CC BY
147
I. ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЯЗЫКОВОЙ КОНЦЕПТУАЛИЗАЦИИ И КАТЕГОРИЗАЦИЯ
УДК 81-13+81'373.4
E. V. Dziuba
METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF COGNITIVE RESEARCH OF LEXICAL CATEGORIZATION1
In the framework of discussing the cognitive principles of categorization (L. Wittgenstein, E. Rosch, G. Lakoff, N. Boldyrev, E. Kubryakova, etc.) the article puts forward and lays the theoretical foundations for a new variant of systematization of methodological principles of cognitive research of lexical categorization. The author singles out the following principles of lexical categorization as the basic ones: prototypicality, "family resemblance", continual-cognitive relativity, contextual-cognitive de-terminacy, cross-relation of categorial structures, variability of categorial structures in personal, social and national lingual mentality, correlation of the ontological and linguo-mental nature of a category, static or dynamic character of categorial structures, hierarchy and the principle of gradience. These principles make it possible to bring out the typical features of structural organization of lexical categories, characterize their linguo-cultural peculiarities and single out various types of categories and different criteria for the inclusion of a certain unit into the category.
Key words: principles of categorization, lexical categorization, lingual categories, linguo-cognitive domains "Nature", "Man" and "Artifacts".
1. Introduction
The question of categorization of the world around us is undoubtedly one of the central problems of cognitive linguistics. Numerous researches in this field range from the analysis of syntactical categories to the study of categorization in the sphere of machine intelligence and educational theory [Cohen & Lefebvre 2005]. At the same time, many linguists focus their efforts on the study of lexical categorization [Divjak & Arppe1 2013; Kalyan 2012; Lepper 2000; Mashal et al. 2014; Pustet 2005; Regier 1995; Taylor 2011]. In order to figure out this problem, a complex of methodological principles has been offered by the scholars.
Nowadays, the basic methodological principles (methodological postulates in the alternative terminology) of cognitive linguistics have been formulated. They include the principle of anthropocentrism, the interdisciplinary approach to cognitive research, the principle of balance of the two basic functions of language - cognitive and communicative, the principle of conceptual integrity of language and speech,
1 Публикация осуществлена при финансовой поддержке Российского гуманитарного научного фонда (РГНФ), проект № 15-54-00010 «а(ф)» Категоризация действительности в русском языковом сознании 2015 г.
the principle of recognition of the leading role of physical interaction of a person with the environment in the process of organization of their cognitive systems, the explanatory principle (with the aim of explaining linguistic facts) and some others (see in more detail: [Rosch 1978; Baranov & Dobrovolsky 1997; Беседина 2010; Болдырев 2004; 2008; 2013; Кибрик 1983, 1992; Кубрякова 2009; Скребцова 2011 etc.]).
The above mentioned principles are general cognitive ones and lie at the basis of any research aimed at studying the interdependence of linguistic structures and cognitive processes taking place in man's thinking. Nevertheless, specific schools, theories and methodologies have developed more particular methodological principles on which such researches may be based. In particular, A.P. Chudinov deals in detail with the principles of cognitive meta-phorology [Чудинов 2014; Alekseeva et al. 2014]. K.M. Abisheva presents the principles of lexical categorization, and among them the principle of prototypi-cality (the existence of the best representative of a category), the principle of loose categorization (the principle of "family resemblance" in the terminology of L. Wittgenstein [Витгенштейн URL: http://krotov.in-fo/-lib_sec/03_v/vit/genshtey2.htm], the principle of
plurality and heterogeneity of categorization bases, the principle of continuity (integrity of a physical body in space) and the principle of gradience, which means hypo-hyperonymic relations between the members of a category [Абишева 2013: 23-27].
Fully acknowledging the value of the above mentioned principles we believe that the discussion of these theoretical entities could be continued.
2. Method
The undertaken study of the categorial domains "NATURE", "MAN" and "ARTIFACTS" is based on the following main methods of analysing linguo-cognitive phenomena. With the help of the method of prototypical analysis on the basis of native speakers' interviews we distinguish more typical and less typical models of the given categories and define the set of essential properties of a categorization, relevant for the Russian lingual cognition. The method of psy-cholinguistic (associative) experiment and the method of quantitative (statistical) analysis of the obtained data are used as additional general scientific methods.
The formulated categorization principles are illustrated by the results of the associative experiment, during which 1800 Russian citizens, mostly Ekaterinburg dwellers (Sverdlovsk Region) aged 17 to 85 were tested. The respondents represented various social and professional groups (retired pensioners, students, higher school teachers, secondary school teachers, medical workers, etc.). The survey was divided into two stages: the first questionnaire (tasks of the kind: Name the berries you know; Name the home appliances you know; etc.) was aimed at defining the most typical and the least typical representatives of a category in the mind of Russian speakers. The statistical analysis included the first ten representatives of each category in every questionnaire. During the second stage of the survey the respondents were offered lists of objects, which were to be grouped according to certain properties, defined by the respondents themselves (for example: Allocate the names of items to several groups, name each group you single out, define the properties according to which you refer an object to a certain group.). Thus, the second stage of the experiment was focused on the definition of essential properties of categorization, on the basis of which a category is structured in the mind of speakers.
The method of cognitive-taxonomic analysis
in the framework of the given research allows, on the one hand, to analyze the internal hierarchical structure of the studied phenomena (to bring out subcate-
gories and concepts which make up the structural-semantic elements of the category), and, on the other hand, to regard these categories as elements of certain macro-units, i.e. cognitive phenomena of a higher level of organization (macro- or hypercategories, mental domains and subdomains). The given method, together with the traditional general scientific comparative method, offers a possibility to define the specific factors of category formation, of their structural-semantic organization (categorial membership and boundaries) in different worldviews and various spheres of human knowledge. The method of classifi-cational description is also realized in manifesting certain kinds of lexical categories.
3. Results
Our research, made on the material of lexical categorization of the semantic domains "NATURE", "MAN" and "ARTIFACTS", allowed to distinguish the following principles of lexical categorization: the principle of prototypicality; the principle of "family resemblance"; the principle of continual-cognitive relativity; the principle of contextual-cognitive deter-minacy; the principle of cross-relation of categorial structures, the principle of variability of categorial structures in personal, social and national lingual mentality, the principle of correlation of the ontologi-cal and linguo-mental nature of a category, the principle of static or dynamic character of categorial structures, the principle of hierarchy and the principle of gradience.
4. Discussion
The formulated principles of lexical categorization need explanation and illustration. Our research singles out the following principles:
4.1. The principle of prototypicality was developed in the works of E. Rosch [Rosch 1973; 1978; 1983], G. Lakoff [Lakoff 1987], B. Berlin and P. Kay [Berlin & Kay 1968; Kay et al. 1997; Kay 1998]. The principle is based on determining "the best representative" in its contrast to "the worst representatives" of natural and linguistic categories. It is important to note that this definition includes only the extreme points of the categorial structure, i.e. central and non central (peripheral) ones. This approach does not allow seeing the whole structure of the category and does not show the density of the category (numerical characteristics). Establishing the extreme points only (the best and worst representatives), vital for each particular category, makes it impossible to realize the typical features of category structuring in comparison. This problem is to a great extent solved by a de-
tailed classification of typicality stages, defined on the principle of frequency, which is calculated on the results of individual native speakers' personal interviews. Thus, the categorial structure may display the models of five degrees of typicality:
1) super typical (model, ideal) category members, having the highest degree of typicality, usually named in more than 80 % of interviews;
2) typical category members, which can be subdivided into 2 groups:
- highly typical, found in 60 % - 80 % of interviews, and
- moderately typical, mentioned in 30 % -60 % of interviews;
3) less typical category members, mentioned in 10 % - 30 % of interviews;
4) non typical category members, usually mentioned in 5 % - 10 % of interviews;
5) super non typical category members, registered in less than 5 % of interviews.
Such interpretation of the categories (especially lexical/semantic ones) from the point of view of uniformity of approach to the factor of the number of category members makes it possible to see these categories in comparison and bring out the typical features of their structure, which facilitates the realization of the specific, differentiated for every category approach of man to the acquisition of various fragments of the ontological world. For example, an interesting peculiarity was observed while studying the structure of the category BERRIES in naive thinking. The results of the interview, which was conducted with the aim of defining more typical and less typical vegetables, fruit and berries, suggest that it is impossible to single out "super typical" members in the structure of the category BERRIES. Super typical, or ideal, are those category members that are named in more than 80 % of interviews. In the structure of the categories VEGETABLES and FRUIT such members are present and constitute the core: for the category VEGETABLES these are the cucumber, tomato, potato and carrot, and the category FRUIT includes such central members as the apple, orange and banana. Thus, if some categories display the best (super typical) members and the other categories fail to do so, it becomes evident that there are certain differences in the structure of these categories. Proceeding from this we may come up to the conclusion that depending on the structure density and the presence of a dense core all categories may be subdivided into categories with a dense structure (dense core) and categories with a dispersed structure, which lack a clearly formed central area (dense core). Thus, the
categories VEGETABLES and FRUIT refer to the first group, while the category BERRIES belongs to the second one.
4.2. The principle of "family resemblance", defining the membership of a category. The essence of this principle, formulated by L. Wittgenstein and fUrther developed in the works of E. Rosch and C. Mervis [Rosch 1978; Rosch & Mervis 1975; Rosch et al. 1976], consists in the following: the members of the category are united in one group not on the basis of strict and uniform set of categorial features, but due to various cross references of properties with different members of the category. Thus, two representatives of the category VEGETABLES -cucumber and olive - possess, perhaps, only one common feature, essential for naïve categorization -they are used in non sweet dishes. All other features are absolutely heterogeneous: the cucumber is a herb with multiple seed juicy fruit, called a berry in Botany; the olive is a tree with stone-fruit (called drupes in Botany). The fruit of the cucumber has very few calories, and the olive is rich in fat (it is used for extracting olive oil). The cucumber is usually eaten raw, but the olives without due processing are inedible, etc.
4.3. The principle of continual-cognitive relativity, consisting in the presence of sometimes significant differences between cognitive structures (membership, structure and category boundaries) in various spheres of human knowledge - scientific (botanical, agronomical, culinary, etc.), commercial (including customs) and naïve (domestic), which makes it possible to propagate the idea of worldview plurality. This may be illustrated by the example of the water melon and the melon, the fruit of which are treated as fleshy berries in botany, as vegetables in agronomy (alongside with pumpkin, marrow, squash and cucumber), and as fruit in commerce, cooking and domestic life.
4.4. The principle of contextual-cognitive de-
terminacy (the principle is formulated on the basis of the term cognitive context, introduced by N.N. Boldy-rev [Болдырев 2014]. In our opinion, the given principle presupposes the interdependence of three main aspects of the process of categorization: 1) type of categorization (worldview or sphere of human knowledge); 2) essential features of categorization, relevant for a certain sphere; 3) structure (membership) and boundaries of the category.
The type of categorization and its essential features define the membership, structural characteristics and boundaries of the category. Categorial structures (i.e. the set of members) differ with different worldviews. This is undoubtedly caused by the fact
that in different spheres, and even sciences with a common object of study, there exist different grounds for categorization, different methods of acquiring information; different essential features are chosen for the classification of the real world objects. Thus, in Botany, the following features for the description of the category PLANT are the most important: the position in the systematic classification of plants (i.e. relation to kingdom, division, class, order, family and genus) and its morphology (constituent parts, what parts are mutated (for instance, the root proper or a tuber functioning as a kind of root), etc.) What is important for an agronomist is the vegetation region and the peculiarities of cultivation of different crops or plants; salesmen are primarily interested in the conditions of storage, transportation and display of plant products as a commodity; in culinary and domestic life it is the taste and processing for food that matter. These essential features define, for example, the specific nature of the category BERRIES: in Botany, a berry is not a separate category, uniting a number of certain representatives, but rather a part of a plant; to be more exact, it is a kind of fruit, which is found not only in the aforementioned Cucurbitaceae, but also in the Solanaceae (aubergine, bell pepper and chili pepper, tomato, physalis, etc.) Many other plants give berry fruit, such as pitahaya (family Cactaceae), kiwifruit (genus Actinidia), marakuya (genus Passiflora), papaya (genus Carica), persimmon (family Ebenaceae), grape (family Vitaceae), and even pineapple (family Bromeliaceae) [Бавтуто, Еремин 1997: 21; Яковлев, Челомбитько 2001]. In everyday sense, the meaning of the word berry is, on the one hand, narrower than that of the botanical term, and, on the other hand, it possesses more differentiating features: berries in the domestic sense are fruit of grass or bushes, with a sour-sweet taste, small in size and eaten raw or processed. It is for this reason that the water melon and melon, due to their large size, can hardly be recognized by common people as typical representatives of the category BERRIES. In commercial nomenclature BERRIES are not at all singled out; what is more, raspberry and strawberry, currant and gooseberry, blueberry and cranberry are referred to the category FRUIT [ГОСТ «Фрукты» URL: http://libgost.ru].
4.5. The principle of cross-relation of cate-gorial structures, presupposing the possibility of reference of one and the same object (real or imaginary) to different categories. Thus, for instance, an electric saucepan simultaneously refers to the category CROCKERY and the category ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES (or HOME APPLIANCES). Indeed, functionally one and the same home appliance may
represent absolutely different mechanisms, for example, from the point of view of physics. Man in the street usually does not pay attention to differences in the working principles of tube, plasma, LCD and OLED television sets. Ordinary people may be interested in the quality of color and picture, optimal sphere of application and the like, but not in specific working principles. Nevertheless, the working principles of each type of TV are based on different physical phenomena: tube TVs function due to the work of a vacuum semi-conductor (rigid body); plasma TVs use small cells containing high temperature ionized gases, which are plasmas; the work of a liquid crystal display is based on the principle of matrix - a glass plate, between the layers of which there are liquid crystals letting the light through; modern OLED TVs contain organic light-emitting diodes. In other words, the physics worldview does not possess a television in the form customary for an ordinary person, but there are devices, which transmit information with the help of electromagnetic waves. And an LCD TV, an OLED TV, a plasma or a tube TV will refer to different classification places of the scientific world categorization.
4.6. The principle of static or dynamic character of categorial structures is based on the property of possibility/impossibility of their dynamic development. Static categories are closed according to the type of their structural organization; they do not admit of inclusion of new members. These are such categories as SEASONS, MONTHS OF THE YEAR, DAYS OF THE WEEK, TIME OF THE DAY, PARTS OF THE HUMAN BODY, SPECTRUM COLORS, etc. Dynamic categories, or open structure categories, are capable of changing their structure under the influence of external factors. The members within a category can change their status and pass from the group of highly typical members into the group of less typical ones and vice versa. For example, a dish washing machine and a computer just a couple of decades ago were associated by ordinary people with large, almost "industrial" units (dish washing machines were installed in public eating facilities, and computers occupied a lot of space in research institutes). At present, these members have become typical in the structure of the category HOME APPLIANCES. A reverse process (a member of the category used to be its highly typical representative, but with time passed into the group of non typical members) can be observed by the example of the category VEGETABLES: in the minds of the Russians before Peter the Great the best representative of the category was a turnip, but today it is far from being the most typical member of this category.
There are still other mechanisms of reformation of the structure of lexical categories under the influence of external factors: members of some categories may fully pass into the structure of other categories, or simultaneously become members of different (adjacent) categories (see 4.5 of the given article). Thus, for most modern speakers a kettle, steam cooker, fryer and some other kitchen utensils practically stopped being members of the category CROCKERY and became the typical representatives of the category HOME (KITCHEN) APPLIANCES.
4.7. The principle of variability of categorial structures in personal, social and national lingual mentality, the essence of which lies in the considerable influence of man upon the process of categorization. The specific nature of categorization to a great extent depends on various subjective factors: place of residence and individual experience of the subjects or objects of categorization, on socio-cultural and historical conditions, under which the process of categorization takes place, etc. For example, the formation of a category may be influenced by the gender factor. The structure of the category HOME APPLIANCES (the subcategory PERSONAL CARE APPLIANCES) includes an electric shaver as the most typical member for men; for women the most typical members are a curling iron, a fan, electric hair rollers, etc.
Evidently, professional affiliation of man also plays an important role in the process of category formation. Thus, a professional tailor (the gender factor may be irrelevant) is sure to mention a sewing machine while enumerating home appliances (because it is a typical representative of the category HOME APPLIANCES for him or her), while a lay person (even a woman) will never remember about it (for them, a sewing machine is a non typical member of the category).
It is also interesting to examine ethno-specific peculiarities of lexical categorization. For example, the category BERRIES has absolutely different status in the minds of Russians and Czechs. The given category is very vaguely actualized in the minds of the speakers of Czech. Strawberry, raspberry, currant and the like will be undoubtedly identified by the speaker of Russian as berries, whereas the Czechs call them fruit. A Czech pupils' book for preschool children contains a task to look at a picture in which the following fruit are numbered: 1) apple, 2) corn, 3) pear, 4) cherry, 5) pineapple, 6) strawberry, 7) lemon, 8) tomato, 9) watermelon, 10) grape. Then the children are asked questions, out of which the following ones are important for us here: "Které ovoce má nejnízsí císlo?" and "Které ovoce má nejvyssí císlo?"
("Which fruit has the smallest number?", " Which fruit has the greatest number?") [Prakticky kurz pnpravy do skoly 2013: 113]. In Czech, ovoce is translated as fruit; therefore, the speakers of Czech include both strawberry and grape into the category of FRUIT, whereas the speakers of Russian call them berries. It is due to this fact that the Czech teachers, who teach Russians the Czech language, are faced with difficulties in explaining why it is necessary to learn the words jahoda (wild strawberry, cultivated strawberry), jerbina (rowanberry), trnka (sloe), malina (raspberry) while studying the units of the topical group FRUIT.
Recognition of significance of the role of human factor in the process of formation of cognitive structures does not exclude the presence of the onto-logical nature of some categories. The next principle follows from this supposition.
4.8. The principle of correlation of the onto-logical and linguo-mental nature of a category,
which means various relations between the linguo-mental and ontological nature of a category, often depending on the type of categorization and the kind of the category itself. For example, the categories SEASONS or PARTS OF THE HUMAN BODY have a predominantly ontological nature, and, consequently, display a more stable character and more distinct ca-tegorial boundaries. Respectively, the category SPIRITUAL VALUES is basically subjective, which explains the fuzzy character of the boundaries of the category, for instance, in relation to obligatory/optional inclusion into its structure of the concepts religion, education, etc.
4.9. The principle of hierarchy, realized in the phenomenon of subcategorization, which presupposes the subdivision of a category into separate particular areas, uniting the members according to one of the essential properties. This principle, that demonstrates the hypo-hyperonymic relations between the members of a category, was defined by K.M. Abishe-va as the principle of gradience, which hardly corresponds to the commonly accepted definition of the kind of gradience, spoken about by E. Rosch, G. Lakoff, etc. The researchers singled out the phenomenon of gradience as a distinctive feature of some categories. In their opinion, it meant various degrees of manifestation of a categorial property by a representative of a category. Thus, for a speaker of Russian, cucumber is more evidently a vegetable, than, for example, avocado. That is why it would be useful to separate the principles of hierarchy and the principle of gradience. Hierarchy should be treated as taxonomy proper, which could be illustrated by the
example of cognitive subcategorization (under subca-tegorization we understand the subdivision of a category into separate particular areas, uniting the members according to one of the essential properties [in more detail see: ^3ro6a 2013]. For example, in order to describe VEGETABLES, FRUIT, BERRIES and NUTS it would be reasonable to single out subcategories on the basis of the following: 1) relation to man (wild - cultivated plants); 2) possibility to be used as food (phago-cytic subcategorization: edible - inedible, harmful -useful); 3) what part of the plant is used for food (morphological phagocytic subcategorization: root plants, tuber plants, stems, leaves, flowers, fruit); 4) method of using a plant as food (praxian subcategorization: raw or fresh - thermally processed - dry - jerked; suitable/unsuitable for making juice); 5) type of vegetation (grass - shrub - bush - tree); 6) place of vegetation (locative subcategorization: exotic - non exotic).
4.10. The principle of gradience is realized through the presence of internal and external gradations, characteristic of a category. Speaking about better and worse members in the structure of fuzzy categories (categories with fuzzy boundaries), cognitive linguists express the idea of a graded structure of such categories. Thus, G. Lakoff specifies «the idea that at least some categories have degrees of membership and no clear boundaries» [Lakoff 1987: 12]. It is necessary to note, that according to G. Lakoff we deal here with gradations of membership, or external gradations, which have a purely psychological nature (they depend on life and socio-cultural experience of a person, his or her background, etc.). But there are also categories with internal gradations, which are to a great extent caused by the ontological nature of the category itself. Such categories are very often ideal; they present gradations based on a certain property. The category INTELLECT, for example, has internal gradation. In Russian, intellectual gradations are found on all linguistic levels: semantic (gradation on the level of meaning: tupoi - glupy - nerazumny -razumny - tolkovy - obrazovany - sposobny - umny -mudry); derivative (compare: tupovaty, glupovaty, nedoumok, umny-preumny, etc.); morphological (compare: boleye/meneye umny, boleye/meneye ra-zumny, boleye/meneye glupy; mudreyshy, glupeyshy, etc.); lexico-phraseological (compare: sharikov ne khvatayet, vyshe svoey golovy ne prygnesh, mudry yako zmiy, etc.); syntactical (compare: Boleye mu-drogo cheloveka ya ne znayu...; Chto za dur' (chush)?; ... do togo umen, chto., etc.). Thus, internal gradation presupposes a change of intensity of manifestation of a categorial property, which is often
reflected in grammatical and lexical categories of a language. External gradation, or gradation of membership, means the existence of better and worse members in the structure of a category, singled out on the basis of more or less clear expression of essential features of each member.
5. Conclusion
The specified principles of lexical categorization provide a theoretical-methodological basis for analytical description of a wide range of lexical categories: for bringing out regular features of their organization, defining the specific nature of interaction of different categorial structures, characterization of linguo-cultural interdependence of the structure of categories and for the definition of various types of lexical categories. Research of this kind is rather important for lexicographical practice (especially for compiling ideographical dictionaries), because its results may offer lexicographers necessary recommendations on the definitional description of various lex-ico-semantic fields.
6. Acknowledgments
The author of the given research thanks Doctor of Philology, Professor of Ural State Pedagogical University (Ekaterinburg, Russia) Anatoly Prokopie-vich Chudinov and Doctor of Philology, Professor of Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin (Ekaterinburg, Russia) Anna Mikhailovna Plotnikova for their recommendations and valuable advice, which were extremely useful for the formation and development of the presented conception.
References
Alekseeva L.M., Mishlanova S.L., Nakhimo-va Ye.A., Tchudinov A.P. Research of metaphor in the Ural linguistic school. Life Science Journal. 2014. № 11 (12). P. 315-319.
Berlin B. & Kay P. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Cohen H. & Lefebvre C. Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005.
Divjak D. & Arppe A. Extracting Prototypes from Exemplars. What Can Corpus Data Tell Us about Concept Representation? Cognitive Linguistics. 2013. Vol. 24. Issue 2. P. 221-274.
Kalyan S. Similarity in Linguistic Categorization: The Importance of Necessary Properties. Cognitive Linguistics. 2012. Vol. 23 (3). P. 539-554.
Kay P. The Emergence of Basic Color Lexicons Hypothesis. The Language of Color in the Mediterranean / A. Borg (ed.). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1999. P. 53-69.
Kay P., Berlin B., Maffi L. & Merrifield W. Color Naming across Language. Color Categories in Thought and Language / C.L. Hardin and L. Maffi (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. P. 21-58.
Lakoff G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Lepper G. Categories in Text and Talk: A Practical Introduction to Categorization Analysis. London: Sage, 2000.
Mashal N., Shen Y., Jospe K. & Gil D. Language Effects on the Conceptualization of Hybrids. Language and Cognition. 2014. Vol. 6. Issue 2. P. 217-241.
Prakticky kurz pnpravy do skoly. Praha: Svojtka&Co, Nakladatelstvi, 2013.
Pustet R. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Regier T. A Model of the Human Capacity for Categorizing Spatial Relations. Cognitive Linguistics. 1995. Vol. 6. Issue 1. P. 63-88.
Rosch E. & Mervis C.B. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology. 1975. Vol. 7. № 4. P. 573-605.
Rosch E., Mervis C.B., Gray W.D., Johnson D.M. & Boyes-Braem P. Basic Objects in Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology. 1976. Vol. 8. P. 382-439.
Ros^ E.N. Principles of Categorization. In: Rosh E.N. & Lloyd B.B. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978. P. 27-48.
Rosch E.N. Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems. New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory? / E.K. Scholnick (ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983. P. 73-86.
Taylor J. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Абишева К.М. Категоризация и ее основные принципы // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2013. № 2. С. 21-30.
Бавтуто Г.А., Еремин В.М. Ботаника: Морфология и анатомия растений. Мн.: Высшая школа, 1997.
Баранов А.Н., Добровольский Д.О. Постулаты когнитивной семантики // ИРАН СЛЯ. 1997. Т. 56. № 1. С. 11-21.
Беседина Н.А. Методологические аспекты современных когнитивных исследований в лингвистике // Научные ведомости. Серия «Философия. Социология. Право». Белгород: БелГУ, 2010. № 20 (91). Вып. 14. С. 31-37.
Болдырев Н.Н. Концептуальное пространство когнитивной лингвистики // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2004. № 1. С. 18-37.
Болдырев Н.Н. Принципы и методы когнитивных исследований // Принципы и методы когнитивных исследований: сборник научных трудов. Тамбов: Издательский дом ТГУ им. Г.Р. Державина, 2008. С. 5-21.
Болдырев Н.Н. Теоретические и методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики и терминоведения // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. № 24 (315). Филология. Искусствоведение. Вып. 82. Челябинск: Чел-ГУ, 2013.С. 7-13.
Болдырев Н.Н. Роль когнитивного контекста в интерпретации мира и знаний о мире // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. № 6 (335). Филология. Искусствоведение. Вып. 88. Челябинск: ЧелГУ, 2014. С. 118-122.
Витгенштейн Л. Философские исследования. URL: http://krotov.info/-lib_sec/03_v/vit/genshtey2.htm
ГОСТ 27521-87 «Фрукты. Номенклатура. Первый список» (введен Постановлением Государственного комитета СССР по стандартизации от 15.12.87 № 4540) // Библиотека ГОСТов и нормативных документов. URL: http://libgost.ru
Дзюба Е.В. Субкатегоризация как когнитивный феномен: ОВОЩИ, ФРУКТЫ, ЯГОДЫ, ОРЕХИ в русском языковом сознании // Вестник Ленинградского государственного университета им. А.С. Пушкина: Научный журнал. № 2. Т. 7. Серия «Филология». СПб.: ЛГУ им. А.С. Пушкина, 2013. С. 33-45.
Кибрик А.Е. Лингвистические постулаты // Ученые записки Тартуского государственного университета. Вып. 621. Механизмы вывода и обработки знаний в системах понимания текста. Труды по искусственному интеллекту. Тарту, 1983. С. 24-39.
Кибрик А.Е. Очерки по общим и прикладным вопросам языкознания. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1992.
Кубрякова Е.С. В поисках сущности языка // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2009. № 1. С. 5-12.
Лакофф Дж. Женщины, огонь и опасные вещи. Что категории языка говорят нам о мышлении. URL: http://www.metodolog.ru/01480/01480.html
Скребцова Т.Г. Когнитивная лингвистика: Курс лекций. СПб.: Филологический факультет СПбГУ, 2011.
Чудинов А.П. Принципы уральской школы политической метафорологии // Вестник Пятигорского
государственного лингвистического университета. Пятигорск: ПГЛУ, 2014. № 1. С. 97-101.
Яковлев Г.П., Челомбитько В.А. Ботаника: учебник для вузов. СПб.: Изд-во СПХФА, 2001.
Е.В. Дзюба
МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ПРИНЦИПЫ КОГНИТИВНОГО ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
ЛЕКСИЧЕСКОЙ КАТЕГОРИЗАЦИИ
В рамках дискуссии о когнитивных принципах категоризации (Л. Витгенштейн, Э. Рош, Дж. Лакофф, Н.Н. Болдырев, Е.С. Кубрякова и др.) предложен и теоретически обоснован новый вариант систематизации методологических принципов когнитивного исследования лексической категоризации. В качестве ведущих выделены следующие принципы лексической категоризации: принцип прототипичности, принцип «фамильного сходства», принцип континуально-когнитивной относительности, принцип контекстно-когнитивной детерминированности, принцип пересекаемости категориальных структур, принцип вариативности категориальных структур в личностном, социумном и национальном лингвоментальном сознании, принцип корреляции онтологической и лингвоментальной природы категории, принцип статичности или динамичности категориальных структур, принцип иерархичности и принцип градуированности. Названные принципы позволяют выявить закономерности структурной организации лексических категорий, охарактеризовать их лингвокультурную специфику, выделить разные типы категорий и разные основания для включения той или иной единицы в состав категории.
Ключевые слова: принципы категоризации, лексическая категоризация, языковые категории, лингвокогнитивные сферы «Природа», «Человек», «Артефакты».
