Peculiar features of the subject lingvoculture

Language and culture are two semiotic systems that closely collaborate with each other and take a significant part in the EFL learning/teaching process.

Some general features are peculiar for both language and culture. They are as follows: 1) the forms that create and remove people’s (world) outlook; 2) individual and public forms of existence. Such features as norm and historical method of studying linguistic signs can be applied to both phenomena as language is one of the components of culture, a specific transmitter of national mentality. At the same time there is a considerable difference between them as language being a means of communication is oriented to the mass addressee, while the specific feature of culture is its exclusiveness; unlike language culture cannot be self-organized.

The term “lingvoculture” means a discipline that studies a display, reflection and fixing of culture in the language, connected with the study of national picture of the world and language consciousness. The fundamental objective of lingvoculture is the analysis of intercommunication as well as cooperation of culture and language in the process of their functioning and study of interpretation of this cooperation in a systematic integrity.

The leading Russian linguist V.А. Maslova distinguishes the following subjects of lingvoculture: 1) non-equivalent vocabulary and compartement; 2) mythical language units: archetypes, ceremonies and popular beliefs, rituals and customs observed in the language; 3) paremiological fund of language; 4) funds of phraseological units of language; 5) standards, stereotypes, symbols; 6) metaphors and images of language; 7) stylistic mode of languages; 8) language behavior; 9) the area of language etiquette.

Prysyazhnyuk H.

(Vinnytsia)

Review of translation methods in phraseology

Analysis of scientific sources showed that foreign scientists A.V. Kunin and S. Vlahov divide phraseological units (PhU) into two groups:

1) PhU with the equivalent in target language;

2) Non equivalent PhU (PhU with no steady-state equivalents at phraseological level in receptor language).

Thus, researchers Y. A. Baran, S. Vlahov, V. N. Komisarov, I. V. Korunets, O. V. Kunin, K. O. Martynkevych offer to translate PhU of first group by complete phraseological equivalent, which is similar by the lexical content and grammatical construction with the PhU of source language.

Y. Baran, S. Vlahov, I. Korunets, A. Kunin consider also partial phraseological equivalent, the meaning of source language of which is similar to the meaning of PhU in target language, but only in its shape, metaphorical it is different.

Russian linguist A. Kunin distinguishes selective phraseological equivalent.

Such scientists as S. Vlahov, V. N. Komissarov, I. Korunets, K. A. Martynkevych distinguish phraseological analogue, which in its content, stylistic characteristic coincide with the PhU of original language, but differs from its lexical content and grammatical structure.

A. Kunin focuses on calque with full or partial equivalents and poits out that the literal translation is particularly important when the image contained in the PhU, is required for understanding the text and replacing it with another image does not provide sufficient effect. Scientists V. N. Komissarov, A. Kunin, K. O. Martynkevych offer to translate non-equivalent PhU by calque. and mark that this method of translation allows to carry non-equivalent PhU in langeage at the maximally complete maintainance of semantic meaning.

Thus, we conclude that in works of leading scholars are the following ways: phraseological equivalent, phraseological analogue, calque, descriptive translation.

Rymar O.

(Vinnytsia)

Controversial points of the modality of a text.

One of the main aspects of modality is its differentiation into objective and subjective one.

Objective – expresses the connection between a statement and reality.

Subjective – suggests the author’s assessment understanding in a broader sense, including not only the logical skills, but also various kinds of emotional reactions.

Objective modality is created with the help of modal verbs, and words that convey the meanings of probability, suggestions, orders, etc.; in the second case modality is expressed by specific modal words, particles, interjections.

The researchers note that the objective modality is obligatory for any statement, and the subjective modality is optional.

Subjective textual modality belongs to the controversial and not carefully investigated categories of modern linguistics; although it is one of the key categories in the literary work analysis. It is observed in close connection with the author's point of view, with the notion of the subject of a narration, and with the implementation of author’s picture (model) of the world in the text.

It can be asserted that the subjective modality is the characteristic of each literary text, even if it does not contain any lingual means of the author’s modality.

The subjective author’s modality is considered to be a category in which the personality of the author is embodied. The subjective modality is a central category of the conceptual fiction text.

The author’s individual concept of the world is one of the most important of all semantic components of the text contents, because any work is a subjective image of the objective world of reality.

Shlapak A.

(Vinnitsa)