Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’

170 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC ALEXANDER I. ILIADI The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky” ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0001-5078-8316 Fields of research: etymology, comparative-historical linguistics, general and typological linguistics. ILONA M. DERIK The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky” ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-8979-4745 Fields of research: general and typological linguistics, translation studies, corpus linguistics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all90-07 UNIVERSALITY IN SEMANTIC DYNAMICS: FROM ‘BODY’ TO ‘PERSON’, ‘SELF’, ‘SOUL’ Semantinės dinamikos universalumas: nuo ‘kūno’ iki ‘asmens’, ‘savasties’, ‘sielos’ ANNOTATION The research is aimed at describing a relevant regularity in semantics development tending to be universal due to the evidence in many languages. In the focus of the research, there is an identical sequence of stages of semantic evolution ‘body’, ‘corpus’ → ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ and its outcome revealed in the languages under analysis. The reviewed semantic shift is presented in genetically related and unrelated languages in different periods of their history, which makes it possible to define it as a phenomenon diachronically reproduced at each chronological cross-section. The postulate of the universality of the semantic correlation between ‘body’, ‘body parts’ & ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘person’, and ‘self’ is based on the reliably established regular sequence of “steps” from the etymological ‘body’ to other meanings in the languages of eleven genetic families. This correlation of sememes can be defined as a cluster of chains of semantic changes. Despite some differences, these chains Straipsniai / Articles 171 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ still fit into the framework of the same semantic model, which was implemented in different conditions, from which these differences originate. That is, all variants of semantic shifts took place under certain conditions and were included in the “operational field” of one model. KEYWORDS: semantic universality, correlation of meanings, linguistic typology, model, pronoun, compound word, reflex. ANOTACIJA Tyrimo tikslas – aprašyti atitinkamą semantikos raidos dėsningumą, kuris dėl įrodymų daugelyje kalbų yra universalus. Tyrimo objektas – identiška semantinės raidos etapų seka ‘kūnas’, ‘korpusas’ → ‘asmuo’, ‘asmenybė’, ‘siela’ ir jos rezultatai atskleist analizuojamose kalbose. Apžvelgiamas semantinis poslinkis pateikiamas genetiškai giminiškose ir nesusijusiose kalbose skirtingais jų istorijos laikotarpiais, o tai leidžia jį apibrėžti kaip reiškinį, diachroniškai atsikartojantį kiekviename chronologiniame pjūvyje. Semantinės koreliacijos tarp ‘kūno’, ‘kūno dalių’ ir ‘sielos’, ‘dvasios’, ‘asmens’, ‘savasties’ universalumo postulatas yra pagrįstas patikimai nustatyta dėsninga „žingsnių“ seka nuo etimologinės ‘kūno’ iki kitų reikšmių vienuolikos genetinių šeimų kalbose. Šią sememų koreliaciją galima apibrėžti kaip semantinių pokyčių grandinių klasterį. Nepaisant kai kurių skirtumų, šios grandinės vis tiek telpa į vieno ir to paties semantinio modelio, realizuojamo skirtingomis aplinkybėmis, rėmus, iš kurių ir kyla šie skirtumai. Tai reiškia, kad visi semantinių poslinkių variantai vyko tam tikromis sąlygomis ir buvo įtraukti į vieno modelio „operacinį lauką“. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: semantinis universalumas, reikšmių koreliacija, lingvistinė tipologija, modelis, įvardis, sudėtinis žodis, refleksas. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. There has been established a special tradition of studying the problem of typicality and even universality of semantic changes. However, it hasn’t been generally accepted so far, existing as a sum of ideas in the works of representatives of different linguistic schools. Originally narrowly defined by Michail M. Pokrovskij as a phenomenon of the regularity of interruptions of meaning in the languages of Europe (according to him, ‘identical, rather original, meanings in several languages independently of each other are worked out in the same way’; Pokrovskij 1895: 13), it (or an idea close to it) was later embodied in a purely practical application by Carl Darling Buck namely in his work A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages (Buck 1949). For a long time, the aspect of the search for universals in the semantic dynamics of words remained the prerogative of etymological studies, ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 172 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC where the persuasiveness of the interpretation of the reconstructed meaning and its evolution depends on the reliability of typologically similar examples from other languages. In particular, the focus on typological analogies in semantics distinguishes such fundamental works on etymology as the Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Ossetian Language (1958–1995) by Vasilij I. Abaev, as well as the Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages (1974– 2021) published in Moscow and the recent Etymological Dictionary of Germanic Languages (2010) by Victor V. Levitsky. However, etymological studies, by their wide range of tasks, are not limited to the recalculation of typological analogies in the development of meaning and do not establish the areal of their distribution; they only collect facts for their own needs, which can become the basis for future theoretical research in the relevant field of universology. 1.2. The findings of etymological and semasiological research works on lexical meaning in synchrony and diachrony require a theoretical basis for numerous examples of the typicality and regularity of semantic dynamics in time and space. There is a need in the theory which might elaborate methodological principles for describing and verifying models of semantic change common to a large number of related and unrelated languages. The corresponding set of theoretical and methodological issues has been partially analyzed in the recent (1) studies by Anna A. Zalizniak, who was the first to analyse the universals in polysemy and proceeded to elaborate a catalogue of semantic transitions (Zalizniak 2013: 397–409; 2018); (2) studies by Elena G. Mikina (Mikina 2009; 2012; 2020; 2022) on the semantic evolution of Latin and Romanic verbs of speech. E. G. Mikina’s works illustrate organic synthesis of comparative-historical linguistics and linguistic typology since the chains of stages of the dynamics of meaning are established against a broad Indo-European background. Close ideas are set out in: (Nerlich 1992; Geeraerts 1997: 28 and next). 1.3. There is the search for answers to two of the fundamental questions which are relevant to the current state of this issue. The first one is about the balanced relationship between the synchronous state of semantics and its historical dynamics in the scientific apparatus of research. It is known that ‘semantic evolution and synchronic polysemy are two sides of the same phenomenon’ (Zalizniak 2013: 413), but it is not known (resp. not obvious) whether this is a particular case of semantic derivation in the language(s) of a particular epoch or whether we are dealing with an ancient correlation of sememes, reproduced in a late chronological slice. Both of these phenomena need to be distinguished. For example, Indo-European verbs with a reliably established primary meaning ‘to find’ regularly have the secondary sememe ‘to give birth’ (: Ossetian aryn (Southern waryn), erun ‘to find’ and ‘to beget’, Pamir Ormuri vār- ‘to find’ and ‘to give birth’ ~ PIE *er- ‘to find’ (Abaev 1958: 73–74); Russian dial. ребяненок Straipsniai / Articles 173 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ найдется ‘a child will be born’, Ukrainian dial. знайти дитину ‘to give birth to a baby’, Serbian dial. нашло се дете and other ~ *na-jьti (ESSJ XXII 113– 114, 116; Tolstaja 1997: 290–291)) with the relevantly ancient age. By the way, among the Slavs, it arose within the framework of the language of the ritual (still pagan!) action of deceiving fate: a newborn was allegedly brought by a guest who found a child on the road. Thus, there may be presumed the reproduction of long-established semantic relations in the late period of the history of the languages of the two groups. But in the case of Turkic tap- ‘to find’, ‘to give birth’ (Abaev 1958: 74) there is no such clarity as used to be in Proto-Turkic (Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, eds., 2003: 1436: *tăp-; Tenišev et al. 2006: 208, 288) or even ancient Turkic language condition (VII–XIII cc.) as only the first meaning was attested (DTS 533), however, there is no data on the meaning of ‘to give birth’ for *tăpin the antiquity, so it can be seen as a local late semantic derivation in one of the languages. Well, the cultural conditions of this derivation among the Indo-Europeans (Iranians, Slavs) and the Turks do not coincide either. The second one is that each example of the presumably universal type of semantic development should be considered “under a magnifying glass” and verified by a sufficient number of arguments. The collection of evidence for each case, its verification, classification of the collected material and its explanation is time-consuming and very laborious work, but almost always such research leads to very interesting results. The works on linguistic comprehension of many of these phenomena of semantics are yet to come, especially since the importance of studying universals in the dynamics of lexical meaning has not yet been fully realised. 2. OBJECTIVE AND TASKS An interesting example of the correlation between the ‘body’ & ‘person’, ‘self’, and ‘soul’ sememes which are studied here, with some reservations, can be regarded as an illustration of the thesis about the universality of some models of semantic development. This correlation has been ignored in the specialized literature, and meanwhile, there have been scientific prerequisites for this for a long time. For example, in the electronic catalogue “The Catalogue of Semantic Shifts” (Zalizniak et al.: https://datsemshift.ru/shift4380), the transition of ‘body’ → ‘self’ in several non-Indo-European languages is noted. Although “The Catalogue” simply records the synchronic correlation of these sememes, the data collected prompts the search for manifestations of a similar correlation in the Indo-European languages and the study of the conditions of its appearance. ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 174 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Accordingly, the objective of the research is to describe the model of semantic development ‘body/part of the body’, ‘corpus’ → ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ (or its variants) and to prove its universal nature, i.e. its implementation in the lexical and semantic systems of languages of different genetic families in synchrony and diachrony. The achievement of this objective involves the fulfilment of several tasks, namely: 1) to summarize all known evidence of the correlation of the sememes ‘body’, ‘corpus’ & ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’; 2) to prove the direct nature of semantic derivation in all (if possible) cases, excluding the possibility of mediating (intermediate) stages; 3) substantiate the reproducibility of the model under consideration on different chronological slices in the history of the languages involved in the analysis; 4) to find out the reasons for this semantic shift. 3. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH 3.1. The study involves the lexical material of eleven genetic families of languages, in which we see the implementation of this model of semantic development. As far as we know, these data have not yet been the object of a special (within the framework of the outlined problem) linguistic research and, accordingly, the typological similarity of different words, demonstrating the commonality of their semantic development, is not noted and explained. Since the primacy of the meaning of ‘body’ concerning sememes ‘self’, ‘person’, ‘soul’ etc. is essential to the proposed study, the first step in the procedure of proving the originality of the somatic meaning is to refer to the findings of etymology and reconstruction. These data are presented in etymological dictionaries and paragraphs of comparative grammars. The numerous facts in these sources often need to be generalized against a broad typological background. If we are dealing with languages whose vocabulary has not yet received etymological elucidation, the material is extracted from the available grammatical descriptions of these languages, their vocabulary and texts. This applies to a greater extent to the Algonquian and Austronesian languages. Since this article is not a corpus study but aims to substantiate the universality of one model of semantic derivation, it seems to us sufficient simply to indicate its manifestations in several languages of each of the considered language families. 3.2. When analyzing the material, we relied on the general theoretical principles of working with the dynamics of the semantic structure of the word, outlined in the works of our predecessors, namely: (Budagov 1963; Stern 1964; Straipsniai / Articles 175 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ Trubačiov 1964; Schuster-Šewc 1975; Nerlich 1992; Geeraerts 1997: 23–122; Traugott 1999; Traugott, Dasher 2002; Geeraerts 2010: 25–41; Mikina 2012). The tasks of the study determined the choice of its methods. In particular, some techniques of the following methods are used here: (1) comparativehistorical (to clarify the relative chronology of the states of semantics of the objects (words) under consideration in different periods of their history and to determine the genetic relationship of the compared lexemes); (2) typological (to describe heterogeneous units with similar semantic evolution); (3) the method of commenting on dictionary entries (to clarify the logic of development and direction of semantic connections between the sememes of a certain lexeme). They are implemented within the framework of the analysis procedure, the essence of which is described through: – the sum of the criteria for selecting the material for the study; – interpretation of the material under study; – a scheme of representation of facts (see section 4). Criteria 1. The lexemes employed in the study have two poles of the semantic spectrum: ‘body/part of body’, ‘corpus’ VS ‘person’, ‘self’, and ‘soul’. 2. There must be derivative relations between both groups of meanings, namely: the sememes ‘person’, ‘self’, and ‘soul’ are derived from ‘body’ or ‘part of the body’. 3. Within a cluster of the sememes ‘person’, ‘self’, and ‘soul’, derivation relations are also allowed in some cases. 4. It is taken into account that sememe ‘(my)self’ in the body may develop under the three following conditions: a) due to the morphological modification of the body (by affixation); b) as a part of composite words; c) syntactically, i. e. in the function of the reflexive pronoun (‘self’ as ‘my/its/his body’). The last condition is true only for several languages of the same branch of the IndoEuropean family and sporadically several languages inside the Indo-European lingual areal. 5. Lexemes in which intermediate sememes are marked between both clusters of meanings, excluding the direct semantic derivation of ‘body’ → ‘person’, etc., are excluded from consideration as they do not correspond to the model of semantic derivation. However, this criterion cannot always be met due to the lack of written monuments in some languages or the low level of their etymological development. 6. Lexemes with the same type of semantic correlation that arose in different cultural-semiotic (mythological, religious, apotropaic) conditions (cf. above the example of the correlation ‘to find’ : ‘to give birth’) are also not taken into account. ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 176 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Interpretation (general grounds) 1. The nature of the correlation of the meanings of one word or group of cognates is described by employing modelling, but any model must be verified through typological parallels corresponding to the sum of the parameters specified by the model. This means that the direction and result of semantic development (primarily in cases requiring semantic reconstruction) have been proved on the condition that the same vector of evolution of meaning, its initial, intermediate and final stages can be traced in different words from different languages. What is crucial for analysis is only the fact of the relevant chronology of the semantic states of the word evidence and the verification of the preservation of the sememes’ correlation as primary and secondary in different languages in different periods of their history. 2. The wider the geography of the model’s implementation (it is marked in many languages), the higher the probability that we deal with a universal type of semantic evolution. 3. If the material reveals the relevance (urgency) of the mentioned type of semantic derivation on several chronological slices or even over the course of an entire historical period, one should speak not of an innovation in the semantic structure of words that arose at some point in the history of the language, but of old relations of semantic derivation reproduced in diachrony. 4. PROCEDURE So, here are some facts pro domo sua of the universality of the transformation of lexical meanings with this vector. The study involves the following order of presentation of facts and their analysis. 4.1. Evidence of Indo-European languages 4.1.1. Iranian lexicon Proto-Iranian *grīā- ‘neck, nape of the neck’, whose reflexes display the following meanings (with the extension of semantics to ‘body in general’): Khwarezmian γryw ‘body’ & ‘soul’ and further there are indicated meanings ‘self, herself, himself, yourself’, secondary to ‘soul’ (Èdel’man 2008: 57), cf. combination of words y’ γryw ‘by myself; himself’; further cf. Sogdian ’γryw, man. γryw ‘body’ & ‘person’, ‘soul’, ‘self’ (Livšic 1962: 128, 192; Rastorgueva, Èdel’man 2007: 291–292; Gharib 1995: 130, 167), Middle Persian grīw [glyw|] Straipsniai / Articles 177 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ ‘neck’, ‘throat’, grīw [glyw|, gryw] ‘self’, ‘soul’ (MacKenzie 1986: 37; here both words are given in different dictionary entries), gryw, gryyw [grīw] ‘neck’, ‘form’ & ‘self’, ‘soul’, cf. Gryw hsyng ‘Primal Man’ VS gryw zyndg, gryw jywndg ‘Living Soul’ (Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 164). Such examples are interpreted as a semantic branch (Rastorgueva, Èdel’man 2007: 292) or semantic development (Èdel’man 2008: 57), but the reasons and conditions of this semantic specialization are not explained. Here are examples of the use of Sogdian ’γryw as the equivalent of a reflexive pronoun in the following phrases: ’XRZY ZNH γrywh nwšk(w?) myn’m – ‘Then I consider myself immortal’ VS ’XRZY ZNH γrywh ’mrtch myn’m, lit. ‘then I consider myself dead’ (Livšic 1962: 128, 192). For the semantic development ‘body limbs’, ‘body parts’ → ‘body in general’ in the Iranian examples cf. the recent study of Velizar Sadovski (Sadovski 2017: 567–599; in particular see p. 577 and 579). Proto-Iranian *tanū- ‘body’: Avestan tanū- ‘body’ & ‘person’, ‘itself’ (one was used also as a reflexive pronoun) (Bartholomae 1904: 633; Abaev 1979: 261), cf. ‘[…] hiiat mā vohū pairī.jasat manaŋhā / pərəsatcā mā ciš ahī kahiiā ahī / kaθā aiiar.daxšārā fərasaiiāi dīšā / aibī θβāhū gaēθāhū *tanušucā’ – ‘[…] when he *surrounds me with good thought / and asks me ‘Who are you? Whose are you?’ / How would you *submit your day(ly)-*mark-earnings for questioning / *regarding your herds and persons’ (Skjærvø 2018: 121). Further cf. Old Persian tanūš (tnuuš) ‘body’, ‘trunk’ & ‘person’, ‘self’ (Hinz 1973: 152; Abaev 1979: 261: ‘is also used as a reflexive pronoun’), Khwarezmian tn ‘body’, ‘trunk’ & ‘self’, cf. y’ tn’h ‘his body’ and ‘himself’ (Benzing 1983: 612), Middle Persian tan [tn|] ‘body’ & ‘person’, ‘self’, cf. xwēš tan ‘one’s self’ (MacKenzie 1986: 81; Durkin-Meisterernst 2004: 324), Persian tan, tana, Pahlavi tan ‘body’ & ‘person’ (Abaev 1979: 261), Zaza tan ‘human, person’ < *tanu- ‘body’ (Cabolov 2010: 373), Persian tän ‘body, flesh’ & ‘person’, ‘(hu) man’ (Rubinčik 1970: 398). As we can see, in Iranian *tanūis often used as a reflexive pronoun. Aryan *tanūalso performs the same function in the Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages (see below). In general, the semantic spectrum of Proto-Iranian *tanūis identical to the set of basic meanings of its Indo-Aryan etymological counterpart (see below). It is permissible to speak of two probable conditions in which this lexeme developed the meaning ‘myself’, and ‘self’. 1. In the word combination Avestan tanūwith xva- ‘its, his’, ‘self’, ‘itself’, ‘himself’, cf. auuaēnatā sūcā manaŋhā / āuuarənå vīciθahiiā narm.narəm xvaiiāi tanuiiē – ‘Observe through (this) flame by (your) thought / the *preferences of discrimination (= judgement) (made) man-by-man for his own body’ (Skjærvø 2018: 34, 82), cf. above Middle Persian xwēš tan. The same is likely to be ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 178 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC assumed for the Old Indian tan- ‘self’, cf. sváyā tanv (an example is adduced from: Mayrhofer 1992: 621). Thus, ‘one’s/own body’ → ‘myself’, ‘self’, ‘person’. 2. In the word combinations and composites, formed based on the word combinations with the reflexes *tanū-, cf. Young Avestan tanu.kərətaadj. ‘made by oneself, self-created’ (Bartholomae 1904: 636), tanūm (ā)guz ~ Old Indian tanvàm gh ‘to hide’ (Mayrhofer 1992: 622) = ‘hide yourself’’. The development of the semantics ‘body’ → ‘personality, person (= one, the only)’ is also observed in morphological derivation, cf. Pahlavi tanīhā ‘alone’ (MacKenzie 1986: 82), Persian tanha ‘alone’, ‘singular’, ‘only’, derived from tan ‘body’ employing the adverbial suffix -īhā (Cabolov 2010: 373–374). Proto-Iranian *śarah- ‘head’: Sogdian sr- /sar/ ‘head’ (→ ‘self’) is used as the equivalent of a reflexive pronoun in the following phrases: ZKw srw nwš’kw myn’m – ‘I consider myself happy’ (lit. immortal), prw srw pcγrβ’n – ‘(the order) I will surely carry out’, lit. ‘I will take it on [my] head (= on myself)’ (Livšic 1962: 128); Ossetian sær ‘head’ → ‘person’, there is also a usage functionally close to ‘self’, ‘myself’, cf.: (a) ‘nal mæ xæssys dæ særmæ’ – ‘you have become squeamish about me’; (b) (Kosta) ‘adæmy farnæj kₒy skænin mæxīcæn kad æmæ sær!’ – ‘If only I could create for myself honour and dignity with the farn of the people!’, ‘dæ særyl mæ ’rxæssaj’ – ‘may you sacrifice me for yourself (‘your head’)’(Abaev 1979: 73, 74). Oppositio Here it is advisable to point to the reverse order of the semantic development, which is also attested in the Iranian vocabulary. It is about the reflexes of Old Iranian *vi-āna- ‘breathing’ (Bailey 1943: 106–107), *vyāna- (Nyberg 1974: 106), cf. its cultural semantics in: Middle Persian jān [y’n|] ‘the animal spirit of man’ (ibid.: 106), Persian ǰān ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘life’ & ‘live body’ and ‘essence’, ‘child, kid, baby’ (Rubinčik 1970: 425; Avdoev 2017: 18). Here the group of sememes ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘life’ is primary, motivated with the primordial meaning ‘breathing’ (cf. Proto-Slavonic *duxъ ‘spirit’, *duša ‘soul’ (poetic ‘life’: Russian душа моя ‘my life’) : *dyšati, *(vъz)dъxnǫti ‘to breathe’), meanwhile sememes ‘live (= breathing) body’, ‘essence’ (→ ‘child, kid, baby’) are secondary. It should be pointed out, that semantic derivation ‘breathing’ → ‘soul’ → ‘(breathing) body’ → ‘essence’ → ‘child’ is an example of relatively late chronology because the Middle Persian texts do not contain pieces of evidence of antiquity ‘body’, ‘child’. Straipsniai / Articles 185 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ or ‘body (= main part of being)’ → ‘self (= own body)’, ‘person’, ‘soul’ (in other cases). 4.2.7. Vainakh languages Chechen дог ‘heart’ & ‘soul’ (cf. дагахь ‘at heart’, ‘in soul’) (Karasaev, Maciev 1978: 147, 555), дуог ‘heart’, Ingush дуог ‘heart’, Batsbi докI ‘heart’ (Dešeriev 1963: 527) ~ Chechen дегI ‘body’ (дегIан меженаш ‘body parts’) (Karasaev, Maciev 1978: 615), cf. ‘Догмайра Асланбек / Ша юккъе иккхича, / Болатчу шен герзех / Кадетта и ваьлча […]’ – ‘Aslanbek is brave in spirit, / Bursting into the middle of the enemies, / Became a steel weapon / To cut down the enemy […]’ (B. Saidov) (Index 2011: 67). Apparently, the sememe ‘soul’ is an innovation of the Chechen word, since only the meaning of ‘heart’ is noted for its genetic “counterparts” in other languages. In all these cases we can see existing apart forms which continue an etymologically common prototype. In Vainakh languages this one was divided as the result of the primary alternation of vowels in the root (see for example: Dešeriev 1963: 527). 4.2.8. Afroasiatic lexicon Semitic Ge’ez ’akāl ‘body’, ‘limb’, ‘substance’, ‘hypostasis’ & ‘person’, ‘volume’, Tigrigna ’akal ‘body’, Amharic akal ‘person’ ~ Arabian ’ukl- ‘corps’ (Belova 2012: 53). The antiquity of the correlation ‘body’ : ‘person’ derives from its representation already in the ancient Ethiopian language (Ge’ez), now extinct. As we can see, modern languages have retained this correlation. Ge’ez ˒abāl ‘body’, ‘flesh, piece of flesh’, ‘member of body’ & ‘(my)self’, ‘person’ etc. (Majzel’ 1983: 197; Leslau 1987: 3). Cf. ˒Emma ‘ayneka ˒enta yamān tāseḥḥetaka, melexā wa-’ awḍe’ā ˒em-lā ‘lēka, ˒esma yexēyyesaka kama […] ˒emenna ˒abāleka ˒em-kwellu […] as ‘person’, ‘self’ (Lambdin 1978: 307). Aramaic gūp- ‘body’ & ‘personality’, ‘myself’, Hebrew gūp-ā ‘corpse’, (PostBiblical) gūp ‘body’ and gap ‘myself’, ‘self’ (Majzel’ 1983: 197), be-gappō ‘with own body = alone’, Tigre gof ‘body’, ‘heart’ & ‘soul’ (Cohen 1970: 108). Arabic ǧuṯṯ-at- ‘body’, ‘corps’, Soqotri gitteh ‘corpse’, ‘body’ (ibid.: 199) < *gṯṯ ~ Egyptian ḏs [< *gs] ‘person’, ‘-self’ (Takács 1999: 255). South Arabian gitt-eh ‘body’, ‘corpse’ ~ Egyptian (Pyr) ǯs ‘myself’ < Afrasian *gVč-. See: (Majzel’ 1983: 197). Epigraphic South Arabian grb ‘body’, ‘(bodily) life’ & ‘person’, Sabaic grb ‘body’ & ‘person’, Tigre gärob ‘body’ & ‘person’ (Cohen 1970: 178) and ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 186 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Mehri gǝrǝbēt ‘mass’, ‘group of people’ etc. < *gVrVb- (Blažek 2020: 56: with literature). It is an example of a relatively ancient chronology of ‘body’ : ‘person’ correlation since both sememes are attested in the Old Arabic vocabulary. Cushitic Beja gari ‘body’, ‘trunk’ & ‘self’, acc. garob (Rp) = garoot ‘body’ & ‘self’ ~ Se *gVrVb- (Blažek 2020: 56). Regarding other Semitic cognates see previous item. Regarding the examples from Beja, the employment of the somatism body in the function of a reflexive pronoun is achieved by employing a technique similar to the one presented in Hungarian (see above). Here Beja gari ‘body’ is turned into ‘self’ due to the addition of the possessive suffix, cf. ugarooyu ‘myself’. In the same way the sememe ‘self’ is found in nifis ‘soul’ > unifsu ‘myself’ (BPG 2005: 225). 4.2.9. Algonquian lexicon Mohegan-Pequot -ahak ‘body’ and ‘myself’ used as the reflexive pronoun, cf.: ‘Tapi ni nukucusumô nahak’ – ‘I can wash myself’; ‘Mus numic wici kahak wiwáhcumunsh’ – ‘I will eat corn with you’ (Fielding 2006: 56). An illustrative example of a change in the grammatical status of a word, accompanied by the appearance of pronominal semantics. The antiquity of the grammaticalsemantic transformation is unclear. Menominee (as a part of a one-word sentence) vai1 taskūqcikew – has a short body VS dni nēyaw – myself (= my body). See: (MD 20–21, 151). Arapaho (as a part of a one-word sentence) honoo3i3insinenoo – I am lying on my back VS ceniiko’ooteihinoo – I am selfish (Cowell, Moss et al. 2012: 22, 177; DoReCo: doreco.huma-num.fr/languages/arap1274). Natick or Wôpanâak (Wampanoag) /hogk/ ‘a living body or personality’ & ‘creature’, ‘person’, ‘soul, spirit’, /-hogk(a)/ ‘body’, ‘self’, cf.: ‘[...], n noh keteahogkou pish tummuswau wutch ummissinninnutu, [...]’ – ‘[...], that soul shall be cut off from his people; [...]’; ‘[...]. kah noh keteahogkou kesohkóadtog’ – ‘[...], and that person be guilty’ (AT 2011: 225, 226). Cheyenne -vétove ‘body’ in the possessive usage develops the semantics ‘myself’ (Leman 2011: 12; ChD: https://www.cheyennelanguage.org/dictionary/ lexicon.php?letter=13#e21037). Straipsniai / Articles 187 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ 4.2.10. Austronesian lexicon Malayo-Polynesian: Cham tràj ~ ṭàj ‘body’ and ‘myself’, ‘our’ (Alieva, Buj Kchan’ Tche 1999: 134). The direction and age of semantic derivation is questionable. Indonesian badan ‘body’, ‘torso’ & ‘myself’, ‘in person’ (Korigodskij 1990: 69). According to Robert Blust and Stephen Trussel (Blust, Trussel 2013: https:// www.trussel2.com/ACD/acd-lo_b.htm?zoom_highlight=badan), this word, borrowed ‘from Arabic through Malay’, in all Austronesian languages means ‘body’. Thus, sememes ‘myself’, ‘in person’ result from semantic derivation in Indonesian. West Futuna-Aniwa hkano ‘body’, ‘flesh’, ‘essence’ (traditionally the most important aspect of the self) & ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘conscious self’, cf.: ‘[…] kaie uri tano hkano’ – ‘[...] but black is his body’ VS ‘[…] tiona nohkano’ – ‘his spirit, mind (conscious self)’. However, the sememe ‘soul/spirit’ ‘resulting from switch by missionaries in significance of ata and hkano’ (Dougherty 1983: 263). Malagasy tèna ‘body’ is used for self, as there is no reflexive pronoun in Malagasy, cf. namòno tèna ìzy – he killed himself (Parker 1883: 40). ***** The material accessible for observation in some modern languages from other families only confirms the correlation between ‘body’ & ‘human’, and ‘person’ (Zalizniak et al.: https://datsemshift.ru/shift3666), however, the lack of data on their history and etymology makes it impossible to determine the vector and degree of antiquity of semantic evolution. This concerns the following languages: Cavineña (Tacanan family), Yuwana or Hodï (genetically unclassified language), Otomi (the Oto-Manguean language family), Inanwatan (Suabo) and Warembori (the Trans–New Guinea family of languages), Mikir (the Sino-Tibetan language family), She (the Hmong-Mien (or Miao-Yao) family of languages), Yaminahua (the Panoan family of languages). 5. RESULTS (SYNTHESIS AND COMMENTARIES) 5.1. The reviewed material allows us to distinguish three notable features. These include in particular: A) Lexemes with etymological meanings ‘body (generally)’ and ‘corpus (generally)’ are the regular base for the development of sememes ‘soul’, ‘self’, ‘person’ and less frequent cases when these secondary sememes arise in the ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 188 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC words, denoting ‘neck’, ‘throat’, ‘head’ or ‘heart’. A possible reason (mythological background) for the semantic derivation of ‘heart’ → ‘soul’ was the archaic idea about the heart as the seat of the soul or feelings, cf. Latin pectus ‘bosom’, ‘heart’ & ‘soul’ and above Vainakh, Afroasiatic (Tigre) examples and closest analogy in Manda sondomme ‘heart as the seat of feelings’, ‘courage’ (Vydrin 1997: 234). B) None of the presented examples has a full paradigm of meanings; they demonstrate the lacunas in the semantic structure. The described picture is presented in the table in the most general form. Language Original semantics Secondary semantics Indo-European ‘body’, ‘head’ ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ ‘self’ ‘person’, ‘human’ ‘one’s own’ Iranian ‘body’ + + + Indo-Aryan ‘body’ + + Dardic ‘body’ + + Ancient Greek ‘(living) body’ + + Latin ‘body’ + + Hittite ‘body’ + + Germanic ‘body’ + Slavonic ‘body’ + Finno-Ugric ‘body’ + Turkic ‘body’ + + Mongolian ‘body’ + + + Tungus-Manchu ‘body’ + + + Chukotko-Kamchatkan ‘body’ + Dravidian ‘body’ + + Vainakh ‘body’, ‘heart’ + Afroasiatic ‘body’, [‘heart’] +++ Algonquian ‘body’ + + + Austronesian Cham ‘body’ + + Indonesian ‘body’ + + Malagasy ‘body’ + West Futuna-Aniwa ‘body’ + Other ‘body’ + However, we can confidently speak about the universality of such types of semantic development as (1) ‘body’ → ‘self’, ‘person’ or body’ → ‘self’ → ‘person’; (2) ‘body’ → ‘self’, [‘person’], ‘one’s own’; (3) ‘body’ → ‘soul’, ‘person’ (models 2 and 3 are represented in languages of three language families); (4) ‘body’ & ‘person’. All of them turn out to be variant implementations Straipsniai / Articles 189 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ of a single pattern of semantic derivation (cf. Geeraerts 1997: 23–24), the difference between which is due to the grammatical (morphological-syntactic) and cultural (worldview) conditions for the functioning of lexemes with the specified set of meanings. About the local manifestations of this pattern ([‘body’, ‘dead body’ → ‘disembodied soul’, ‘soul’]; [‘body’ → ‘(disembodied) soul’ → ‘person’]; [‘body’ → ‘live (breathing) body’ → ‘soul’, ‘spirit’/ ‘person’, ‘self’]; [‘body (= main part of being)’ → ‘self (= own body)’, ‘person’, ‘soul’] etc.) see above. As for the low frequency of examples of semantic derivation ‘body’ → ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ (which does not negate the fact that it is represented in languages of several families), then this state in part may be explained as the consequence of the realisation of the meaning ‘soul’ in special sacral terms, therefore it was not necessary to extrapolate ‘soul’ on other words. But this conclusion needs to be verified with the data of the written monuments. C) The missing meaning of ‘self’ in the semantic range of some of the analyzed words can be explained with the restrictions which are laid within the very system of the language. In particular pronoun ‘self’ could be derived and exist further only within a special grammatical class of words with their morphology, therefore no other lexeme from another grammatical paradigm (substantive, numeral) with other formal features could not produce appropriate pronominal semantics. For example, such a picture is attested in Vainakh languages, where the self can emerge only in pronoun paradigm and never among nouns, cf. here: pronoun ‘self’ сō (1 person, singular), хьō (2 person), шā (3 person), вай-ваьш (1 person, plural), шайна (2 person), цара шаьш (3 person) & noun ‘soul’, ‘spirit’ дог, са, ‘body’ дегI (Karasaev, Maciev, 1978: 146, 147, 552, 615). Thus, the sememe ‘self’ can emerge in a noun only on the condition that there is no direct dependence of pronominal meaning on the form, which ties semantics with the certain grammatical class of words. The language system at least allows for two conditions under which the words, denoting the body or its parts, develop the sememes ‘self’ and ‘myself’: 1) in a certain context; 2) as a part of compound words (see below). 5.2. Comments regarding the specific relationship between ‘body’ & ‘person’, ‘soul’, and ‘self’. As illustrated above the reviewed semantic correlation is attested in many languages. Leaving aside the meanings ‘brunch’, ‘plant stem’ as secondary (from primary ‘body’, ‘corpus’), a researcher should give special attention to other meanings. First and foremost we can conclude secondary ‘self’, ‘own’, ‘person’, ‘soul’ to ‘body’, ‘corpus’, and ‘trunk’, and appeal to the data of vocabulary entries, texts, etymology, reconstruction (see above) indicates it. So, it is possible to state a semantic universal shift but what is its mechanism? ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 190 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC A) Semantic side. Its semantic base (for some cases) probably was the perception of the body as the main part of a human being, therefore ‘body’ or ‘head’ → ‘person’, ‘self’; ‘body’ → ‘self’ → ‘person’. Variant development for ‘soul’: ‘living (body)’ and further – ‘spiritualized’ → ‘soul’. If the lexemes are represented by ‘self’ and ‘person’ in the set of meanings, then in most cases ‘person’ is secondary to ‘self’, since ‘self’ appeared in the body when it is used as ‘one’s body’ = ‘(my)self’ (cf. also ‘body’ → ‘one’s own’, ‘own’ = ‘own body’), and then ‘person’, ‘human’ arose as a result of “alienation” (abstraction) from the “pronominal” context. The direct shift of ‘body’ → ‘person’, ‘human’ is based on synecdoche, as in the case of the Russian тело ‘body’ and secondary as ‘person’, ‘human’. B) Morphological factor. In some languages, the shift ‘body’ → ‘self’ took place in certain grammatical forms of the substantive body, where the very conditions (grammatical semantics) have caused that. Thus, the semantic mechanism ‘self’ ← ‘body’ is based on the morphological modification of words with the meaning ‘body’. Examples of that may be illustrated with the data of the: (1) Pashai tānek as a reflexive possessive form to tān ‘body’; (2) Hungarian language, where reflexive-amplifying pronoun self was formed from the substantive mag ‘body’ + appropriate personal-possessive suffixes; (3) Beja gari ‘body’, which is turned into ‘self’ due to the addition of the possessive suffix; (4) Mongolian languages, where бījeра ‘personally’ = ‘by a body’, that is a noun with the marker of an instrumental case -ра; бījeренā ‘on yourself’ = ‘on its body’ – the form of the locative with the marker -ре & the marker of reflexus possessivum -нā. So, here semantics ‘self’, ‘myself’ developed in case forms, meaning ‘by a body’ (→ ‘personally’ → ‘myself’, ‘self’), ‘on its body’ (→ ‘on yourself’, ‘self’), and in the noun body, extended with personal-possessive suffixes (‘body’ → ‘my, his body’ → ‘myself’ etc.). C) Factor of stem composition. In some examples, the lexeme body acquired sememes ‘self’, ‘myself’ within the frames of the phrases, which later were turned into compound words. That is, word combinations with the body were collapsed into a lexical composite, where the meaning ‘body’ was neutralized just as ‘(my)self’, cf. Avestan tanu.kərətaadj. ‘made by oneself’ : Old Indian tanū-kt- ‘self-created’. A similar situation is represented in Hungarian (see above), where ‘body’ was neutralized in pronominal derivatives. Under the same conditions, semantics ‘person’ appears in the body: in particular, in Old Indian tan- it also appears in the composition of compound words tanū-kṛít ‘forming the person’, tanū-pna ‘protection of the person’. D) Syntactic conditions. The meanings of ‘self’, ‘myself’, ‘(one’s) own’ in the body appear as a result of its use in the sentence as a reflexive pronoun or as a word functionally close to reflexive and possessive pronouns. The pronominal Straipsniai / Articles 191 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ use of body itself was originally based on such phrases as Avestan xvaiiāi tanuiiē ‘his own body’, Old Indian sváyā tanv ‘one’s own body’ etc. Other examples are presented sporadically in Middle Iranian, modern Iranian (Ossetian) languages and in Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Chukotko-Kamchatkan etc. Cf. Mohegan-Pequot -ahak ‘body’ changed its grammatical status, being integrated into the composition of the polysynthetic construction etc. Then, the body in the pronominal function replaced similar constructions. Conditions of emergence of ‘self’ in body Conditions Languages Morphological variation Within compound words Syntactic conditions Indo-European + + + Finno-Ugric + Turkic + Mongolian + + Tungus-Manchu + Chukotko-Kamchatkan + Dravidian Vainakh Afroasiatic + + Algonquian + Austronesian + E) The “zero semantic correlation” factor. However, there are languages, where the above-described semantic shift is impossible. Particularly our attention is attracted to such lexemes in the languages of Africa as Rwanda umu-biri ‘body’, Kinga emi-hano ‘bodies’ (Toporova 2000: 28, 29), Pulaar-Fulfuldé (Fula) ter-gal ‘body’, ter-ɗe ‘body parts’ (Koval’ 2000: 223), ɓandu ‘body’, Seereer fo ɓaal ol ‘body’, Wolof уаr W ‘body’ ~ Seereer njer/cer ‘body’ (Pozdniakov 1993: 40, 101), Pulaar-Fulfuldé fitan-du ‘soul’, pital-i ‘souls’ (Koval’ 2000: 162: with the reference to Edward Sapir). Words to denote ‘body’ and ‘soul’ here belong to different semantic classes: “active class” (class of active objects, active names) VS “passive class” (class of passive objects, passive names) etc. The laws of these classes do not allow the meaning of one class to be produced in the frames of other classes. In other words, semantic derivation here is pretty strictly regulated and distinct from other observed languages where the emergence of new meaning is possible due to a broader spectrum of culture (religious, poetic ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 192 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC and other) associations with a more free-flowing, flexible nature of relations between meanings. 6. CONCLUSIONS 1. The vocabulary analyzed in this study provides sufficient illustrations of the universality of the semantic derivation model implemented in different languages of the widest geography (examples from 11 language families!). The semantic and grammatical laws of these languages created the conditions for the sum of similar semantic shifts, defined as multiple manifestations of this model. Multiplicity presupposes the presence of a cluster of chains of semantic shifts (see above), based on which semantic derivation is modelled. 2. In reality we have reasons for assertion about the direction of the semantic derivation ‘body’ → ‘self’, ‘person’, ‘soul’, because ‘body’ and ‘corpus’ are original, which is confirmed with the etymological data. 3. The reproducibility of the considered model in diachrony is proved by its representation in the lexical semantics of languages in different periods of their history. Late semantic derivation in languages where it was not previously recorded testifies to the typicality of some semantic structures of linguistic thinking. 4. We deal with one of the universal semantic shifts, however in the frame of this semantic pattern its “technical aspect” (conditions and mechanism) of meaning emergence of ‘soul’, ‘person’, ‘human’, and ‘self’ might be different. In particular, the reasons for the generation of these sememes are determined by the peculiarities of the world picture, the cultural background, the peculiarities of the morphological variation of words, their function in the sentence and the compositions that arose based on the corresponding word combinations. REFERENCES Abaev Vasilij I. 1958: Абаев, Василий И. Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка [Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka] 1, Москва, Ленинград: Издательство АН СССР [Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR]. Abaev Vasilij I. 1973: Абаев, Василий И. Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка [Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka] 2, Москва, Ленинград: Наука [Moskva, Leningrad: Nauka]. Straipsniai / Articles 193 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ Abaev Vasilij I. 1979: Абаев, Василий И. Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка [Istoriko-ètimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka] 3, Москва, Ленинград: Наука [Moskva, Leningrad: Nauka]. Alieva Natal’ja F., Buj Kchan’ Tche 1999: Алиева, Наталья Ф., Буй, Кхань Тхе. Язык чам. Устные говоры восточного диалекта [Jazyk čam. Ustnye govory vostočnogo dialekta], Санкт-Петербург: Петербургское востоковедение [SanktPeterburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie]. AT – The State of the Material: algonquian texts, available online, 2011. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20120606165553/http://people.umass.edu/aef6000/ Texts/AlAlgonqui/Massachusett/Alia/Trmbll.pdf [retrieved 02.05.2024]. Avdoev Teimuraz V. 2017: Авдоев, Теймураз В. Езидско-русский словарь [Ezidsko-russkij slovar’] (Ferhengoke Êzdîkî-Ȓûsî), ч. 1: Лексический словарь [č. 1: Leksičeskij slovar’], Калининград: Апокриф [Kaliningrad: Apokrif]. Bailey Harold W. 1943: Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-Century Books, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bartholomae Christian 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner. Beekes Robert S. P. 2010: Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assist. of L. van Beek, Leiden, Boston: Brill. Belova Anna G. 2012: Белова, Анна Г. Этимологический словарь древнеарабской лексики (на материале избранных текстов доисламской поэзии) [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ drevnearabskoj leksiki (na materiale izbrannych tekstov doislamskoj poèzii)], вып. 1 [vyp. 1], Москва: Институт востоковедения РАН [Moskva: Institut vostokovedenija RAN]. Benzing Johannes 1983: Chwaresmischer Wortindex, mit einer Einleitung von H. Humbach, hrsg. von Z. Taraf, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Blažek Václav 2020: An Excerpt from the Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of Beja: Anatomical Lexicon. – Folia Orientalia 57, 25–125. Blust Robert, Trussel Stephen 2013: The Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, web edition. Available at: https://www.trussel2.com/ACD/ [retrieved 03.05.2024]. Bogoras Waldemar 1917: Publications of the American Ethnological Society 5: Koryak Texts, ed. by F. Boas, Leyden: Brill. BPG – Wedekind Klaus, Wedekind Charlotte, Abuzeinab Musa. Beja Pedagogical Grammar, Aswan 2004 – Asmara 2005. ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 194 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Buck Carl D. 1949: A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages: A Contribution to the History of Ideas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Budagov Ruben A. 1963: Будагов, Рубен А. Сравнительно-семасиологические исследования (романские языки) [Sravnitel’no-semasiologičeskie issledovanija (romanskie jazyki)], Москва: МГУ [Moskva: MGU]. Burrow Thomas, Emeneau Murray B. 1984: A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, 2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cabolov Ruslan L. 2010: Цаболов, Руслан Л. Этимологический словарь курдско го языка [Ètimologičeskij slovar’ kurdskogo jazyka] 2 (N–Z), ред. Д. Н. Ушаков [red. D. N. Ušakov], Москва: Восточная литература [Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura]. ChD – Cheyenne Dictionary, available online. Available at: https://www. cheyennelanguage.org/dictionary/index.html [retrieved 28.05.2024]. Cincius Vera I., ed., 1975: Цинциус, Вера И., ред. Сравнительный словарь тунгусо-маньчжурских языков: материалы к этимологическому словарю [Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tunguso-man’čžurskich jazykov: materialy k ètimologičeskomu slovar’ju] 1 (А–), cоставители В. А. Горцевская, В. Д. Колесникова, О. А. Константинова, К. А. Новикова, Т. И. Петрова, В. И. Цинциус, Т. Г. Бугаева [sostaviteli V. A. Gorcevskaja, V. D. Kolesnikova, O. A. Konstantinova, K. A. Novikova, T. I. Petrova, V. I. Cincius], Ленинград: Наука [Leningrad: Nauka]. Clauson Gerard 1972: An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cohen David 1970: Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques, comprenant un ficher comparative de J. Cantineau, Paris, La Haye: Mouton & Co. Cowell Andrew, Moss Alonzo Sr. et al. 2012: Dictionary of the Arapaho Language, 4th edition, Wyoming: University Press of Colorado. Dal’ Vladimir I. 1989: Даль, Владимир И. Пословицы русского народа [Poslovicy russkogo naroda] 1, Москва: Художественная литература [Moskva: Chudožestvennaja literatura]. Dešeriev Junus D. 1963: Дешериев, Юнус Д. Сравнительно-историческая грамматика нахских языков и проблемы происхождения и исторического развития горских кавказских народов [Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika nachskich jazykov i problemy proischoždenija i istoričeskogo razvitija gorskich kavkazskich narodov], Грозный: Чечено-ингушское книжное издательство [Groznyj: Čečeno-ingušskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo]. Straipsniai / Articles 201 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ Tenišev Èdgem R. et al. 2006: Тенишев, Эдгем Р. и др. Сравнительноисторическая грамматика тюркских языков. Пратюркский язык-основа. Картина мира пратюркского этноса по данным языка [Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tiurkskich jazykov. Pratiurkskij jazyk-osnova. Kartina mira pratiurkskogo ètnosa po dannym jazyka], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. Tolstaja Svetlana M. 1997: Толстая, Светлана М. Из полесской обрядовой лексики: нашлось дитя [Iz polesskoj obriadovoj leksiki: našlos’ ditia]. – Український діалектологічний збірник [Ukrajinskyj dialektolohičnyj zbirnyk] 3, Київ: Довіра [Kyjiv: Dovira], 287–292. Toporova Irina N. 2000: Топорова, Ирина Н. Морфемика и морфонология имени существительного в языках банту [Morfemika i morfonologija imeni suščestvitel’nogo v jazykach bantu]. – Основы африканского языкознания: морфемика, морфонология [Osnovy afrikanskogo jazykoznanija: morfemika, morfonologija], ред. В. А. Виноградов [red. V. A. Vinogradov], Москва: Восточная литература [Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura], 9–45. Traugott Elizabeth C. 1999: The Role of Pragmatics in a Theory of Semantic Change. – Pragmatics in 1998. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference 2, ed. J. Verschueren, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 93–102. Traugott Elizabeth C., Dasher Richard B. 2002: Regularity In Semantic Change, Ser. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 97, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trubačiov Oleg N. 1964: Трубачёв, Олег Н. «Молчать» и «таять». О необходимости семасиологического словаря нового типа [“Molčat’” i “tajat’”. O neobchodimosti semasiologičeskogo slovaria novogo tipa]. – Проблемы индоевропейского языкознания. Этюды по сравнительно-исторической грамматике индоевропейских языков [Problemy indoevropejskogo jazykoznanija. Ètiudy po sravnitel’no-istoričeskoj grammatike indoevropejskich jazykov], oтв. ред. В. Н. Топоров [otv. red. V. N. Toporov], Москва: АН СССР [Moskva: AN SSSR], 100–105. de Vaan Michiel 2008: Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, Leiden, Boston: Brill. Vladimircov Boris J. 1989: Владимирцов, Борис Я. Сравнительная граммати ка монгольского письменного языка и халхаского наречия. Введение и фонетика [Sravnitel’naja grammatika mongol’skogo pis’mennogo jazyka i chalchaskogo narečija. Vvedenie i fonetika], 2-e изд. [2-e izd.], Москва: Главная редакция восточной литературы изд. «Наука» [Moskva: Glavnaja redakcija vostočnoj literatury izd. “Nauka”]. ALEXANDER I. ILIADI, ILONA M. DERIK 202 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Vydrin Valentin F. 1997: Выдрин, Валентин Ф. Следы именной классификации в языках манде [Sledy imennoj klassifikacii v jazykach mande]. – Основы африканского языкознания. Именные категории [Osnovy afrikanskogo jazykoznania. Imennye kategorii], ред. В. А. Виноградов [red. V. A. Vinogradov], Москва: Аспект Пресс [Moskva: Aspekt Press]. Zalizniak Anna A. 2009: Зализняк, Анна А. О понятии семантического перехода [O poniatii semantičeskogo perechoda]. – Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: по материалам ежегодной Международной конференции «Диалог 2009» [Kompiuternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye technologii: po materialam ežegodnoj Meždunarodnoj konferencii “Dialog 2009”] 8(15), 107–111. Zalizniak Anna A. 2013: Зализняк, Анна А. Русская семантика в типологической перспективе [Russkaja semantika v tipologičeskoj perspektive], сep. [ser.] Studia philologica, Москва: Языки славянской культуры [Moskva: Jazyki slavianskoj kul’tury]. Zalizniak Anna A. 2018: The Catalogue of Semantic Shifts: 20 Years Later. – Russian Journal of Linguistics 22(4), 770–787. Zalizniak Anna A. et al.: The Catalogue of Semantic Shifts. Available at: https:// datsemshift.ru/shifts [retrieved 04.05.2024]. Žukova Alevtina N. 1990: Жукова, Алевтина Н. Словарь корякско-русский и русско-корякский – около 4000 слов [Slovar’ koriaksko-russkij i russko-koriakskij – okolo 4000 slov]: пособие для учащихся начальной школы [posobie dlia učaščichsia načal’noj školy], 2-е изд. дораб. [2-e izd. dorab.], Ленинград: Просвещение, Ленингр. отд-ние [Leningrad: Prosveščenie, Leningr. otd-nie]. Semantinės dinamikos universalumas: nuo ‘kūno’ iki ‘asmens’, ‘savasties’, ‘sielos’ SANTRAUKA Somatinių žodžių, reiškiančių ‘kūnas’ arba ‘kūno dalis’, stebėjimas vienuolikoje genetiškai skirtingų šeimų kalbose atskleidžia įdomią tokių žodžių sememų koreliaciją. Visų pirma, kontekstai, kuriuose somatizmai pateikiami, be kita ko, būtinai parodo, kad jie vartojami kaip ‘asmuo, žmogus’, ‘aš, savastis’ ir ‘siela, dvasia’. Toks sememų santykio dėsningumas vargu ar yra atsitiktinis, o semantinė-tipologinė analizė, atlikta atsižvelgiant į etimologijos ir lingvistinio modeliavimo duomenis, suteikia rimtų priežasčių manyti, kad tokie gausūs Straipsniai / Articles 203 Universality in Semantic Dynamics: from ‘body’ to ‘person’, ‘self’, ‘soul’ atvejai atskleidžia universalios semantinės kalbinio mąstymo struktūros apraiškas. Šią struktūrą galima apibrėžti kaip semantinio darinio tipą, perteikiamą semantinių poslinkių grandinėmis: [‘kūnas’ → ‘siela’], [‘kūnas’ → ‘asmenybė’, ‘žmogus’], [‘kūnas’ → ‘savastis’ → ‘aš pats’], [‘kūnas’ → ‘savastis’ → ‘asmenybė’ → ‘žmogus’]. Kartu jie sudaro daugiamatį semantikos kūrimo modelį su vienu vektoriumi. Galima daryti prielaidą, kad modelis neapsiriboja tam tikru kalbos istorijos laikotarpiu, bet yra atkuriamas diachroniškai dėl jo vaizdavimo skirtinguose sinchroniniuose pjūviuose. Šio tipo semantinio darinio realizavimo niuansai visiškai priklauso nuo sąlygų (veiksnių) visumos – semantinio, morfologinio, kamieno komponavimo ir sintaksinio veiksnio. Nagrinėjamas semantinės darybos tipas būdingas ne tik afrikiečių kalboms dėl specifinės jų semantinių santykių sistemos organizacijos pagal žodžių, priklausančių skirtingoms klasėms ‘aktyvus’ ir ‘pasyvus’, principą, todėl ‘aktyviajai’ klasei būdinga semema ‘siela’ negali būti įkūnyta leksemoje iš ‘pasyviosios’ klasės. Įteikta 2024 m. gegužės 5 d. ALEXANDER I. ILIADI ILONA M. DERIK The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky” 65020, Ukraine, Odessa 34, Staroportofrankivska Str. alex[email protected]om [email protected]om