The author states that there are in our vocabulary three, and only three, classes of semantic units: a) predicates, i.e. generic concepts – the result of our conceptualization of the world; they represent more than 90% of the vocabulary; b) operators of reference – a small, almost closed set bounding predicates to their concrete denotates; c) proper names, which are by defi nition referentially bound and are object of research of a specialized linguistic discipline. Thus, the main tasks of our grammar are (1) to defi ne and to describe the scope of the grammaticalization in the language in question and (2) to present the semantic classification of predicates, the description of their – bound and/or free – functioning in the text included.
The aim of this paper is to analyse various animal-specifi c complex lexical units together with patterns that can be held responsible for their underlying conceptual structure. Many examples of the data investigated in the paper seem to represent compounds as they are traditionally understood in the literature of the subject (see, among others, Bauer 2003; Katamba and Stonham 2006; Lieber and Štekauer 2009; Fàbregas and Scalise 2012; Bauer et al. 2013); however, others do not meet the basic criteria for compoundhood as postulated by, for example, Altakhaineh (2016). In my research I use the term animal-specifi c complex lexical units with reference to all animal-related composite expressions being the result of the working of metaphor-metonymy interaction.
The text is an overview of the first volume of the lexical atlas of the Russian folk dialects. It presents modern cartographic methods used in the volume and types of maps contained therein. In order to better present the volume, one exemplary map is analysed, indicating its advantages and drawbacks. In conclusion the richness of the Russian dialectal lexical material, which was precisely geographically located, is stressed. This is the biggest merit of the atlas.
According to the psycho-lexical approach in the taxonomy of individual differences, those interpersonal differences, which are the most important for social functioning of individual, have been encoded into natural languages. Therefore by analyzing the lexicons of interpersonal differences, it is possible to identify structures of their descriptions. Application of the psycho-lexical approach in the field of psychology of individual differences lead to obtaining the relatively high consistency regarding scientific taxonomy of personality traits. Also models developed on this basis meet the most important criteria of goodness of the psychological structural models. As a result, the accumulation of knowledge about person’s psychological functioning have been intensified. The aim of the article is to present the specificity of lexical studies and their taxonomical potential for social sciences, as well as key threats and limitations, based on experience of previous psycho-lexical research.
The article shows that during the forming of grammatical category of gender in Indo-European languages, names of non-living objects and names of those animals whose sex is unimportant for humans were receiving grammatical meanings of gender on the basis of similarity or dissimilarity of designated objects with males or females. Such grammatical metaphors were based on the ideas of different peoples about some minor characteristics of persons of different sex, such as the difference between men and women with higher activity, greater size, strength and independence. By now, the metaphorical motivation of category of gender in the Russian language has survived only in certain nouns. These nouns are interrogative pronouns кто (masc.) ʻwhoʼ and что (neut.) ʻwhatʼ, paired nouns-synonyms, e. g. конь (masc.) ʻstrong horseʼ – лошадь (fem.) ʻordinary horseʼ, generic versions of nouns, e. g. ворон (masc.) ʻravenʼ – ворона (fem.) ʻcrowʼ, and nouns-occasionalisms used in speech oriented to expressiveness and creativity.
The article is devoted to personal nouns with suffi x -ant in Polish and Belarusian. The lexical and semantic analysis of the studied group of words showed that in both languages they belong to the literary variety of language, however, numerous nouns represent rare vocabulary, sometimes characterized stylistically. The overwhelming majority of names defi nes the names of active contractors of activities, less often – passive contractors, and least frequently – names of owners. In addition, the nomina masculina with suffi x -ant belong to the attributive names, defi ning people on the basis of their character traits, tendencies, and often vices. The s tudied lexis include archaic or colloquial derivatives. Among the specialist words, there were examples representing such fi elds as law and judiciary, economics and trade, religion and art, education and science.