Typological Analysis of the Yakut and German Polysemantic Verbs KEL and KOMMEN

Svetlana Mitrofanovna Prokopieva, Vladimir Dmitrijevič Monastyrev


The analysis of language semantics of the polysemantic verbs kel and kommen of the modern Yakut and German languages brings us to the domain of concepts. Interest in typological studies of languages, in particular, in comparative studies of concept structure of polysemantic verbs has increased thanks to cognitive linguistics which is currently the most intensively developing field of linguistics. The direct nominative meaning of the Yakut verb kel and the German kommen reflects the main components of the concept structure that can be assigned to the concept core: object, operation, result. The purpose of this paper is the typological analysis of lexicographic codification of the phenomenon of polysemy in various languages of the Turkic and German language families. The study is of complex character; to reveal universal and specific ethnic-cultural features of compared Yakut and German linguistic units we used the inductive-deductive method, i.e. theoretical conclusions result from the analysis of practical material. Using the component analysis, lexical units were separated into smallest meaningful parts. Distributive method was used to analyze actualization of meanings of the Yakut and German polysemantic verbs ‘kel’ and ‘kommen’ in context. The typological analysis was invoked to reveal ethnic specifics of compared Yakut and German polysemantic verbs. The polysemantic verbs kel and kommen share the following concepts through subject: ‘man’, ‘animal’, ‘time’, ‘artifact’, ‘emotional-physical state’, and ‘abstract notion’. All concepts given above, 15 lexico-semantic variants, 2 grammatical meanings of the polysemantic word kel and 18 meanings of the verb kommen are represented and codified according to all lexicographic rules and requirements in the Great Academic Dictionary of the Yakut Language and the Great German-Russian Dictionary that are an inexhaustible source for further research into comparative and typological linguistics. Illustration material was taken from the 5th volume of the bilingual (Yakut-Russian) Great Academic Dictionary of the Yakut Language (2008) and the Great German-Russian Dictionary (2000). The present paper is devoted to typological research of the Yakut and German polysemantic verbs ‘kel’ and ‘kommen’ as the analysis of not only related but non-related languages as well reveals both ethnic specific and universal features. The problem of interaction between language and culture is of particular interest at a period of extending international contacts, intense interchange between different ethnic groups, combining focus on ethno-cultural values, tolerance, and capacity for inter-cultural communication.



Typological, polysemantic verb, concept, subject, object

Full Text:



Boyarskaja, E.L. (2007). Cognitive Approach on Research of Conceptual Structure of Polysemantic Word. Herald of Baltic Federal University, 2, 54-61.

Boyarskaja, E.L. (2015). Study of methodology of cognitive analysis of polysemantic word. Methods of cognitive analysis of polysemantic word semantic. Zabotkina, V.M. Moscow: Languages of Slav culture. (84-118).

Great Academic Dictionary of the Yakut Language.(1th ed.). (2008). Ed. by P.A. Sleptsov. Novosibirsk: Science.

Demjankov, V.Z. (1994). Cognitive Linguistic as a Variety Interpretation Method. Issue of Language, 4: 17-33.

Great German-Russian Dictionary. (2000). Moscow: Russian Language.

Furaschova, N.V. (2009). Cognitive Mechanisms of Polysemantic Word. Horizons of Modern Linguistic: Tradition and Innovation. M.: Language of Slav Culture. (568-577).

Golubcova, E.E. (2002). Conceptual Structure of Verbal Action in the Modern English. With Love to Language.Voronesh: Voronesh State University. (327-332).

Gyori,G. (2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123-166.

Kobozeva, I.M. (2009). Linguistic semantic. Moscow: Book house “LIBROCOM”, (352).

Kovaljeva, L.M., & Kulgavova, L.V. (2014). Cognitive Analysis of Word. Moscow: LENAND. (216).

Kubrjakova, E.S. (2001). About Cognitive Linguistic and Semantic of the Term “Cognitive”. Herald of Voronesh State University. Series: Linguistic and Cultural Communication.Voronesh: 4-10.

Kubrjakova, E.S. (2003).Verbal Action through their Cognitive Characteristics. Logical Analysis of Language. Moscow: Indric. (439-446).

Nerlich,B., & Todd, Z. (2003). Trends in modern linguistics. Polysemy. Berlin.

Novikov, L.A. (2005). Selected work. V. 1. Problems of linguistic semantic. Moscow: RUDN, (676.)

Olchovskaja, A.I. (2015). Polysemy as problem of general and dictionary lexicology. Moscow: Flinta. (456).

Pesina, S.A. (2005). Polysemy in cognitive aspect. Sankt-Petersburg: Russian State Pedagogical University. (350).

Popova, Z.D., & Sternin, I.A. (2007). Cognitive linguistic. Moscow: AST: East – West. (314).

Popova, Z.D., & Sternin, I.A. (2009). Lexical System of Language. Moscow: LIBROCOM. (172).

Popova, N.V. (2011). Conceptual Presentation of Semantic Space of Polysemantic Words. Herald of Čeljabinsk University, 10, 114-117.

Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273–290.

Vaneva, M. (2003). Homonymy, Polysemy and Zero Derivation in the English-Macedonian Context. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 77-84.

Vassiljev, L.M. (2009). Contemporary linguistic semantic. Moscow: Book house “LIBROCOM”, (192).

Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3). 547–586.

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicographic and conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma. (390).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.6p.174


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.