Ingliz tili ikkinchi fakulteti

Typological categorization within lexical fields and conceptual domains.

The basic idea underlying cross-linguistic research on categorization within lexical fields and conceptual domains (coherent segments of experience and knowledge about them) is that human experience is not delivered in nicely pre-packed units, categories, and types, but has to be chunked, organized and categorized by human beings themselves. Categories correspond to experiences that are perceived to have features in common. When experiences are systematically encoded by one and the same linguistic label (e.g., by the same word) they are, most probably, perceived as being fairly similar to each other; that is, they are taken to represent one and the same class or to correspond to one and same concept or lexical meaning.

A simple example of what can be meant by different ways of categorizing, or carving up a conceptual domain across languages is given in Table 1, which shows how the inventories of body-part terms in six languages differ in the extent to which they distinguish between hand vs. arm, foot vs. leg, and finger vs. toe by conventionalised, lexicalised expressions (―labels‖).

Table 1: Hand vs. arm, foot vs. leg, finger vs. toe in English, Russian, Uzbek, Italian, Rumanian, Estonian and Japanese.

English	Russian	Uzbek	Italian	Rumanian	Estonian	Japanese
hand	рука	қўл	mano	minǎ	Käsi	te
arm			braccio	brat	käsi(vars)	ude
foot	нога	оѐқ	piede	picior	Jalg	ashi
						76

leg			gamba
finger	палец	бармоқ	dito	deget	Sõrm	yubi
toe					varvas

The table above follows the same practice of representing ―lexicalization‖ in a fairlyunsophisticated way without asking the question ofwhether рука in Russian or yubi in Japanese are polysemous or semantically general.

What matters here is simply how many different lexemes there are and how theypartition the domain. A somewhat more complicated example is given in Table 2, which shows the verbs used for talking about waterrelatedmotion (―aqua-motion‖) in three languages – Swedish, Dutch and Russian.The table includes both motion of water itself (―flow‖ in English) and motion/location of other entities (other figures) with water as ground. Here, again, theRussian verbs плыть / плаватьare treated as one semantic unit, rather than two sets ofdifferent senses. Flyta in Swedish appears, however, at two different places – thisdoes not per se imply any strong conviction that the case is much different from theRussian verb couple, but shows rather problems with two-dimensionalrepresentations.

Table 2: A part of the aqua-motion domain in Russian, Swedish, and Dutch.

Lang

Agent-driven, active motion: type of figure

Passive location

Motion

uage

/motion

of

water

Ani

Sailing

Rowing

Canoes

Other

Station

Motion

mate

Boats

boats

vessels

ary

out of

entiti

or

control

es

neutral

motion

Swed

simm

Segla

ro

paddla

(no

Flyta

driva

flyta,

ish

a

specific

rinna

acquam

otion

verbs)

Dutc

Zeilen

roeien

paddelen

stromen

h

zwe

varen

drijven

mme

n

Russi

плыть / плавать

течь,

an

(плыть /

грести

нестись

литься

плавать

под

парусами)

77

As these examples show, languages differ considerably as to how many different lexemes they have for talking about comparable domains and how exactly these words partition the domains. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask whether there is any systematicity underlying the obvious cross-linguistic variation. Whatever the answer is, it requires explanation.

Only a handful of conceptual domains typically encoded by words (rather than by grammatical means) have been subject to systematic cross-linguistic research on their semantic categorization, primarily colour, body, kinship, perception, motion, events of breaking and cutting, dimension. The list can be made slightly longer, if we include words and expressions with more grammatical meanings, such as indefinite pronouns, various quantifiers, interrogatives, phrasal adverbials andspatial adpositions.