Conceptualization of Objectiveness and Classification of Nouns in Bulgarian Language (In Comparison With Russian Language)
Liberal Arts in Russia. 2013. Vol. 2. No. 4. Pp. 309-322.Get the full text (Russian)Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The article examines the interpretation peculiarities of notions about objectiveness through the prism of grammatical characteristics of the noun in Bulgarian language in comparison with Russian. The author suppose that conceptualization of objectiveness primarily related to quantitative categorization. Specific, individual objects are conceptualized as “a single unit”; specific set of similar specific objects conceptualized as “many”; fractional objects conceptualized as uncounted items, converse is also true – uncounted items conceptualized as fractional objects. Depending on other characteristics (structure of the object, the object functioning, interaction with the object, even through relation to the object, a unit can be conceptualized as functional “many” (dual nouns), and many – as a functional “single unit” (collective nouns). The following grammatical classes are distinguished by the method of conceptual categorization of objectiveness: 1) class of counable nouns (having correlative singular and plural forms) – they reflect the conceptualization of the whole as “a single unit” and of multiplicity as “many”; 2) class of dual nouns (having plural form only) – they reflect conceptualization of the whole as “many” and located on the periphery of the language objectiveness; 3) class of collective nouns (having a singular form only) – they reflect the conceptualization of multiplicity as “a single unit” and also located on the periphery of the language objectiveness; 4) class of nouns serving as names for the masses (both real and abstract) (having only single or plural form) –they reflect the conceptualization of fractional as “non-integral (continuum)” and located between the core of the language objectiveness and its periphery. Their periferal location is the reason for dual and collective nouns to be the weakest elements of the language objectiveness. This is typical for the Bulgarian language and to a lesser extent for Russian and other Slavic languages whose sintetizm also “supports” the classes relatively stable. The comparison of methods of conceptualization and grammatical categorization of objectiveness in Bulgarian and Russian has led to conclusion that the greatest affinity between the two languages is observed in the “prototypical” nuclear objectiveness represented by countable nouns having correlative singular and plural forms, and the greatest differences were found on the periphery of objectiveness represented in both languages by dual collective nouns.
- • objectiveness
- • conceptualization
- • categorization
- • noun
- • Bulgarian language
- • Russian language
- Wierzbicka A. Lexicography and Conceptual Analy¬sis. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, 1985.
- Wierzbicka A. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18
- Wierzbicka A. Semantics. Primes and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
- Vezhbitskaya A. Semanticheskie universalii i opisanie yazy¬kov [Semantic Universals and Description of Languages]. Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1999.
- Espersen O. Filosofiya grammatiki. Moscow, 1958.
- Ivanchev Sv. Balgarski ezik. 1977. No. 1.
- Kovacheva N. Izu¬chenie russkogo yazyka v sopostavlenii s bolgarskim. Sofia: Narod¬na prosveta, 1983.
- Kotova N., Yanakiev M. Grammatika bolgarskogo yazyka dlya vladeyushchikh russkim yazykom [Grammar of Bulgarian Language for Russian Speakers]. Moscow: Izda-tel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 2001.
- Lakoff G. Noun classes and categorization. Ed. C. Craig. Amsterdam: John Benja¬mins, 1986.
- Lekov I. Obshchnost i mnogoobrazie v gramaticheskiya stroi na slavyanskite ezitsi [Similarity and Diversity in Grammar Structure of Slavic Languages]. Sofia: Izdanie na Balgarskata akademiya na naukite, 1958.
- Lyashevskaya O. N. Vop¬ro¬sy yazykoznaniya. 2004. No. 1.
- Panfilov V. Z. Gnoseologicheskie aspekty filo¬sof¬skikh problem yazykoznaniya [Epistemological Aspects of Philosophical Problems of Linguistics]. Moscow, 1982.
- Pencheva M. Chovekat v ezika. Ezikat v choveka [People in a language. Language in a man]. Sofia: Sv. Kliment Okhridski, 1998.
- Potapova M. D. Izvestiya Akademii nauk SSSR. Seriya literatury i yazyka. 1983. Vol. 42. No. 2.
- Revzin I. I. Sovremennaya strukturnaya lingvisti¬ka. Problemy i metody [Modern Structural Linguistics. Problems and Methods]. Moscow: Nauka, 1977.
- Revzin I. I. Struktura yazyka kak modeliruyushchei sis¬te¬my [Structure of a Language as a Modeling System]. Moscow: Nauka, 1978.
- Rudenko D. I. Izvestiya Akademii nauk SSSR. Seriya li-teratury i yazyka. 1986. Vol. 45. No. 1.
- Frumkina R. M. Mikheev A. V., Mostovaya A. D., Ryumina N. A. Semantika i kategorizatsiya [Semantics and Categorization]. Moscow: Nauka, 1991.