The document discusses the concept of concepts as objects of diachronic linguistics. It provides background on the theoretical bases of comparativism, including the hypotheses of monogenesis and proto-languages. It then outlines the methodology of comparative-historical language study, including using expanding circles and comparing data from written records. The document also discusses procedures of comparativistics like reconstruction and diachronic interpretation. Finally, it examines concepts as diachronic phenomena using the example of the mega concept represented by the English word "tea".

1. CONCEPT AS AN OBJECT OF
DIACHRONIC LINGUISTICS
Denysova Svitlana Pavlivna,
Doctor of Philological
Sciences,
Professor

2. THEORETICAL BASES OF
COMPARATIVISM
Monogenesis, that is a genetic relationship of
languages, is the result of the origination from a
single proto-language by its disintegration
through splitting of the community that was the
bearer of the language.
Existence of a proto-language (a source
language) - the language that really existed, but
which can not be fully restored, there is only the
basic data of its phonetic, lexical systems and
grammatical structure.

3. • Comparison of not any words that have accidental coincidence
but of active vocabulary, which indicates the objects important
to the material and spiritual human activity (eg, kinship terms).
• Coincidence of grammatical forms which are not usually
borrowed.
• Partial sound coincidence of words or forms and their partial
distinction granting regular sound correspondence (eg, frater –
брат). The full coincidence of words in different languages
proves nothing.
• Historical sound changes that are menifested in languages as
"phonetic laws" (eg, the first palatalization:жінка ˂ жена ˂
žena ˂ *genā).
• Words meanings disagree according to the laws of polysemy (eg
in Slavic languages град / город is a city, certain type of a town
in contrast to the related Germanic languages where Garten
means "garden", as derived from ind.-europ. *gort - “hedged
place").

4. The methodology of
comparative-historical
language study
The main condition of accuracy was comparison
of root and affixal elements of words in related
languages.
The comparison was carried out using the
"expanding" circles method proposed by R.Rask:
closely related languages were compared first,
then - language groups, then - families.

5. The methodology of
comparative-historical
language study
The results were clarified
by comparing data of
written records of the
dead languages with that
of living languages and
dialects, which was
insisted by
A.Ch.Vostokov.

6. COMPARATIVE-
HISTORACAL METHOD
 Thus, the theoretical basis of
this method is the
hypothesis that new
elements of language /
languages are always formed
from existing ones in the
language, ie the composition
and structure of the
language in each period of its
development have their
roots in prior periods
 They have a common basis in
the language from which they
descended, so elements of
each of them are in regular
correspondence with elements
of the latter. The study and
analysis of correlations can
lead to the establishment of
the elements of proto-
language.

7. COMPARATIVE-
HISTORACAL METHOD
In the last quarter of the 19th century
there accumulated a lot of evidence that the
discrete model of a family tree, used both for
family of languages and dialects of one
language, is a very coarse simplification of
reality. Along with common origin
geographical proximity is an important factor
of unity among languages and dialects.

8. WAVES THEORY
 H.Shuhardt and Y.Shmidt offered a so-
called "wave theory" - the idea of
linguistic innovation spread from centers
where they occur, to the periphery, like
circles dispersing on water from a stone
thrown and gradually flatten. As a result
of interinfluence of neighboring
languages and dialects boundaries
between them are not clear, there is a
similarity that can not be explained by
common descent.

9. PROCEDURES OF
COMPARATIVISTICS
 Reconstruction
 Historical interpretation
of coincidences
recorded in the factual
data of related
languages, which
leads to the
construction of some
archetype (proto-form)
- hypothesis of the first
degree.
 Diachronic interpretation
 Interpretation of unrealistic
language substrate required for
the implementation of
reconstruction, but only
archetypes to enhance
diachronical prospects of study by
means of penetration into
chronologically distant stages of
proto-language state - hypothesis
of the second degree.

10. Among Soviet linguists difference between the actual
reconstruction and diachronic interpretation was
explicitly studied by I.M. Tronskyy.
"Comparative-historical method - he wrote in one of his
works - itself lead only to "archetype", to the point from
which the differences by selected branches began. To
go further, it was necessary to operate other methods -
methods of remnants, method of system reconstruction,
samples for which were made on non-linguistic
materials, for example in the field of prehistoric
ethnography. These methods were to be applied not to
materials of historical languages, but to the data
delivered by the reconstruction, which was produced by
comparison. "

11. The archetype should be recognized relatively
reliable, which was adequately output from the
considered by the comparativist set of
interlanguage correspondences (Germ. *
Kuningas “a statesman,a king"), and
“absolutely" reliable is the archetype that can
be verified through further identify of its real
linguistic antecedent in the form of archaism in
any family languages, in archaic writing
monuments or on the rights of borrowing in
unrelated language environment (cf. germ.
kuningas, that is recorded as old borrowing in
Finno-Baltic languages).

12. Diachronic
interpretation
Regarding the extent of reliability conjuncture
diachronic interpretation, it can't be mentioned,
even in the best cases, when they rebuilt on
archetypes, reconstructed with a high degree of
reliability. Especially it is difficult to judge the
extent of their credibility if they are superposed
on multiple competing archetypes.

13. CONCEPT AS
OBJECT OF
DIACHRONIC
LINGUISTICS
Numerous studies of concepts that have taken
place in recent decades, indicate that the
concept is not static, it can change over time,
because driving evolutional factors of the
conceptual concept content is a socio-historical,
cultural and ethical change in society. Thereby
there is the accumulation of short ethno-cultural
content in the process of objectification and
verbalization.

14. CONCEPT AS
OBJECT OF
DIACHRONIC
LINGUISTICS
Concepts learning in diachronic aspect is still new, insufficiently developed area
of cognitive research, but it is necessary because it gives a better idea of the
content and structure, mechanism, method and time of concept verbalization,
causes of cross-cultural differences of its constituent elements in different
nations.

15. CONCEPT AS
OBJECT OF
DIACHRONIC
LINGUISTICS
There is opinion for the structure of concepts that concepts are arranged prototypically (Gr.,
from protos - first and typos - sign, property. The prototype, a basic type: the first image,
the first model) is uneven, on the basis of center-periphery, due to the fact that cognitive
activity needs structural stability and flexible adaptability.

16. CONCEPT AS
OBJECT OF
DIACHRONIC
LINGUISTICS
There are core and periphery in the field approach to the concept release. The
core concept includes a main prototypical sense element that is distinguished by
the maximum number of characteristic features of the concept. Peripherals
constitute the elements of a lesser degree of severity of the characteristic
features of the concept.

17. CONCEPT AS
OBJECT OF
DIACHRONIC
LINGUISTICS
A distinctive feature of the field structure of the concept is its
ability to variability: a peripheral component concept can act as
the other elements of the nuclear concept. This concept allows
flexible structure concept to evolve.

18. CONCEPT AS OBJECT
OF DIACHRONIC
LINGUISTICS
There is also leveled type along with the field organization concept. J. S.
Stepanov pays special attention to historical and cultural level modeling
concepts.
He represents the concept of structure in three levels (layers):
1)primary / current layer;
2)complementary / passive (one or more), or historical;
3)internal / etymological (usually stored in external verbal form).

19. Current layer concept understood by all bearers of a language.
An additional layer (or layers) relevant only for some social groups.
This passive layer concept is often used by people to communicate
within their social group.
The inner layer concept offers just to researchers.
Thus, the concept of Y. S. Stepanov is a superimposition of cultures
of different historical periods. Study concept is due to the way the
analysis of each of the levels.

20. E.O. Frantsuzska
CONCEPT AS
DIACHRONIC
PHENOMEN
(ON EXAMPLE OF
MEGA CONCEPT
EXPRESSION TEA
IN ENGLISH)

21. Mega concept that is represented by the word tea, includes three concepts, each
of which is represented by the token tea.
The first part of the mega concept is simple particular household tea concept
that began to emerge in the late XVII - early XVIII century and is associated
primarily with a drink.
The second component acts like the multilayered cultural concept tea segment,
which includes in addition to the base layer, a tea like a drink, four cognitive
cultural layers: tea as medicine, tea as an opportunity to communicate, tea as a
way to show a good attitude, hospitality, tea as a way to spend time.
The third component of the concept presents tea as a meal. It was formed
probably in the second half of the XX century on the basis of segment
multilayered cultural concept of tea.

22. Thus, the stages of concept formation is genetically related to the semantic
content of the main macro-semantic structure of the word.
Hence there is the need to clarify the definition of the concept: concept is a
multidimensional entity that has a complex structure as the result of
reflection of reality in human consciousness.
Language component of this phenomenon has diachronic and synchronous
levels and also ethno, cultural and socio-labeled specificity.

23. Thank for your attention!