D. U. Ashurova m. R. Galieva cognitive linguistics

5.3. Types of Concepts

The problem of concept typology/classification is one of the theoretical problems of Cognitive Linguistics. The survey of the theoretical literature has shown that mostly classifications are done within cognitive and cultural approaches.

Let’s consider the existing classifications done from the cognitive point of view. One of the first classifications proposed by A.P. Babushkin (2006) was elaborated according to the form of expression and representation in vocabulary. He distinguishes the following types:

1. 
   lexical concepts, i.e. represented by lexical units/words (book, wedding, family, home, motherland);
   
2. 
   phraseological concepts, i.e. phraseological units that represent one concept (cap and gown, the golden calf, Achilles heel, guardian angel, a Trojan horse, the last of the Mohicans, a rose without a thorn);
   
3. 
   concrete concepts, denoting concrete objects (bush, sand, stone, apple, dog, cup, prison, boy, woman);
   
4. 
   abstract concepts, denoting abstract notions (nation, humanity, justice, the universe, piece, freedom).
   

Within this classification the scholar also distinguishes the following subtypes of concepts:

1. 
   mental images (concrete visual images, f.e. fish → shark, animal → dog, plant → tree);
   
2. 
   schemas (less detailed images, f.e. “river as a blue ribbon”, ) a struсturеd nеtwork of sсhеmas. Sсhеmas arе modеllеd as hiеrarсhiсal structure in tеrms of a morе abstraсt sсhеma and morе spесifiс instanсеs.
   
3. 
   frames (hierarchical organization of associations whiсh rеlatе еlеmеnts and еntitiеs assoсiatеd with a partiсular еmbеddеd sсеnе, situation or еvеnt from the human еxpеriеnсе – shopping, market, theatre, accident, wedding, fishing);
   
4. 
   insights (knowledge about specific functions of objects – drum, mobile, umbrella, piano, knife, oven, fridge, scissors, chair, book);
   
5. 
   scenario (a scheme of events; knowledge about events’ in dynamics, synopsis of development – fight, arrest, wedding, fire, driving, examination, game, trip);
   
6. 
   kaleidoscopic concepts (the accumulation of scenario and frames, related to emotions and feelings – fear, conscience, despair, disappointment, love) (Бабушкин, 1996, с.43-67; 54).
   

The next classification is suggested by N.N. Boldirev who distinguishes 9 types of concepts according to specific knowledge formats:

1. 
   concrete perceptive image (concrete visual image – the phone, the pen, the knife);
   
2. 
   mental image (generalized sensed image – telephone, computer, furniture, flora);
   
3. 
   schema – a generalized (space and contour oriented) mental image of an object or phenomenon concerning its form, shape, contour, outline, skeleton – house, human, tree, track) – general shapes of a house, human’s skeleton; geometrical shapes of smth., contours of a tree, track, etc.);
   
4. 
   notion – a general idea or understanding of an object and an integral complex of its qualities
   
5. 
   prototype – “a relatively abstract mental representation that assembles the key attributes or features that best represent instances of a given category” (animal  dog; bird  robin, sparrow; fruit  apple, apricot; vegetables  potato, carrot);
   
6. 
   propositional structure – a model of a concrete experience in which there distinguished elements and their relationships (generalized model of relations reflected in a deep grammar);
   
7. 
   frame – a sсhеmatisation of ехpеriеnсе representing a typical stereotyped situation (wedding, car accident, war, examination);
   
8. 
   scenario or script – a frame in dynamics which is represented as a sequence of episodes, stages (visit to the theatre, game of football);
   
9. 
   gestalts – a conceptual structure, constructed out of incomplete perceptual components; and representing the whole image (Болдырев, 2004, с. 36-38).
   

Kubryakova E.S. considers that concept can be regarded as a generic term uniting concepts of different types and distinguishes 3 types of concepts: 1) images; 2) notions and 3) the assemblies of concepts: gestalts, schemas, diagrams, propositions, frames (Кубрякова, 2004, с.57, 319).
Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternin suggest several classifications of concepts according to different criteria:

• 
  according to the form of representation, concepts are divided into 1) verbalized (fixed) concepts (linguistically expressed concepts) and 2) non-verbalized (non-fixed in the language system) (2007:28)
  
• 
  according to the degree of abstraction: 1) abstract; 2) concrete or artefacts
  
• 
  according to the type of knowledge: 1) concept-images, 2) notions, 3) schemas; 4) frames; 5) scenario, 6) gestalts
  
• 
  according to their reference to different communities: 1) universal (water, sun, home, mother, life, death, evil, love); 2) national, i.e. specific only to one nation (gentleman, privacy – English; тоска, матрешка – Russian, махалла, гап - Uzbek); 3) group concepts (professional, gender, age); 4) individual;
  
• 
  according to the structure: 1) one level (cup, plate, knife, chair, pen, pencil); 2) multilevel, i.e. including several layers with different degrees of abstraction, reflecting the development of basic layers (glamour, lady, fashion); 3) segmental, basic sensual layer with different segments equal in abstraction (tolerance, equality, freedom, faith) (Кубрякова, 2004, с. 57, 117-120; Стернин, 2001, с.59-60).
  

1. 
   Wierbizska distinguishes 1) concept-minimum – incomplete knowledge of the concept content; 2) concept-maximum – complete knowledge of the concept content and knowledge structures associated with it (Вежбицкая, 1997).
   

One of the researchers who contributed much to the development of concept typology is M.V. Pimenova who suggested several classifications:

• 
  according to the origin: 1) original and 2) borrowed. Original concepts emerge in the national culture (original, English: gentleman, privacy; Uzbek – mahalla, gap), borrowed ones are brought to the conceptual system of a certain nation from other national conceptospheres (president, fantasy, glamour);
  
• 
  according to the development status: 1) developing – concepts that are widely used in the national conseptosphere and generate new meanings and interpretations under the influence of new socio-cultural conditions (heart, thought, intelligence, emancipation); b) trite/fixed – the conceptual structure of such concepts is fixed and is not liable to changes (emperor, king, president).
  
• 
  according to the degree of topicality: 1) topical or key concepts – widely represented in the language system and verbalized by different linguistic units: lexical, phraseological, paremiological and texts (soul, heart, beauty, love); 2) secondary – those which are in the periphery of the conceptual system, they are usually less topical and frequent (demonstration, negotiation); 3) variable/periodic – are the concepts that periodically become topical (faith, flu).
  

Very interesting is the classification of concepts done according to three notional categories suggested by M.V. Pimenova and O.N. Kondrat’yeva (2011):

1. 
   Basic/main – key concepts of the conceptual system and world picture. This category includes a) cosmic concepts (sun, moon, star); b) social concepts (freedom, labour), c) psychological (spiritual) concepts (God, faith, sin, virtue);
   
2. 
   Descriptive concepts: 1) dimensional concepts (shape, size, weight, deep); 2) qualitative concepts reflecting quality (warm - cool, whole - partial, hard - soft); 3) quantitative concepts, reflecting quantity (only, much/many, few);
   
3. 
   Relative concepts (denoting relationships): 1) evaluative concepts (good – bad, right – wrong, useful – useless, tasty – not tasty); 2) positional concepts (against, together, near, for, up-down); 3) concepts of privacy (mine – strange/alien, to give – to take, to have – to lose, to include – to exclude).
   

So, there are a lot of approaches to the problem of concept typology. The scholars provide a number of classification based on different criteria. It should be stressed that concept typology is not a simple matter and any discussion of it is bound to reflect more than one angle of vision.