Linguistics Typology In The Field Of Lexico-semantic Typology

Well-known, that the typology is the area of linguistics focused on research of universal laws in a natural language. The typology is naturally connected with (?): system research of the big number of languages and the general(common) rules, in them working, enables to predict with the certain share of probability, whether probably this or that phenomenon in the language which was not including in initial sample. For example, on the basis of that today in typology is known about a category of number in languages various types, it is possible to predict with rather high probability, that (?) septenary or (?) number has no chances to be found out in one language of the world. In work there will be a speech about opportunities (?) in the field of lexical typology.For today as typology of language systems it is understood first of all grammatic (and to a lesser degree - syntactic) typology, i.e. principles of distribution and overlapping in languages of the world grammatic (less often - syntactic) values. About lexical systems in connection with a typological problematics to speak it is not accepted yet, and such situation is caused by the whole complex of the reasons.First, grammatic oppositions and systems of oppositions are directly observable, because are served by special parameters (for example, it is frequently formal and (?) are opposed special parameters of number and a case at a name, a kind, time and an inclination at a verb, etc.). Lexical oppositions are latent (and are expressed in roots syncretic manner) so to find out them in language, especially in the unknown person to the researcher language, it is much more difficult (compare than research of the latent lexico-semantic oppositions by the example of synonymic numbers(lines) in the New explanatory dictionary of synonyms).The second reason is connected to the first. Superficial parameters in grammar give evident idea of system, and the system comparable with same in other languages whereas a variety of lexical units forces (?) to speak about individual "portraits" of lexical units, about incomparability of semantic properties of one lexeme with others, etc.Meanwhile, gradually the attention of experts on concrete languages is involved with lexicon as system, and is far from being only in its(her) interaction with grammar. These researches while have the limited character: not all semantic zones manage to be presented as system of interaction of values, but the some people find out repeatability and, hence, predictability of semantic effects observable in them and oppositions (compare works on a problem " lexical (?) ", and also on typology (?) predicates, item verbs such as 'to stand' -'to sit' - 'to lay', etc.).At the same time, we do not know any research in which the description of lexical systems of different languages would be conducted under a uniform corner of sight, on a coherent plan so that results of the description of separate languages would appear are comparable as a whole and it would be possible to do(make) generalizations and forecasts on all semantic field (in this respect a good reference point are grammatic researches of the Petersburg typological school, for example, works on typology of productive designs, (?), an imperative other). We have undertaken such research.Within the framework of our project the field of verbs of moving in water as lexical system is studied; examples of realization of this system are considered(examined) in a number of languages of the world (Russian, Polish, Lithuanian, French, Portuguese, English, German, Netherlands, Armenian, Persian, Arabian, a Hebrew, Japanese and some other).Our research is based on given dictionaries (which, however, are usually extremely poor), and also on work with informants - is usual with the help of the expert on the given language. Work with an informant is under construction, first, on the basis of the questionnaire made by us which generalizes and takes into account the data surveyed before languages, and second, everywhere, where it is possible, on the basis of the examples gathered from (electronic) case of texts in the given language. Informants estimate a degree of correctness of the examples chosen from the case and test these examples for an opportunity of mutual substitution of the verbs making a field of movement in water in this language.The basic opposition in a zone of movement in the water, frequently fixed (?), is opposition between situations which we conditionally name active and passive navigation. (?) active navigation is connected to the appendix (animated) subject of efforts to movement whereas passive navigation assumes movement on current. This opposition separates verbs of motion in water from the majority of other ways of movement (it is impossible to present passive movement for verbs with value 'to go, 'climb or 'run'). A unique zone which is in this respect close to movement in water, movement in air (to fly it is possible also not applying special efforts is, and only due to the physical properties).As the person (?) the marked situation languages frequently consider(examine) movement of courts (and passengers on them) though sometimes this movement is realized as a version of active or passive navigation. Really, movement of a vessel independently, is controlled and consequently can not depend on current; on the other hand, floating the vessel nevertheless is inanimate object and on a background (moving) water environment can easy (?) as the passive participant of a situation of movement.One more specific property of verbs of navigation is opposition of movement and rest in a zone of passive navigation. The subject can or move on current, or - in absence of current -rather motionlessly to keep on a surface of water. The opportunity of such opposition for other verbs of a way of movement also is extremely rare and is realized, perhaps, only for values 'to fly' -' to soar (in air) '.As show our researches, lexical systems of movement in water can be considered "rich", when number of the lexemes serving this semantic field, not less than four. Thus the greatest degree of detailed elaboration is characteristic for passive navigation (whereas active navigation is described by one verb). Here situations of a presence(finding) in a small vessel ((?) - a plate with soup, the glass with water, but the pond can enter into this class and a pool, and even) and unlimited or uncertain spaces in which the subject "floats" well differ. These situations can differ (?), and frequently in case of the first sort is used (?) a verb.On the other hand, some role for interpretation of a situation can play the form floating (or floating) the subject of movement - for example, whether it is shipped it(he) in water (as an iceberg or a log), or is on a surface (as a hat) or itself makes as though a part of a surface (ooze, an oil spillage and under.).Various divisibility of partitioning can be peculiar and a semantic zone of movement of courts - so, quite often independent lexical expression receives navigation under a sail. On the other hand, a waterfowl - swans, ducks and under. - can, it appears, from the point of view of lexical compatibility with verbs of navigation, to get in a class of courts, instead of (or not only) in a class of alive essences. Thus, in language probably superficial (lexical) expression of external similarity of active movement of a waterfowl (as against usual alive essences which are shipped in thickness of water, they, as well as court, move as though on its(her) surface) with the ships and boats.It would be possible to assume, that the "poorest" system should consist of the only thing -universal - a verb of navigation (and can be, there will be no even such verb). It appears, however, that the natural language aspires to oppose by all means even two types of situations in this zone. Therefore even if language allocates(removes) only one root / one lexical unit on service of ways of water movement, this root or this lexical unit never has universal value, and specializes on any certain(determined) and typologically (?) to a semantic zone. In this case other semantic zones are distributed(allocated) between his(its) word-formation derivatives, as in some Slavic and Baltic languages; we shall tell, in Russian opposition on (?) -(?) (TO be FLOATING - TO FLOAT) expresses opposition movement - a motionless condition. Such variant when these zones depart to verbs more general(common) semantics (such as is possible(probable) also 'to go, 'come' or' to be, 'to be' and so forth).The situation when the verb of navigation designates movement of the water is allowable. In this case in system of the given language it will be a verb passive, instead of active navigation, and if in such system there is an opportunity of a choice, a verb of motion, instead of rest (i.e., "recalculating" for Russian system, ' to be floating (about (?).) ' instead of 'to float'). Such forecast is easily explainable: the question is about (?) which transfers movement of the object carried by a stream, on movement of the stream.Representation about horizontal and vertical movement in water is very interestingly arranged in languages: basically, it is two different lexical systems, and the verb with sense 'to sink or 'be immersed' (i.e. to move in water vertically downwards) is never borrowed from among lexemes which make system of horizontal navigation. With (?) the points of view, it is very clear: the idea should 'sink' to be as much as possible opposed idea 'to float'. However the sense 'to emerge' (moves in water vertically upwards can to be transferred in a natural language and "swimming" verbs - namely, the verbs of passive navigation having semantics ' to be on a surface '. Thus, languages can not distinguish process of emersion and his(its) result - submitting, besides, to one of standard (?) carries (compare, for example, in Russian: I THINK OF IT -I THINK, THAT ).It is interesting, that predicted can be and transferred meanings of verbs of motion in water -though in this area to do(make) any forecasts much more difficultly.While it is possible to speak, that we expect with some small probability of those, instead of other transferred meanings, and no more that. We cannot put transferred meaning in dependence on basic oppositions included in the given system or on other transferred meanings available in it(her). Nevertheless, our initial supervision allow to do(make), let weak, but generalizations and forecasts and in a zone of the portable uses of swimming verbs.So, use of verbs such as movement in water for the description of not fast movement in air (probably, on a heavenly surface) - first of all, clouds is standard enough. In it the appreciable generality (?) navigation and (?) as two ways of moving is again shown. Carry on movement on a firm surface (type LADY was FLOATING ON the PARQUET or the CROWD was FLOATING) is considerably less probable.With idea of movement and a presence(finding) in water as it appears, representation about abundance is closely connected:' to possess something in a plenty ' it is transferred as " to float in something ", compare close Russian TO BATHE IN MONEY. Special research the estimation of probability of value of the indistinct, dim image as "floating" before eyes and in general demands a situation of instability, uncertainty as movements in water (the FLOATING ROUBLE TO FLOAT AT EXAMINATION) - compare here exactly opposite idea which in Russian is expressed by a phraseological unit TO FLOAT, AS the FISH IN WATER.Our research did not put before itself the special purpose to predict behaviour of verbs of semantics interesting us in different languages. But, as any other typological research, it can have and has (?) aspect which, probably, from the point of view of strict (?) estimations or serious (?) results is very modest, but with (?) the points of view is reasonably interesting. (And by the way, to judgement of this aspect for ourselves in many respects has helped challenge to the Voronezh conference on (?) - thanks its(her) organizers.) It appears, even at a starting step of research (the project while year lasts only) we can answer a question, that natural languages "think" of movement in water, what oppositions in lexical systems are possible(probable) in this zone and, certainly, to try to explain the nature of these laws.