Categories of benefit and harm in dialect phytonymy

The article considers objectivization of extralinguistic categories of benefit and harm in Siberian dialect phytonymy. Cognition of the reality includes its axiological understanding. A human's ability to categorize the reality by his subjective perception, which consists of rational conclusions and emotive reactions, is objectified in language by evaluation as a semantic category. The practical experience is connected with rational, utilitarian evaluation, for example, evaluation of benefit or harm. This evaluation objectifies the categories of benefit and harm, which have a cognitive nature, in language. The article describes the results of a research of dialect names of wild plants in which these categories are represented. The informative source of the research was the Dictionary of Phytonyms of the Middle Ob in 3 v. [7]. About 1800 wild plant names were selected by the continuous sampling method. To identify nominations with utilitarian evaluation, an onomasiological analysis was made. It consists in the determination of nominative features and principles. As a result, three principles of nomination were identified; they are common for 280 names of plants that are useful or harmful for people. These principles are: "plant useful for people", "plant useful for domestic animals", "harmful and dangerous plants". The estimation of benefit or harm is in the connotative part of the word meaning. The article describes the explicit and implicit expression of evaluative connotation. 88 % of the analyzed phytonyms have an implicit evaluative connotation. The other 12 % have an explicit evaluative connotation expressed by the zoological or sacred code, and most of them are names of dangerous plants. The complex of knowledge about the useful and harmful features of plants is objectified by dialect speakers in language and they use one of the cognitive models of reality conceptualization in the nomination process. The article describes meto-nymic, metaphoric and propositional cognitive models, assesses their productivity in the analyzed material. Based on the result of the research, the metonymic cognitive model is the most productive in phytonyms of the category "benefit": it objectifies 84 % of names; while the metaphoric cognitive model is presented only by 12 % of names, the propositional cognitive model by 3 % of phytonyms, and the hybrid model "metaphoric+metonymic" by 1 %. The category "harm" is characterized by productivity of the metaphoric and propositional models (42 % and 34 % accordingly), while the metonymic model is objectified only in 24 % of names of plants. The article describes six types of the metonymic model and the culture codes metaphoric models are based on; the difference between the propositional and metonymic models is proved.

Keywords

Authors

References