexical Co-occurrences. Proceedings of the 31st Child Language Research Forum, 2000, pp. 167–178.
16. Ayupov V. Sh. Pravo i moral’ v usloviyakh globalizatsii: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Law and Morality in the Context of Globalization. Thesis]. Kazan, 2009. 178 р.
17. Bolotnikova E. N. Moral’ kak diskursivnaya format­siya: Dis. … kand. filos. nauk [Morality as a Discursive Formation. Thesis]. Moscow, 2006. 171 р.
18. Murashova L. P. Teorija distributivnoj semantiki primenitel’no k analizu uzkoj kontekstual’noj distribucii leksem «Man» i «Woman» [Narrow contextual distribution of the lexemes «man» and «women», analyzed in the framework of distributional semantics]. Nauchnyi vestnik Yuzhnogo instituta menedzhmenta, 2016, no. 1, pp. 68–71.

 Sources

1. British National Corpus (BNC). Available from: https://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed 16 October 2024).