•  
  •  
 

Philology Matters

Abstract

The study deals with the NSM analysis, developed by A. Wierzbicka, and its essence to develop the prototype structure of the basic social categories. The hypothesis questioned within this paper: ‘Are the NSM analysis results of the category areprone to determine its prototype?’.The work of Sapir Whorf claims that the linguistic systems of the “pictures of the world” are incompatible with each other, whereas Wierzbicka, on the contrary, asserts that culturally specific concepts are well comparable, as they can betranslated into a universal language that excludesthese differences. Thus, the language of semantic primitives – NSM, demonstrating its expressive capacity, restricts the set of the meanings for max-imum that refuses further decomposition, the onlyway the semantic content of any complex expression can be made explicitly in full detail.

First Page

57

Last Page

65

DOI

10.36078/987654346

References

1.Berlin B., Kay P. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution, California universitypress. Berkeley, 1969. 178 p.
2.Goddard С, Wierzbicka A. Men, women and children: the conceptual semantics of basicsocial categories.Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages,and Cultures.Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 24.
3.Hjemslev L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. [2nd ed., trans. Francis J.Whitfield]. –Madison/London, University of Wisconsin Press, 1961 [first published in Danish in 1943;first English translation published 1953, as IJAL Memoir 7].
4.Lounsbury F.G. A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32(1),1956. р. 158194; Goodenough W.H. Componential analysis and the study of meaning.Language 32(1), 1956. р.195216; Lyons J. An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968; Lehrer A. Semantic Fields and LexicalStructure. Amsterdam & London: North Holland Publishing, 1974.; Leech G. Semantics.Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1974; Nida E. Componential Analysis of Meaning: AnIntroduction to Semantic Structures. The Hague, Mouton, 1975.
5.Rosch E., Mervis C.B. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories,Cognitive Psychology, 7, 1975. р. 573605.
6.Rosch E.R. Principles of categorization. In E.R.Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition andCategorization. Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum, 1978. pp. 27-48.
7.Robert L., Judith E. Prototype formation: Central tendency model vs. attribute-frequencymodel, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981, 1011, DOI: 10.3758/BF03333651
8.Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. New York, Macmillan, 1953.
9.Abdullayev X.D. Xalq maqollarining “Qutadg‘u bilig” poetikasidagi o‘rni va badiiyestetik funksiyalari: Filol. fan. nom.... diss. [The role and artistic aesthetic functions of folkproverbs in the poetics of “Qutadgu bilig”. Dr.Philol. diss]. Tashkent, 2005. p.51.
10.Dubichinskiy V.V. Leksikografiya russkogo yazika . Uchebnoye posobiye [The lexicographyof the Russian language. Tutorial]. Flinta, Nauka, 2009. p.77.
11.Ergasheva G.I. Ingliz va o‘zbek tillari frazeologizm va paremiyalarida gender aspektiningqiyosiytipologik tadqiqi. Filol.fan.nomz. avtoref [Comparativetypological study ofgender aspect in the phraseologisms and paremia of English and Uzbek languages. Dr ofPhilosophy. Diss. abstract]. T., 2011. 29 p.
12.Hojiyev A., Nurmonov A. Hozirgi o’zbek tili faol so’zlarining izohli lugati [The explanatorylecture of the modern active Uzbek words].Tashkent, “Sharq” Publ., 2001.
13.Iminov A. Oq kiyingan ayol [The woman in white]. Tashkent, Uzb. National library, 2010.p. 5.
14.Kolesnikova M.S. Metodologicheskiye problemi leksikograficheskogo analiza v gendernixissledovaniyax // Genderniy kaleydoskop. Kurs leksiy [Methodological problems oflexicographic analysis in gender studies. // Gender kaleidoscope. Lecture course]. Pod.obsh.red M.Maliyshevoy. – M. Academia, 2001. 207 p.
15.Kubryakova Ye.S. Kratkiy slovar kognitivnix terminov [A brief dictionary of cognitiveterms]. – M.: Filol. ft MGU im. M.V.Lomonosova, 1997. 140 p.
16.Mengliyev B. ”Odam” leksemasi va sathlararo munosabatlar // Tilning aksiologikmexanizmlari va matn emotsionalligi. Ma’ruzalar bayoni to‘plami [The lexeme of a humanbeing and interlinear relations // axiological mechanisms of language and emotional text.Collection of lecture notes]. Tashkent, 2001. p. 25.
17.Ma’rufov T. O‘zbek tilining izohli lug‘ati [The explanatory dictionary of Uzbek]. Moscow,«Rus. yazik», 1981. 520 p.
18.Rozina R.I. Chelovek i lichnost v yazike // Logicheskiy analiz yazika: Kulturniye konsepti[Human being and person in language // Logical analysis of language. Cultural concepts].M., 1991. p.52-56.
19.Rahmatullayev Sh. O‘zbek tilining frazeologik lug‘ati [The phraseological dictionary of theUzbek language]. Tashkent, 1992. 378 p.
20.Serio P. Politicheskaya lingvistika UrGPU, Yekaterinburg. Perevod s fransuzskogoYe.Е.Anikina. Oksyumoron ili nedoponimaniye? Universalistskiy relyativizm universalnogoyestestvennogo semanticheskogo metayazika Anni Vejbitskoy [Translation from French byE.E.Anikin. Oxymoron or misunderstanding? The universalist relativism of the universalnatural semantic meta language of Anna Vezhbitskaya], 2011. No1(35).
21.Stepanov Yu.S. Konstanty. Slovar russkoy kulturi [The dictionary of Russian culture].Izd.2-ye, ispr.i dop. Akademicheskiy proyekt. M., 2001. 41 p.
22.Safarov Sh.S., Kdiyrbayeva G.K. Konsept chelovek v kartine mira // Stilistikatilshunoslikning zamonaviy yo‘nalishlarida [The concept “man” in the picture of the world// Stylistics in modern spheres of the linguistics]. Tashkent, 2011. p. 34-37

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.