«инглиз тили лексикологияси» кафедраси

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
/ 
плавать
are 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.