Abstract vocabulary as an interscientific problem

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Oles Honchar Dnipro National University

Abstract vocabulary as an interscientific problem

O.Yu. Vovkodav

Анотація

О. Ю. Вовкодав

Дніпровський національний університет імені Олеся Гончара

АБСТРАКТНА ЛЕКСИКА ЯК МІЖНАУКОВА ПРОБЛЕМА

У лінгвістиці в ХХ ст. на перший план вийшла антропоцентрична парадигма, в межах якої увага і інтерес дослідників переміщається з об'єкта пізнання на суб'єкт, тобто лінгвістика сфокусувалася на вивченні людини, мовної особистості у всіх її проявах. Незважаючи на тривалі суперечки про те, чи детермінує свідомість мову, або ж мова зумовлює нашу свідомість, загальновизнаним є факт глибокої взаємодії мови і мислення, які не враховувати неможливо. Навколишнє оточення існує в свідомості людини у вигляді понять або логічних категорій і закріплюється в мові у вигляді лексем. У зв'язку з цим абстрактні іменники становлять особливий інтерес, оскільки відображають не світ видимий і відчутний, а його властивості, ознаки, дії.

В статті проведено аналіз поняття «абстрактність» з лінгвістичної точки зору, однак філософське підґрунтя впливає на усвідомлення поняття загалом. Грунтовно тратують поняття «абстрактний» філософи (Аристотель, Боецій, Льюіс С.Фойер, Платон). В лінгвістиці поняття абстрактності позначає властивості, якості, стани, дії, котрі існують самі по собі, окремо. Однак, певний абстрактний іменник набуває конкретного значення за наявності контексту та відповідного підмета, який абстрактна лексема описує. Зіставлення конкретного й абстрактного спостерігається на всіх рівнях мовної структури, а кількість абстрактних слів є суттєвим показником рівня розвитку мови взагалі. Мова - безпосередня дійсність думки, яка в визначеннях понять словесно фіксує визначення дійсності. Дійсність під цим розуміється не просто як безліч «одиничних речей», а як організована в собі конкретність. Ключові слова: абстрактність, лінгвістика, філософія, конкретність, абстрактний іменник.

Аннотация

О. Ю. Вовкодав

Днепровский национальный университет имени Олеся Гончара

АБСТРАКТНАЯ ЛЕКСИКА КАК МЕЖДУНАУЧНАЯ ПРОБЛЕМА

В лингвистике в ХХ ст. на первый план вышла антропоцентрическая парадигма, в пределах которой внимание и интерес исследователей перемещается с объекта познания на субъект, то есть лингвистика сфокусировалась на изучении человека, речевой личности во всех ее проявлениях. Несмотря на длительные споры о том, детерминирует ли сознание язык, или же речь обуславливает наше сознание, общепризнан факт глубокого взаимодействия языка и мышления, которые не учитывать невозможно. Окружающая обстановка существует в сознании человека в виде понятий или логических категорий и закрепляется в языке в виде лексем. В этой связи абстрактные существительные представляют особый интерес, поскольку отражают не мир видимый и осязаемый, а его свойства, признаки, действия.

В статье проведен анализ понятия «абстрактность» с лингвистической точки зрения, однако философская основа влияет на осознание понятия в целом. Обстоятельно тратят понятия «абстрактные» философы (Аристотель, Боэций, Льюис С.Фойер, Платон). В лингвистике понятие абстрактности обозначает свойства, качества, состояния, действия, существующие сами по себе, в отдельности. Однако, определенное абстрактное существительное приобретает конкретное значение при наличии контекста и соответствующего подлежащего, которое абстрактная лексема описывает. Сопоставление конкретного и абстрактного наблюдается на всех уровнях речевой структуры, а количество абстрактных слов является существенным показателем уровня развития языка вообще. Язык - непосредственная реальность мысли, которая в определениях понятий словесно фиксирует определение реальности. Действительность под этим понимается не просто как множество «единичных вещей», а как организованная в себе конкретность.

Ключевые слова: абстрактность, лингвистика, философия, конкретность, абстрактное существительное.

Abstract

In linguistics in the twentieth century. the anthropocentric paradigm came to the fore, within which the attention and interest of researchers shifts from the object of knowledge to the subject, that is, linguistics focused on the study of a person, linguistic personality in all its manifestations. Despite the long-running debate over whether consciousness determines language or whether language determines our consciousness, it is generally accepted that there is a profound interaction between language and thought that cannot be ignored. The environment exists in the human mind in the form of concepts or logical categories and is fixed in the language in the form of tokens. In this regard, abstract nouns are of particular interest because they do not reflect the world visible and tangible, but its properties, signs, actions. language abstractness linguistic

The article analyzes the concept of "abstractness" from a linguistic point of view, but the philosophical basis affects the understanding of the concept in general. Philosophers (Aristotle, Boethius, Lewis S. Foyer, Plato) thoroughly interpret the concept of "abstract". In linguistics, the concept of abstraction denotes properties, qualities, states, actions that exist in themselves, separately. However, a certain abstract noun acquires a specific meaning in the presence of context and the corresponding subject, which the abstract token describes. Comparison of concrete and abstract is observed at all levels of language structure, and the number of abstract words is a significant indicator of the level of language development in general. Language - the direct reality of thought, which in the definitions of concepts verbally fixes the definition of reality. Reality is understood not simply as a set of "single things", but as organized concreteness.

Key words: abstractness, linguistics, philosophy, concreteness, abstract noun.

Abstract nouns are one of the most interesting and difficult to study group of vocabulary. When studying this category of nouns, researchers inevitably face the problem of unambiguous definition of the concept and the division of nouns into abstract and concrete.

In addition, the very nature of abstraction is controversial, because at different times from different linguistic disciplines, scholars have sought to understand the conditions under which development (individual and / or society) arises human ability to abstraction and, consequently, the corresponding category of nouns in language.

Before turning to different approaches to understanding the abstract noun, we consider it's necessary to turn to the analysis of the philosophical basis in the interpretation of these categories. In philosophy, the term "abstraction" (from the Latin. Abstractio - distraction) was introduced by Boethius as a translation of the concept used by Aristotle [7, p. 45-46].

Aristotle believed that abstract concepts and ideas exist in specific subjects and are only thought of separately [8, p. 51]. At the same time, the ability to abstract is inherent in people regardless of the level of cultural or economic development of the society in which a person lives. Abstraction is also manifested in cultures, which are commonly called "primitive", cultures in which there is no need to comprehend and generalize the intellectual experience of society, however, there are abstract concepts.

Franz Boas argued that "primitive peoples... do not discuss charity, goo d, evil, beauty. do not talk about abstract ideas", but acknowledged that "it would be wrong to say that primitive languages are not able to express detached concepts" [19]. In his book Varieties of Scientific Experience: Aims in Scientific Hypothesis, the researcher writes that abstraction is inherent in human thinking and does not mean its need to create philosophical and metaphysical concepts. "Empirics, for example, often argue that expressing an adjectival situation with nouns can signal the existence of abstract units, universals, that these nouns denote. When a person says: "This flag has white" instead of "This flag is white", this type of thinking is considered close to Platonic realism. However, primitive languages often use this grammatical tool without showing a tendency to metaphysics " [20, p. 105-106].

Boethius, reflecting on the problem of universals in the "Commentary on Porphyry, translated by him", draws attention to the ability of man to think and "share" (or abstract). Although Porphyry himself only pointed to the problem of "forms of disembodied things" (especially whether they exist in connection with bodies or on their own), Boethius noted that this question is quite complex and meaningful; in his commentaries on his works, he examines this issue in detail, namely: before him to consider themselves in their disembodied nature (eg, mind, soul), separately from the bodies with which they fused "(eg, line, surface) [5, p. 26-27].

Depending on the direction of philosophical (later, linguistic) thought and research methods, these issues have received different interpretations. Following Aristotle's definition in scholastic teachings, the subject was called concrete, and abstract - its properties. Moreover, the abstract became more important and became associated with the eternal, absolute and divine, while the concrete was understood as earthly and temporary.

Logical and philosophical categories easily get into language, assimilate it, gradually become lexical and grammatical, because language always captures the results of cognition and understanding of the surrounding reality. Thus, the rethinking of this logical and philosophical category has led to the formation of lexical and grammatical category of abstract nouns and the corresponding wordforming category. The question of the categorical status of abstraction in modern linguistics is debatable. This is due to the fact that there are certain connections between different types of linguistic categories, in particular between grammatical and semantic, because the plan of expression (grammatical category) is often correlated in the minds of speakers with the plan of content (lexical-semantic category).

According to E. Ilyenkov, abstract terms are such terms that belong to the qualities or properties, states, actions of things, they denote qualities that are considered in themselves, without things. Specific terms are the concept of things, objects, persons, facts, events, states of consciousness, if we consider them in terms of a certain existence [17, p.10 -11]. This means that specific concepts must reflect things, and abstract properties and relations of these things. If the division is to be complete, then in a concrete sense neither the properties nor the relations of things can be understood. However, it is quite difficult to think about a thing or a class, distinguishing between properties and relationships. Thus, this fact is still unclear, because any thought about a thing is aimed at understanding its properties and relationships. If we distinguish the very idea of a thing from all thoughts about the properties of this thing, then nothing will remain of the thought except the name. In other words, the division by content means that a concrete concept is a concept without meaning, and abstract with meaning.

For example, M.I. Kondakov believes that the division of concepts into abstract and concrete should convey the "difference of concepts in content" [18, p. 300-301].

From the point of view of such a position, any concept encompasses concrete and abstract characteristics. However, it should be noted that at the present stage of development of philosophy and logic it would be wrong to equate "abstraction" in understanding these disciplines to linguistic concepts, primarily because in philosophy abstraction is understood as the end result of abstraction in general and not limited to verbal images (including , for example, graphics, formulas, etc.). Nevertheless, an important stage in the development of philosophical thought about abstractions can be considered the connection between abstraction as a result and abstraction as a process of thinking. Following the philosophy of linguistics turned to the study of human mental activity to distinguish between the abstract / concrete dichotomy.

Yes, people are able to highlight common features and properties in dissimilar objects and denote abstract concepts. Thus, thinkers before our era have already identified the main issues related to abstract nouns: first, how to define this category and its differences from specific objects, and secondly, how "disembodied genera" are known and thought.

Having some idea of abstraction, we will clarify and analyze the concept of "abstract noun" from a linguistic point of view.

The question of defining the concept of "abstract noun" is not the first time, because not all scientists have an unambiguous approach to this issue. "Dictionary of Linguistic Terms" by D. Hanych, I.Oliynyk explains it as follows: "words that express general concepts that people do not directly perceive by the senses: these are the names of qualities, properties, actions, etc." [11 p. 92]. The dictionary of linguistic terms T. Zherebylo explains linguistic abstraction as a method of linguistic research, focused on a comprehensive description of the hierarchy of meanings, forms, functions [27, p. 177]. According to the same term, the dictionary of the Ukrainian language is defined as one that arose as a result of abstraction [1, p. 6]. Comparison of concrete and abstract is observed at all levels of its structure, and the number of abstract words is a significant indicator of the level of development of language in general. The outstanding philologist O. Potebnya highlights the connection between the emergence of the ability to abstract and the development of thinking, the essence of abstraction, ways of development of concrete and abstract in language, the secondary nature of abstraction in the history of human thought, highlighted in many of his works [22].

Within the research we will appeal to the opinion of Z. Piskozub and interpret the term abstraction from the point of view of linguistics as an ideal (nonexistent in reality) object created as a result of abstraction - the thought process of formation of abstract entities [21, p.8-9]. Abstract objects always exist only in the human imagination, so abstract objects are mental formations that appear due to the fact that in thinking we seem to separate from specific objects signs (properties), forms and structures, substances, connections and attitudes

It should be noted that N. Thomas, studying the semantic and stylistic parameters of the functioning of abstract vocabulary in literary works, turns to the definition of the term "abstract" in terms of philosophy. According to the researcher, the concept in the framework of philosophical knowledge means "incomplete, one-sided knowledge of the object under study; scientific concepts obtained by the method of idealization; the level of cognition, which is carried out through thinking and the opposite of the sensory, concrete, visual "[24], ie in logic and philosophy, abstractness is an integral part of concreteness, is manifested on its basis, each concept consists of a set of abstract ideas form (instead of abstract vocabulary in language functions independently, is equal and concrete).

According to this principle, language is the direct reality of thought, which verbally fixes the definition of reality in the definitions of concepts. Reality is understood by this not just as a set of "single things", but as an organized specificity, ie a naturally dismembered system of human-to-human and human- to-human relations [3, p. 12-13].

In the practical-scientific study of this particular reality, "abstract" definitions of concepts that express the structure and organization of reality are made. Such abstract definitions express objectively discrete moments in the composition of concrete reality [16, p. 402-413].

In fact, it is this and not some other role and has such a "meaning" and not another "[16, p. 412]. Based on this position, it can be argued that any concept contains both concrete and abstract characteristics [7, p. 675], so any word of language as a unit of language system that serves to denote a concept, idea or any object , should be considered as a dialectical unity of abstract and concrete. Thus, any lexical unit is a kind of abstract unit in the sense that it arose due to the ability of our thinking to abstract.

However, in terms of the type of abstraction activated during the formation of the concept expressed in words, the degree of abstraction and the type of generalization of objects, we can distinguish in the language system, on the one hand, specific and on the other - abstract names. Each of these types of names also shows a desire for the level organization of the units that are part of it, on a scale of specificity-abstractness [9, p. 68].The logical category of the abstract and the concrete belongs to the plan of content, so in linguistics it can be considered as one of the semantic features. But there is a long tradition of identifying the logical category of abstract and concrete with the grammatical categories of morphological classes. According to N. Toma, abstract vocabulary appears at the highest level of development of thinking and reflects "the system of worldview values, human ideas about the world, about themselves, about the attitude to another person, to good and evil, that is, abstract vocabulary expresses intellectual, spiritual and emotional activity of man "[25, p. 288]. Lexical abstraction can be considered as a result of mental abstraction, when newly formed concepts, expressed in lexical units, complement the vocabulary of the language. According to Yu. Trofimova, the process of lexical abstraction is presented in diachrony, and the researcher describes it as "the creation of separate lexical units in language, reflecting in its basic nominative meaning various objects and subjective entities, comprehension and linguistic notation of which characterizes a certain level of abstract thinking of native speakers "[4, p. 45].

Based on linguistic and philosophical research, it should be noted that there are significant difficulties in terms of characterization of abstract nouns, as these linguistic units do not form a homogeneous lexical or semantic class. After all, a person's knowledge of the surrounding reality and its understanding is an inexhaustible source for the nomination of generalized abstract concepts.

As noted above, namely, the fact that logicians define the concrete as that which belongs to the physical, material world, and the abstract - as a concept of the property of objects, as that which is thought detached from the object. G.I. Chelpanov spreads the concept of the abstract, including "qualities, properties, states" [17, p. 20], but in addition to the concepts of things, objects, the researcher to specific concepts includes facts, events and states of consciousness, "if we consider them as having a certain existence" [17, p. 20]. So, according to this logical division of categories, abstract nouns can include mythical and fairy-tale creatures (for example, Baba Yaga, the mermaid), because one way or another, and these realities are understood on an intuitive level as concrete objects. Although on the other hand, researchers W. Hazlitt, A. Noreen (W. Hazlitt,

A. Noreen) to abstract nouns include "ideas that appear in thinking as independent objects" [18, p. 177]. O. Espersen, considering abstract nouns, namely, nouns that can not belong to a number of specific, turns to two categories - verb and adjective nouns, for which he does not offer criteria for unambiguous nouns to belong to abstract or specific (for example, interpreted as independent concept, in the phrase "beautiful / beautiful girl" adjective "beautiful / beautiful" is an attribute of a particular noun).

This is how abstract concepts, ideas and theories emerge. Although any concept can rightly be classified as abstract objects (rescogitans), in l ogic concepts are usually divided into concrete and abstract: the concept is more abstract, the more a feature (shape, structure, relationship) is thought in isolation

from the bearer of these signs [23].

Therefore, it seems possible to conclude that abstract names denote such phenomena, information about which does not convey any of the sensations separately, or all of them together, because to comprehend the essence of the phenomenon under study is empirically impossible to comprehend. The definition behind the abstract names of concepts is always formed only on the basis of understanding and is "the idea of mixed modes." The main feature of the abstract name is manifested in the fact that the meaning of its concept is characterized by the mandatory presence of meanings of different nature, which does not allow to present the semantics of the abstract name as an arithmetic sum of simple ideas [9, p. 67-80]. In contrast to the abstract name at the base of the lexical hierarchy is a specific name, which can be described as a unit that denotes such a concept formed on the basis of generalizing-distinguishing type of abstraction.

A specific name arises as a result of the generalization of objects of material reality. The name of a particular concept has clarity in the form of a sensory image of a thing, due to the common appearance of objects of one class, capable of being perceived by the human senses. In other words, the name of a particular concept means something that is transmitted by all sensations simultaneously or taken separately, and this shows the direct relationship of a particular name with the material world. The more sense organs are activated in man in understanding the real objects of the material world, the more specific they are for man [26, p. 106108]. The German linguist K. Knauer, who adhered to the symbolic essence of language in relation to abstract names, presented his understanding of the issue of abstraction. He notes that a specific noun can be represented in the form of a picture, while for an abstract noun the word is the only sign. The Russian linguist M. Ivanyuk fully agrees with K. Knauer's judgment. He also proceeds from the bilaterality of the sign and recognizes that the plan of expression in concrete and abstract nouns is not the same. For example, for specific nouns "table", "house", "person" the plan of content may have a plan of expression not only word but also image. For separate nouns "evil", "hate", "love", the plan of content will have as a plan of expression only the sound shell "[14, p. 100].

V. Hook in the concept of "abstractness of the word" has a different meaning. On the one hand, he calls abstract words that mean properties, attitudes, state of objects, separated from material things - kindness, reflection, causality, etc. On the other hand, the abstract includes words that mean, in comparison with specific, broader concepts [10, p. 75-76]. In our opinion, this interpretation of the abstract has a more philosophical basis. Undoubtedly, abstract words have a broader semantic structure than concrete ones. But it should be noted that these interpretations cannot be radically distinguished. The opinion of O. Andreeva and resting.Papovyants, who argue that in the English language nouns fall into two main subcategorical subclasses - single-core (those that include the categories of nouns that count and non-countable nouns), as well as two-core (nouns that count / do not count, and nouns that do not count / count). The boundary between single-core and double-core nouns is mobile. In their view, as a result of intralexemic conversion (hypostasis) within the token there is a variant with another subcategorical characteristic, ie there is a semantic-morphological variant within the original token, which differs from it semantic, morphological, combinatorial and pragmatic characteristics. Internal hypostasis does not lead to the emergence of a new token and does not involve a radical change in its content [2, p. 4].

The opinions of French linguists J. Damuret and E. Pishon, who expressed their vision: what is an abstract noun, are also noteworthy. They call the noun "abstrait de toute contingence et pur de tout melange" abstract (abstracted from all coincidences and pure from any mixture). As an example, the following statement is given: "any king must know the history of the people he rules" ("any king must meet only one condition - to belong to the family of kings") [6, § 367]. Eric Buyssens makes another statement: if I say, "My father is sick," then I imagine a person I know very well, I know his illness; I imagine him lying in bed with a crooked face... I have a specific imagination in my mind. But if my listener has never seen my father, my phrase "My father is sick" will not allow him to imagine my father or his illness. This phrase can be manifested by thousands of different people in relation to thousands of different parents and thousands of different diseases that occur at thousands of different times. So what do these billions of different situations have in common? That the statement "Mon pere est malade" / "My father is ill" is purely abstract. Given the above concepts, it can be noted that all linguistic signs would be abstract in language, because they convey concepts. In speech, they would remain in the generalizing usage of "Every king must know the history of the people he rules", or even in the specific "My father is sick", if reality is not beyond words.The interpretation of the abstract noun by the German researcher Z. Heiniman is based on the idea that it is a noun that can be defined without illustrating it: ideas, physical or geometric properties [13]. M. Grevis noted: "An abstract noun is a noun that denotes a property or quality separated by our consciousness from the object with which it is combined, and which is considered to exist independently of this object..." [12, § 387].

Therefore, based on this, it would be possible to belong to the abstract nouns weight, volume, time, number, color, or such as chills, dizziness and a number of names of diseases that necessarily require a carrier: flu, or any other disease . According to scholars, the interpretation of the opposition abstract / concrete should be carried out through the prism of material / immaterial oppositions, accessible meaning / inaccessible. We believe that this approach is the most viable because it is based on factors of objective reality. Taking it as a basis for interpreting the dichotomy of the noun abstract / concrete, we were able to gain additional knowledge about the essence of various concepts of the opposition itself.

Thus, the most important thing for our study is that the interpretation of abstraction is based on the presence of material / immaterial, as well as the availability of meaning and inaccessibility. The semantic field of an abstract noun is delineated by the corresponding semantic features, in particular the subject. So, of course, abstract nouns acquire a specific meaning in the presence of a material subject and are objectified in a certain sense.

References

1. Alekseev P. M. Statistical lexicography. Moscow : Nauka, 1978. 160 p.

2. Andreeva O. P., Papovyants E. G. Internal hypostasis along the line of development of uncountable meanings in countable nouns in modern English and its semantic and pragmatic consequences. Bulletin of Kharkiv State University. 1995. V. 1, No. 384. S. 3-5.

3. Atkins B.T. Sue Monitoring Dictionary Use / B.T.S. Atkins, K. Barantsev. Kyiv: Knowledge, 2006. 1056 p.

4. Bekhtereva, N.P. Healthy and sick human brain: monograph / N.P. Bekhtereva, V.A. Ilyukhin. - 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. - Leningrad: Nauka, 1988. - 262 p.

5. Caramelli N. Concrete and abstract concepts in school age children. Psychology of Language and Communication. 2004. Vol. 8. No. 2. Pp. 10591067.

6. Damourette J., Pichon E. (1910-1940). Des mots a la langue. Essai de grammaire de la langue francaise. P.: J.L.L. d'Artrey, 1911 - 1927. V.1. 674p.

7. English-Ukrainian phraseological dictionary / compiled by K.T.

8. Fedorova I. V. Educational lexicography. Theory and practice.

9. Gak V. G. Lexicography. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / V. G. Gak. - M.: Veche, 1990. - 260 p.

10. Gak VG Comparative lexicology. Moscow: International relations, 1977. 263p.

11. Ganich D. I., Olijnik I. S. Glossary of linguistic terms. Kiev: Vishcha shkola, 1985. 360 p.

12. Grevisse M. Le Bon Usage. 13 ed. P.: Duculot, 1980. 1770 p.

13. Harmondsworth, 1978. 712 p.

14. Heinimann S. Die Abstraction in der franzosiscen Literatursprache des Mittelalters. Berne: Francke, 1963. 297 p

15. Ivanyuk NI On the problem of opposition between abstract and concrete nouns. Scientific notes of the Gorky State Institute of Fine Arts named after A.I. N. A. Dobrolyubova. 1971. Issue. 38, pp. 93-107.

16. KeynesJ. N. StudiesandExercisesinFormalLogic. London, 2013.

17. Kormos J. Speech production and cognition hypothesis. Second Language Task Complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. 2011. №4. Pp. 39-60.]

18. Kotsyuk LM Problems of organizing the terms of lexicography:

19. Kuznetsov A.M. From component analysis to component analysis synthesis. Moscow: Nauka, 1986.

20. Meshcheryakov A.I. Deaf-blind children. The development of the psyche in the process of behavior formation. -M.: "Pedagogy", 1974.

21. Mikityuk OR Ukrainian abstract nouns in commonly used and term vocabulary): author's ref. dis. for science. degree of Cand. philol. Science: special. 02/10/01 Lviv, 1997. 21 p.

22. Moscow: Publishing House. Center "Academy", 2006. 280 p.

23. names of dictionaries that provide lexicographic description of several languages and connections between them / L.M. Kotsyuk // Scientific notes. Philological Series. - Ostrog: Ostroh Academy Publishing House. - 2011. - Vip. 20. - P.237244

24. Piskozub Z.F. Semantic and functional properties of abstract nouns of the French language: author's ref. dis. for science. degree of Cand. philol. Science: special. 02/10/05 K., 2003. 20 p.

25. Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar: In 4 vols. - T. 3 - M.: Enlightenment, 1899. - 551 p.

26. Roget P. M. Roget's thesaurus of English words and phrases.

27. Toma N.M. Semantic and stylistic parameters of the functioning of

28. abstract vocabulary in the works of Peter the Great: author's ref. dissertation for science. degree of Candidate of Philology. Sciences: special .: 10.02.01

29. "Ukrainian language" / N.M. Toma. - K., 2012. - 19 p.

30. Toma N.M. To the problem of determining abstract vocabulary /

31. N.M. Toma // Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world: coll. Science. works.- Issue. 34.- K., 2011.- p. 288-292.

32. Varantola // International Journal of Lexicography.-1997. - # 10(1). - p.1-45.

33. Vygotsky L. S. Thinking and speech. Ed. 5, rev. M.: Labyrinth, 1999. 352 p.

34. Zherebilo T.V. Dictionary of linguistic terms. Ed. 5th, rev. and additional - Nazran: LLC "Pilgrim", 2010. - 486 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru