Binary Opposition “Antropomorphic — Supernatural” (Illustrated by the Example of a Lexical-Semantic Field “Evil Spirit”)

About the authors:

Aynur A. Timerkhanov, Dr. Sci. (Philol.), Assistant Professor, Head of Lexicography Department, G. Ibragimov Institute for Language, Literature and Arts, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences (Kazan); timtako22@mail.ru

Aigul M. Sabirova, Postgraduate Student, Lexicography Department, G. Ibragimov Institute for language, Literature and Arts, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences (Kazan); Sabira16@yandex.ru

Abstract:

The article deals with the description of the semantic opposition “antropomorphic — supernatural” within the scope of the research of lexical-semantic field “Evil Spirit” in the Tatar and English languages. Lexical units with the semes “evil spirit” in their semantic structure, taken from Tatar and English monolingual dictionaries, served as practical basis for the analysis. The method of componential analysis was used as the main method which allows hypero-hyponymical relations between semantic units to be seen in the complex of lexical and semantic component in the lexical-semantic field “Evil Spirit”.

In the course of the research different types of opposition (binary, ternary and others) have been revealed, among which the content of the binary opposition “antropomorphic — supernatural” was examined in detail as the most actual and highly frequent in the language representation of the Tatar and English language speakers. Other oppositional variants, for example “zoomorphism”, presented in ternary opposition, were singled out and described as well; examples of lexical-sementic categories and groups with different combinations of oppositional variants were examined. In conclusion, the results of ascertained oppositional variants propotion, according to which “antropomorphism” was in absolute majority of semantic variants that bears evidence of anthropocentrism of mythological images system determined as “evil spirit”, were given.

On the whole, the results of “antropomorphic — supernatural” opposition analysis identify some peculiarities of verbalization of the surrounding reality by the speakers of different languages, thus, reflecting similarities and differences in the perception of the world by representatives of different cultures.

References:

1. Arnold I. V. 1991. Osnovy nauchnyh issledovaniy v lingvistike: Uchebnoe posobie [The Basics of Scientific Research in Linguistics: a Textbook]. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola.
2. Gulyga Ye. V., Shendels Ye. I. 1976. “O komponentnom analize znachimyh edinic yazyka” [On Component Analysis of Meaningful Language Units]. In: Principy i metody semanticheskih issledovaniy, pp. 291-294. Moscow: Nauka.
3. Hornby A. S., Gatenby E. I., Wakefield G. 2001. Uchebnyy slovar sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka [Training Dictionary of Contemporary English]. Moscow: AST Press.
4. Pokrovsky M. M. 1959. Izbrannye trudy po yazykoznaniyu [Selected Works on Linguistics], p. 75. Moscow: AN USSR Press.
5. Sabirova A. M. 2013. “K voprosu o primenenii polevogo (sistemnogo) principa v issledovanii leksiki” [On the Issue of Using Field (Systemic) Principle in Lexical Research]. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference of Young Scientists and Post-Graduates “Nauka XXI veka: Problemy filologii i iskusstvovedeniya” (May 17, 2013), no 7, pp. 90-94. Kazan: G. Ibragimov Institute for Language, Literature and Arts.
6. Sabirova A. M. 2015. “Mifologicheskiy obraz v evolyucionnom razvitii (osnovnye napravleniya i issledovaniy)” [Mythological image in the evolutionary Progress (Main Directions and Results of Research)]. Proceedings of the 3rd International Scientific Conference, Devoted to the 200th anniversary of M. Yu. Lermontov’s Birth “Russkiy yazyk v kontekste nacionalnoy kultury” (Saransk, May 21-23, 2014), vol. 2, pp. 218-222. Edited by Yu. A. Mishanin et al. Saransk: Mordov University Press.
7. Simpson J., Roud S. 2000. A Dictionary of English Folklore. New York: Oxford University Press. 
8. Timergalin A. 2007. Milliyat (cultural literacy) dictionary: Explanatory dictionary. Kazan: Magarif.
9. Urmanche F. I. 2008. Tatar mifologiyase. Entsiklopedik sүzlek [Tatar Mythology: Encyclopedic Dictionary]. In 3 vol, vol. 1 (A-G). Kazan: Magarif.
10. Urmanche F. I. 2009. Tatar mifologiyase. Entsiklopedik sүzlek [Tatar Mythology: Encyclopedic Dictionary]. In 3 vol, vol. 2. (D-S). Kazan: Magarif.
11. Urmanche F. I. 2011. Tatar mifologiyase. Entsiklopedik sүzlek [Tatar Mythology: Encyclopedic Dictionary]. In 3 vol, vol. 3 (S-Ya). Kazan: Magarif.