Anthropocentrism of thematic classification vocabulary

Very often thematic classifications serve the purpose of presenting the typical user’s point of view language reality, which places the man in the centre of the linguistic universe. For that reason it is important mention the term of anthropocentrism in this context. The topic of this article is not to define this term, but rather to show varieties of manifestation of this category which is presented by authors of this classifica- tion. In this work there are considered the most popular both European and Polish thematic classification of lexicon, which are selected not only from dictionaries but also from varieties of researches on vocabulary. In thematic classification it can be observe associated but different meaning of this same term. Anthropocentrism is very often the result of ideological decision of the author of this classification, which human is placed in the centre of divided language universum in the main classification scheme. Anthropocentrism can also be shown in the different way. In many classification schemas in which the topic human isn’t explicitly presented, it’s manifested implicitly as the main term, due to the fact that thematic fields are chosen just from the perspective of human experience, which mirrors anthropocentric character of vocabulary and its varieties. So anthropocentrism in the second mining has majority in numbers of fields immediately considered man topic, even in the divisions presenting scientific vison od reality. It’s also difficult to state which fields are the measure of anthropocentrism. In the opinion of some linguistic researchers, sometimes the precise order of the fields becomes the proof of anthropocentrism. These statements are more vivid if they are compared with thematic classifications conducted from the scientific or theocentric point of view. The discussion regarding anthropocentrism of thematic classifications in vocabulary is important, because the understanding of the above described term often can influence on the researcher’s conclusions.