|
English
|
Russian
|
Uzbek
|
Italian
|
Rumanian
|
Estonian
|
Japanese
|
hand
|
рука
|
қўл
|
mano
|
minǎ
|
käsi
|
te
|
arm
|
braccio
|
brat
|
käsi(vars)
|
ude
|
foot
|
ступня нога
|
оёқ
|
piede
|
picior
|
jalg
|
ashi
|
leg
|
gamba
|
finger
|
палец
|
бармоқ
|
dito
|
deget
|
sõrm
|
yubi
|
toe
|
varvas
|
The table above follows the same practice of representing “lexicalization” in a fairly unsophisticated way without asking the question of whether 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 they partition the domain. A somewhat more complicated example is given in Table 2, which shows the verbs used for talking about water related motion (“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, the Russian verbs плыть / плавать are treated as one semantic unit, rather than two sets of different senses. Flyta in Swedish appears, however, at two different places – this does not per se imply any strong conviction that the case is much different from the Russian verb couple, but shows rather problems with two-dimensional representations.
Table 2: A part of the aqua-motion domain in Russian, Swedish, and Dutch.
Language
|
Agent-driven, active motion: type of figure
|
Passive location /motion
|
Motion
of water
|
|
Animate
entities
|
Sailing
boats
|
Rowing
boats
|
Canoes
|
Other
vessels
|
Stationary
or neutral
motion
|
Motion
out of
control
|
|
Swedish
|
simma
|
segla
|
ro
|
paddla
|
(no
specific
acquamotion
verbs)
|
flyta
|
driva
|
flyta,
rinna
|
Dutch
|
zwemmen
|
zeilen
|
roeien
|
paddelen
|
|
drijven
|
stromen
|
varen
|
|
|
Russian
|
плыть / плавать
|
течь, литься
|
|
(плыть / плавать под парусами)
|
грести
|
|
|
нестись
|
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 and spatial adpositions.
Questions for self-control:
1. What kind of relations does lexical typology have with other types of Comparative Typology?
2. What can lexical typology be dealt with?
3. How can you define the term “lexicon”?
4. What branches of lexical typology do you know?
5. The problem of interference in foreign language teaching acquisition (Lexical level).
Recommended Literatures:
1. Аракин В.Д. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. Ленинград, 1979.
2.Буранов Ж.Б. Сравнительная типологи яанглийского и тюркских языков. М, 1983.
3. Рождественский Ю.В. Типология слова. М, 1969.
4. Arnold V.I. The English Word. M, 1973.
Comparative analysis of the words of the English and Native languages
Key points for discussion:
Word as a basis unit of a language
Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of words
Semantic classification of words
Classification of words according to their structure
|
The main unit of the lexical system of a language resulting from the association of a group of sounds with a meaning is a word. This unit is used in grammatical functions characteristic of it. It is the smallest language unit which can stand alone as a complete utterance. A word, however, can be divided into smaller sense units - morphemes. The morpheme is the smallest meaningful language unit.
The morpheme consists of a class of variants, allomorphs, which are either phonologically or morphologically conditioned, e.g. please, pleasant, pleasure.
Morphemes are divided into two large groups: lexical morphemes and grammatical (functional) morphemes. Both lexical and grammatical morphemes can be free and bound. Free lexical morphemes are roots of words which express the lexical meaning of the word, they coincide with the stem of simple words.
Free grammatical morphemes are function words:
articles
conjunctions
prepositions(the,with, and).
Bound lexical morphemes are affixes:
prefixes (dis-)
suffixes (-ish)
blocked (unique) root morphemes (e.g. Fri-day, cran-berry).
Word is a basic two sided and independent unit of a language. It has been attracted the attentions of many linguists from ancient times. Thus, the word is the basis unit of a language, directly corresponds to the object of thought (referent)- which is a generalized reverberation of a certain ‘slice’, ‘piece’ of objective reality and by immediately referring to it names the thing meant. Words in all languages can be distinguished as followings:
Typologically denotational meaning suggests the distribution of general and special meanings (hyperonyms and hyponyms) in languages. In general, it is more natural for English and Uzbek to use a hyperonym, while Russian typically favours hyponym:
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
