Учебное пособие 1715

References

[1]Moura, J.-M. « La francophonie littéraire: quelle diversité et quelle cohérence? » Francophonie au pluriel. Dirs. K. Justin Bisanswa et Tétu, Michel / J.-M. Moura. - Québec :

CIDEF-AFI, 2003 – Pp. 93-94.

[2]Borozdina, P.A. V dvuh izmerenijah: Sovremennoe dvujazychnoe tvorchestvo / P. A. Borozdina // Vestnik Voronezh. gos. univ-ta. Ser. 1. Gumanitar. nauki. – Voronezh, 1996. - Vyp. 2. - S. 78-82.

[3]Kassirer, Je. Izbrannoe. Opyt o cheloveke / Je. Kassirer. - M.: Nauka, 1998. – S. 595-

596.

[4]Todorov, T. La littérature en péril / T. Todorov. - P. : Flammarion - 2006 – 36 p.

[5]Maalouf, A. Nos langues et nous / A. Maalouf. - L’Orient-Le Jour – Beyrouth, 2002. -

№10589. – P. 1.

[6]Deroy, L. L’Emprunt linguistique / L. Deroy. – P. : Les Belles Lettres, 1980. – 480 p.

[7]Guiraud, P. Les Mots étrangers / P. Guiraud. – P. : P.U.F. Collection « Que-sais-je »,

1971. – 111 p.

[8]Abdelkebir, K. Du bilinguisme, Collectif, essai. – P. : Denoël, 1985. – 27 p.

Analyzed sources

[1*] Troyat, H. La lumière des justes. La barynia / H. Troyat. – P. : Flammarion, 1976. – 207 p.

[2*] Maalouf, A. Le Rocher de Tanios. / A. Maalouf. – P. : Grasset. - P. 2.

Dictionaries used

[1**] Le Nouveau Petit Robert // Josette Rey-Debove et Alain Rey. – P. : Dictionnaires le Robert, 1994. – 2467 p.

[2**] Ozhegov, S.I., Shvedova N.Ju. Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka / S.I. Ozhegov. –

M.: OOO «ITI Tehnologii», 2008. – S. 944.

74

UDC 81-13

PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE ZOOMORPHIC CODE OF CULTURE "BEAR" IN THE IDIOMS AND APHORISMS IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

N. Ghezaili

____________________________________________________________________________

Algiers University 2 named after Abu Elkassem Saad Allah,

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Teacher of Russian Language, Deputy Dean on Scientific Research of the Faculty of Arabic Philology and the Eastern Languages

Nadia Ghezaili

e-mail: pawug2007@mail.ru

____________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. This paper is devoted to the pragmatic analysis of the zoomorphic code of culture "bear" in phraseological units and aphorisms based on the material of the Russian language. The author of the article within the framework of communicative-pragmatic linguistics reveals the image of a "bear" represented in phraseological units and aphorisms of the Russian language and analyzes the perception and speech impact of this image on the native speakers of Russian culture.

Results. Phraseological and aphoristic material with the zoononym "bear" is collected. The article defines the concept of “zoomophistic code of culture”, explores the nature and functions of phraseological units and aphorisms. The pragmatic value of these language units is revealed. The image of a “bear” in phraseological units and aphorisms on the material of the Russian language is described in detail and its perception and speech impact on the native speakers of Russian culture in and out of context is analyzed.

Conclusion. Phraseological units and aphorisms have a clearly expressed communicative and pragmatic potential, which is revealed in the speech act in a certain context. Phraseological units and aphorisms are used by the speaker in speech not so much to denote certain objects, phenomena, situations, as to show their attitude to the interlocutor, to influence him/her. This is achieved due to the image contained in phraseological units and aphorisms, i.e. the internal form. From our point of view, it is the zoomorphic code of culture that best represents a particular nation. The image of a "bear" is an integral part of Russian culture. The national-cultural specificity of phraseological units and aphorisms with the zoonym bear is determined by the denotation, connotation, or background. In a pragmatic sense, phraseological units and aphorisms fulfill various expressive meanings. Based on the considered examples, we have found that the image of a "bear" in phraseological units and aphorisms combines quite contradictory connotations among Russian culture speakers as a sense of admiration, pride, arrogance, on the one hand, and distrust, irony, fear, and caution, on the other.

Key words: pragmatics, phraseologism, aphorism, culture code, bear, zoomorphic, zoononym, image, context.

For citation: Ghezaili N. Pragmatic analysis of the zoomorphic code of culture "bear" in the idioms and aphorisms in the Russian language / N. Ghezaili // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2020. - № 2 (29). – P. 75 - 84.

Introduction.

Language, being the main tool of human communication, is intended for naming the reality that is reflected in the human mind.

In this regard V. G. Gak considers three levels in the functioning of the language: "the level of reality, the level of thinking "content plan" and the level of language "expression plan" [1, p. 274].

Phraseological units and aphorisms as an inseparable part of the vocabulary of any language are directly related to the national culture of the native speaker.

In addition, the role of phraseological units and aphorisms in the process of speech act and information transfer is extremely large. The study of these language units is of great interest in the framework of communicative and pragmatic linguistics.

___________________

© Ghezaili N., 2020

75

The pragmatic value of phraseological units and aphorisms lies in their originality and individuality. "But the individual — as it is not strange-is a particularly strong cementing solution in the interaction of peoples and their cultures, because it is the national "currency" in the cultural exchange of peoples" [2, p. 5].

Thus, it seems interesting and appropriate to decipher the zoomorphic code of the "bear" culture in phraseological units and aphorisms based on the material of the Russian language and analyze its speech impact on the native speakers of this culture.

Research methodology.

The subject of our study are idioms and aphorisms with zoononym "bear", the object of research is the disclosure of the zoomorphic code of culture "bear" in the idioms and aphorisms in the Russian language and the analysis of speech influence on the carriers of Russian culture.

The material of the study was the examples taken from the Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language, ed. By V.I. Molotkova [1**], from the "Dictionary of Russian sayings and proverbs" by V.P. Zhukov [2**], from the Dictionary of Russian Sayings by V.M. Mokienko and T.G. Nikitina [3**], from the " Linguistic and Regional Dictionary" under the editorship of Yu.E. Prokhorova [4 **], from electronic resources [5**; 6**; 7**; 8**; 9**].

When analyzing phraseological units and aphorisms with the zoomorphic code of the "bear" culture, we used the communicative-pragmatic method, the observation method, the component analysis method, and the continuous sampling method.

Research result.

Phraseological and aphoristic material with the zoononym "bear" is collected. The article defines the concept of “zoomophistic code of culture”, explores the nature and functions of phraseological units and aphorisms. The pragmatic value of these language units is revealed.

The image of the “bear” in phraseological units and aphorisms on the material of the Russian language is revealed in detail and its perception and speech impact on native speakers of Russian culture in and out of context are analyzed. There is no doubt that there is a close relationship between language and culture. This concept was first developed by V. Humboldt, who created the triad of the relationship between language, thinking and culture: "the study of language does not contain an ultimate goal, but together with all other areas serves the highest and General goal of mankind's knowledge of itself and its relationship to everything visible and hidden around it" [3, p.114].

Continuing to develop the ideas of the German scientist, outstanding Russian linguists made a great contribution to the study of the mechanisms of preserving and transmitting cultural signs through language units (N. D. Arutyunova (1976), E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov (1982), Yu.A. Apersyan (1995), A. Vezhbitskaya (1997), Yu. S.Stepanov (1997), Yu. N. Karaulov (2000)).

Along with cultural studies, at the end of the twentieth century, a number of hybrid disciplines were born: psycholinguistics, neuro-linguistics, linguostatistics, psychosemantics, computer linguistics, etc. However, "the most promising for the constructive development of scientific thought are anthropocentric formations of marginal origin. Such anthropocentric marginalities include, first of all, communicative and pragmatic linguistics" [4, p.217].

Pragmatics covers all issues related to the study of the mechanism of speech influence and relations between speakers. It should be recalled that CH. Morris, studying in detail the theory of signs, reinterpreted and clarified the term "pragmatics", defining it as a discipline that studies "the relationship of signs to their interpreters" [5, p. 18].

In this regard, R. A. Budagov notes that " when uttering words such as bread or home, joy or sorrow, no one who speaks Russian as their native language will need a special context to understand them. The question is that in certain special cases, the context can give such words an additional, even unexpected meaning, but all this, of course, can not change the basic meanings of words that everyone understands. Otherwise, language could not be a means of communication" [6, p. 125].

76

According to A. A. Leontiev, "a typical speech utterance is a statement that somehow regulates the behavior of another person" [7, p. 135]. Consequently, pragmatics is closely related to the" theory of speech acts", justified by J. R. Tolkien. Austin and George Searle. Analyzing the components of a speech act, scientists distinguish "locative act (the act of uttering something), illocutive (the act that we carry out when uttering (something) and perlocutive act (the implementation of certain effects, deliberate or deliberate through this utterance" [8, p.2226].

In the special scientific literature, it is emphasized that phraseological units and aphorisms "are completely focused on objects, phenomena, actions and qualities of reality" [9, p.105].

They perform several functions simultaneously:

-nominative function, since they name a particular object, phenomenon, characterize situations, etc.;

-aesthetic function, since these language units adorn the speaker's speech, making it more imaginative, expressive and emotional;

-cumulative, or cumulative function, since they are the custodians of certain information associated with the history, culture, and mentality of the people.

According to V. V. Kolesov, "mentality is a worldview in the categories and forms of the native language, combining in the process of learning the intellectual, spiritual and volitional qualities of the national character in its typical manifestations" [10, p. 81].

We note that aphorisms include Proverbs, sayings, winged expressions, i.e. "phrases that are known to everyone and therefore are not created anew in speech, but are extracted from memory" [11, p.88].

It should also be emphasized that the linguistic nature of phraseology is somewhat different from aphorism, i.e. "the content of the sentence —proverb is based on a judgment, while the lexical meaning of phraseology is based on one or another concept" [1**, p.16].

It should be noted that using phraseological units or aphorisms in speech, the speaker does not so much seek to designate certain objects, phenomena, situations, as to show their attitude to the interlocutor, cause him to react, emotions, and therefore influence him. This is achieved due to the image contained in phraseological units and aphorisms, i.e. the internal form.

The concept of "internal form" was introduced by A. A. Potebney and was then widely developed in the late 20s-30s of the XX century in the works of philologists engaged in poetic speech [12].

The definition of this concept by O. G. Vinokur is very significant. "The main feature of poetic language as a special language function is precisely that this 'broader' or 'more distant' content does not have its own separate sound form, but uses instead the form of another, literally understood content. Thus, the form here is the content. One content that is expressed in a sound form is the form of another content that does not have a special sound expression. This is why this form is often called the internal form" [13, p. 390].

As for the internal form of phraseological units and aphorisms, it manifests itself in the merging of two planes — form and content, in which an imaginative, expressive vision of meaning appears, accompanied by such an element as connotation, which is "the product of emotional and evaluative perception and emotional representation of reality in the nomination processes" [14, p.34].

Thanks to connotation, the pragmatic intent of these units is maximally achieved, since "the connotative micro-component of meaning characterizes the speaker and listener in terms of their emotional state" [4, p.225-226].

The internal form of some idioms and aphorisms can be inferred from the meanings of their constituent words, so it is transparent, and in others it is dark, "the integral value of these units is not output from the component values, and is motivated internally (inner form), which

77

is subject to decoding" [2**, p. 14]. For example: "bear's paw = medvezh'ja lapa", i.e. cactus [4**, p. 353]; "it smells like a bear = pahnet medvedem" - it is said about something that causes disgust [4**, p. 393]; "to crush the bear = davit' medvedja" — to sleep soundly, to be idle [4**, p. 393]. As the following examples show, the values of phraseological units do not correspond at all to the sum of the values of their components.

In addition, the implicit content of phraseology and aphorism, i.e. their internal form, has a national and cultural significance, which can be expressed both by all components of the composition of language units, and dissociated.

Thus, phraseological units and aphorisms have a clearly expressed communicative and pragmatic potential, which is revealed in the speech act in a certain context. The more intense the connection between the speech act and the context, the more the role of pragmatics increases.

Various concepts are captured in phraseological units and aphorisms. Let us recall that the concept is a basic concept in linguoculturology, which is considered "a clot of culture in the human mind" [15, p. 43]. According to G. V. Tokarev, "the concept is objective and historically determined" [16, p. 12].

The totality of cultural concepts makes up the national picture of the world. G. V. Tokarev identifies various ways to verbalize cultural concepts through such cultural codes as anthropomorphic, actional, biomorphic, etc. [16, p. 97-133].

The term "culture code" was introduced into Russian linguistics by S. M. Tolstoy during the study of Slavic rites.

Describing the term, S. M. Tolstaya reveals that "code elements that have their own specific" pre-code "meaning are reused in the code to designate other objects and entities" [17, p. 336].

Any culture code carries a certain semantic load, which is passed from generation to generation and is learned automatically by native speakers without decryption.

So, our choice of the zoomorphic code of culture is not accidental. The zoomorphic code of culture as an inseparable part of the language picture of the world contributes to the identification of national-specific features. The zoomorphic code of culture is understood by us as an imaginative representation or metaphorization of the animal world to characterize a person. As M. R. Miloud correctly notes, metaphor contributes to the birth of language units, "which are based on words related to a person and the world around him, to what a person usually sees around him" [18, p. 176].

From our point of view, it is the "animal world" that best represents a particular culture. It is significant that each nation is symbolized by its chosen animal. For Russian culture, this symbol is a bear.

Let's analyze what the zoonym "bear" reflects in phraseological units and aphorisms, and how it is perceived and used by native speakers of Russian culture.

The image of the bear as an integral part of Russian folklore is present in fables, fairy tales, tall tales, legends, songs, in fiction, in art. The image of the bear can be seen on Souvenirs, badges, and various items of everyday life of Russians. Its popularity is so great that it became the emblem of the 1980 Olympic games in Moscow. The charming mascot won the whole world with its good-natured smile.

Thus, this image is widely spread in Russian phraseological units and aphorisms.

We will try to reveal the image of the "bear" in phraseological units and aphorisms and its perception and impact on the native speakers of Russian culture on the basis of concrete examples taken from a specific context and out of context.

Note that the word "bear = medved'" from "honey-eating = mjod edjashhij", "honeyeater = medoed" is a Slavic neoplasm. This was due to the fact that in ancient times people did not call the bear, but used substitute words, i.e. euphemisms. It was believed that if you call an animal by its name, it will immediately appear [5**].

78

The Russians affectionately nicknamed their bear Mishka, Kosolap, Mikhail Ivanovich / Potapovich, or General Toptygin. A predatory animal, inhabitant and Keeper of significant forest areas of Russia, the bear acts as the owner of the forest for Russians. This is stated in the following aphorism "a Bear in the forest is like a boyar in the city = Medved' v lesu — chto bojarin v gorodu" [6**].

The pragmatic purpose of this aphorism is to evoke in the recipient a certain sense of admiration, worship for this unapproachable beast.

As mentioned above, phraseological units and aphorisms are culturally rich. The nationalcultural specificity of phraseological units and aphorisms is determined by their direct meaning, i.e. denotation, connotation or background, i.e. " knowledge present in the consciousness of a person and the community of people to which this individual belongs ... and well emphasizes the essence of the matter: the knowledge we are talking about is stored in the memory of the person and, accordingly, the team, but their actualization depends on the need, the need for them and proceeds not simultaneously, but sequentially" [11, p.57].

The components of this aphorism entail a whole set of information associated with the word "bear", i.e. background knowledge.

The bear, especially the brown bear, is omnivorous and, despite its deceptive clumsy appearance, it moves quite quickly on land, swims well and climbs trees with unusual ease in finding prey. That's why they talk about it: "The bear is clumsy, but he is a big man" [6**], in other words, appearance can be deceptive. This aphorism has a clear positive pragmatic orientation, causing a sense of pride in the power of this beast.

Note that the image of the bear originated in Russian gradually, starting from the XV century. First, the West begins to think of the bear as a "Russian beast"; then the bear turns into a marker "Moskowina", and Russia - a country where bears live; finally, this Association of the country with the bear acquires a conceptual dimension: this begins to explain the nature of its inhabitants and the policy of its authorities [19].

According to beliefs, the bear traces its origin to a man who was converted by God into a bear as punishment for killing his parents [5**]. Hence the Slavs associated the bear with evil spirits.

The bear remains a wild and therefore unpredictable animal, so they say: "Be friends with the bear, but hold on to the gun = S medvedem druzhis', a za ruzh'jo derzhis' " [6**]. The pragmatic purpose of this aphorism is to Express a hidden sense of distrust for the bear in the literal sense and for someone in the figurative sense.

In the minds of the Russian people, the bear is associated primarily with strength and power. The superiority of the bear over other animals has no shadow of doubt for the Russian man. This is evidenced by the aphorism "a Bear is not a cow's brother = Medved' korove ne brat" [6**].

The pragmatic function of this aphorism is a reminder of the incompatibility of the named animals in the literal sense, in the implicit expression of the arrogance of the bear.

In this regard, Karl Marx allegorically noted: "the Russian bear is capable of anything, especially when it knows that other animals with which it has to deal are incapable of anything" [20, p.172-173].

The following aphorism repeats about bear intolerance: "Bears are bad neighbors = Medvedi — plohie sosedi" [6**]. The pragmatics of this aphorism is aimed at expressing a sense of apprehension and caution.

Being a predator, the bear is not capable of peaceful neighborhood. A bear and her cubs usually spend the winter in the den, and a bear hibernates in its den. Hence the aphorism "Two bears in one den will not get along = Dva medvedja v odnoj berloge ne uzhivutsja" [6**].

Let's consider this example:

79

"...He was too arrogant, and he sat on my neck...two bears can't live in the same den

(dvum medvedjam ne zhit' v odnoj berloge)" A. Ostrovsky "Governor". Prologue 4. [1**].

The speaker puts the addressee rather sharply in their place. The aphorism in this context receives a negative pragmatic orientation. The speaker, using this aphorism, insists on the fact that there can be no room for two masters under the same roof.

However, the excessive strength of the bear is mocked in the phraseology "bear stepped on the ear = medved' na uho nastupil", i.e. not to have a musical ear [1**]. For example:

"Staff-captain Leshchenko, you are false! You have a bear stepped on the ear (Vam medved' na uho nastupil)! Shut up! "A. I. Kuprin "Duel" [1**, p. 240].

As can be seen from this example, the pragmatic orientation of phraseology is carried out in the manifestation of an emotional-evaluative attitude of the speaker, who expresses his irritation and disapproval of the addressee. In a closer context, we find that the relationship between communicants is not equal. The speaker, who is superior in his status, asks in an imperative tone to stop the musical performance of the addressee. Using the phraseology "bear stepped on the ear = medved' na uho nastupil", the speaker is ironic, emphasizing the complete lack of musical hearing of the addressee.

However, the same phraseology in a different context can also acquire a humorous assessment. For example:

"Andrey Andreich performs "La Marseillaise" and "Internationale" quite well. He likes to sing, but there is no hearing; Nina Yakovlevna laughs at him: "you have a bear stepped on the ear". V. Shishkov "Surly river" [1*].

From this context, we conclude that the phraseology "bear stepped in the ear" fulfills its pragmatic potential, expressing in a joking form still friendly attitude of the speaker to a third person.

So, phraseological units and aphorisms perform a certain communicative function. For example:

"It's interesting, Nina: we count the fish long before it gets to us. The herring is still walking somewhere in the sea and does not suspect that it has already irrevocably entered into the plan of our production, that vats and barrels are already prepared for it..." — What is it?" - About how to divide the skin of an unkillable bear". A. Chakovsky "We have already morning" [1**, p. 132].

Interpreting the pragmatic information when using the phraseology "to share the skin of an unkillable bear = delit' shkuru neubitogo medvedja" in this context, we deduce its ironic use by the subject of speech, who strongly doubts the results of production.

The phraseology "to share the skin of an unkillable bear = delit' shkuru neubitogo medvedja" goes back to the famous fable "the Bear and two companions" by the French fabulist and poet J. La Fontaine [3**]. It tells the story of how two friends, in need of money, sold the promised skin of an unkillable bear to a neighbor furrier. They did not keep the promise for the simple reason that when they met the bear, their heart sank with fear [7**].

Again, the components of this phraseology reflect the peculiarities of the way of life of the Russian people. Bear hunting has long been associated with Russian people not only with satisfying their needs, but also had a sacred character. Normally "awoke in the den of a sleep-

80

ing bear, the hunter rested the blunt end of trouble in the ground, and sharp was put in front of him, an angry bear being confrontational and died, hence the expression "look for trouble = lezt' na rozhon", i.e. to do anything risky with very little chance of success" [11, p. 109].

With a bear, jokes are bad, so it was believed that "If someone goes to the bear, it means that he is already an experienced hunter" [3**, p. 353].

In addition, the bear skin is still very valuable. In the old days, the fur of bears was used to fumigate the sick. A sick child was dragged through the bear's jaw. It was believed that the one who eats a bear's heart will be cured of all diseases [5**].

The image of a bear also evokes in the Russian mind the idea of an alienated, mysterious beast. This is evidenced by the phraseology "bear corner = medvezhij ugol" (meaning remote, remote place) [1**, p. 489]. This expression spread after the publication of the story of the same name by P. I. Melnikov-Pechersky [2**], in which the deaf city is named. The author is based on the names that have existed since ancient times (bear corner = medvezhij ugol), referring to small settlements. As a toponym, this phrase is already found in monuments of the XIVXVII centuries. But there is another explanation for the expression: the Bear corner was called Yaroslavl, whose coat of arms shows a bear [8**].

Let's analyze the following example:

"He will have to live in the wilderness-engineers build mainly in bear corners, far from cities". V. Azhaev "Far from Moscow" [1**, p. 489].

In this context, the expression is used by the addressee with clear disapproval and sympathy for a person who is destined to change his place of residence for professional reasons. The context in which this phraseology is used emphasizes its pragmatic setting.

So, the image of a bear does not always cause a positive impression among the bearers of Russian culture. He is credited with such shortcomings as gluttony and laziness: "the Bear eats a cow, and all winter the paw sucks = Medved' po korove zhrjot, a vsju zimu lapu sosjot" [6**]. The expression "to suck a paw = okazat' medvezh'ju uslugu" means to live poor, half-starved [4**, p. 350].

The pragmatic function of this aphorism is to show disapproval of the beast, its way of life, causing a negative reaction to it.

The bear for a Russian person is not very clever. This disadvantage is captured in the aphorism "to render a disservice", i.e. a service that brings damage instead of benefit [9**].

The expression "bear service = medvezh'ja usluga" comes from Krylov's fable "the Hermit and the bear = Pustynnik i medved'", which tells how the Bear, wishing to sincerely render a service to his friend the hermit, finished him off for his stupidity [9**].

Let's consider this aphorism in the following example:

"Yes, it was a funny story, — he said, still smiling. — I have been laughing all morning in a curious fit of hysteria at knowing that he is absurd, and laughing at him in my heart, and at the same time weeping. In our nervous age, we are slaves to our nerves, they are our masters and do with us what they want. Civilization in this respect has done us a disservice... "A. P. Chekhov "Duel", 1981 [9**].

As can be seen from the speech situation, the recipient of the speech evaluates a fact of life. The pragmatic meaning of the aphorism "bear service" is to express the emotional state of annoyance, desperation, and some irony of the speaker.

Analyzing the image of the "bear" in Russian culture, it is impossible not to mention the ancient traditional rite in Russia, which consisted in the performance of leaders with the socalled "scientific bears", which attracted a lot of people who were waiting for them with great

81

impatience. This custom formed the basis of the aphorism "the bear dances, and the gypsy takes money = Medved' pljashet, a cygan den'gi berjot" [6**].

Pragmatically, the aphorism is aimed at forming a negative attitude and a sense of injustice and implicit condemnation of the person who exploits the animal.

In the performance of the bear, as a rule, "accompanied by a dancing boy dressed as a goat, and a drummer who beat a drum, as if accompanying this dance. This was the "goat drummer = kozy barabanshhik", hence the expression "retired goat drummer = отставной козы барабанщик", i.e. a person who does not deserve any attention [1**, p. 33].

Bears imitated the actions of people, i.e. they walked on their hind legs, danced, etc., which amused the audience and caused positive emotions. At the end of the performance, the bears walked around the audience with a hat and collected money and food.

"Many written testimonies relate to the ХIX century. Separate mentions of bears with leaders can be found in documents of the XVII century" [21]. This entertainment is humorously described By N. A. Nekrasov in the famous poem "General Toptygin" [4**].

So, these aphorisms differ in semantic ambiguity, i.e. they can simultaneously be used both in a literal sense and in a figurative one.

A pragmatic analysis of the zoomorphic cultural code "bear" in phraseological units and aphorisms shows, firstly, that these language units are sources of valuable linguistic and cultural information. Secondly, the image of the bear is particularly significant for the bearers of Russian culture, who associate it with power, power, and inaccessibility. This zoonym reflects the peculiarities of the natural and geographical environment of Russia. Thirdly, the phraseological units and aphorisms with the zoonym" bear " contain the qualities and disadvantages of this animal, so the communicative and pragmatic task of these language units is to cause both positive and negative reactions in the native speakers of Russian culture.

Conclusion.

In the light of the above, we conclude that phraseological units and aphorisms have a clearly expressed communicative and pragmatic potential, which is revealed in the speech act in a certain context.

Phraseological units and aphorisms are used by the speaker in speech not so much to denote certain objects, phenomena, situations, as to show their attitude to the interlocutor, to influence him. This is achieved due to the image contained in phraseological units and aphorisms, i.e. the internal form.

From our point of view, it is the zoomorphic code of culture that best represents a particular nation. The image of a bear is an integral part of Russian culture. The national-cultural specificity of phraseological units and aphorisms with the zoonym "bear" is determined by the denotation, connotation, or background. In a pragmatic sense, phraseological units and aphorisms have different expressive meanings. Based on the examples discussed above, we have found that the image of the bear in phraseological units and aphorisms combines quite contradictory connotations among Russian culture speakers, such as a sense of admiration, pride, arrogance, on the one hand, and distrust, irony, fear, and warnings, on the other.

References

[1]Gak V.K. K probleme semanticheskoj sintagmatiki // Jazyk preobrazovanija. — M.: "Jazyk russkoj kul'tury", 1998. — S.274.

[2]Mokienko V.M. Obrazy russkoj rechi: Istoriko-jetimologicheskie i jetnolingvisticheskie ocherki frazeologii. L.: Izd-vo Leningr. un-ta, 1986. — S.5.

[3]Gumbol'dt V. Izbrannye stat'i po jazykoznaniju. M., 2001. — S.114.

[4]Alefirenko N.F. Sovremennye problemy nauki o jazyke: ucheb. posobie/ N.F. Alefirenko. — 5-e izd., ster. — M.: FLINTA: Nauka, 2016. — 416s.

[5]Morris Ch.U. Osnovanija teorii znakov // Semiotika. M., 1983. — C.18.

82

[6]Budagov R.A. Jazyk i kul'tura: Hrestomatija: V 3ch. — M., 2001. — Ch1: Teorija i praktika. — 192s.

[7]Leont'ev A.A. Psiholingvisticheskie edinicy i porozhdenie rechevogo vyskazyvanija. — M.: Nauka, 1969. — 308s.

[8]Ostin Dzh.L. Slovo kak dejstvie // Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Vyp. 17: Teorija rechevyh aktov. — M., 1986. — S. 22 - 26.

[9]Ghezaili N. Uchebnik v prepodavanii russkogo jazyka kak inostrannogo v Alzhirskom universitete: vchera, segodnja, zavtra / N. Ghezaili // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh. -stroit. un-ta. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija.

—2018. vyp.2 (38). — S. 103 - 115.

[10]Kolesov V.V. "Zhizn' proishodit ot slova...". SPB.: Zlatoust, 1999. — S.81.

[11]Potebnja A.A. Iz lekcii po teorii slovesnosti: Basnja. Poslovica. Pogovorka. —Izd. 5-e. — M.: SSSR, Krasand, 2012. — 168s.

[12]Vinokur O.G. Izbrannye raboty po russkomu jazyku. — M.: Uchpedgiz, 1959. —

S. 390.

[13]Telija V.M. Russkaja frazeologija. Semanticheskij, pragmaticheskij i lingvokul'turologicheskij aspekt. — M., 1996. — S.34.

[14]Vereshhagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. Jazyk i kul'tura: lingvostranovedenie v prepodavanii russkogo kak inostrannogo. M., 1982; 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. — M., 1983. — S.88.

[15]Stepanov Ju.S. Slovar' russkoj kul'tury. — M., 1997. — S.225-226.

[16]Tokarev G.V. Koncept kak ob#ekt lingvokul'turologii (na materiale reprezentacij koncepta "trud" v russkom jazyke). Volgograd: Peremena, 2003. — S. 12-133.

[17]Tolstaja S.M. Prostranstvo slova. Leksicheskaja semantika v obshheslavjanskoj perspektive / S.M. Tolstaja. — M.: Indrik, 2008. — 528s.

[18]Miloud M.R., Ghezaili N. Leksiko-semanticheskij sposob obrazovanija russkih terminov neftegazovoj promyshlennosti // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. 2017. vyp. 1 (33). S. 171 – 180.

[19]Hrustaljov D. Proishozhdenie russkogo medvedja. NLO. 2011. Nomer1. — S.107.

[20]Marks K. Russkaja politika po otnosheniju k Turcii. - Rabochee dvizhenie Anglii // Marks K., Jengel's F. Sochinenija. T.9. — M.: Politizdat, 1957. — S. 172 - 173.

[21]Rogozova V. Kak medvedi na Rusi chestnoj narod veselili? Kul'tura, iskusstvo, istorija. Shkola zhizni.ru (18.03.2009). Data obrashhenija (25 dekabrja 2012).

Analyzed sources

[1*] V.Ja.Shishkov. Ugrjum-reka, URL: www.lib.ru>HIST>shishkov_reka (vremja obrashhenija – 25.05.20).

Dictionaries used

[1**] Vojnova L.A., Zhukov V.P., Molotkov A.I. Frazeologicheskij slovar' russkogo jazyka / Pod red. A.I. Molotkova. 3-e izd, stereop. — M., 1978. — 543s.

[2**] Zhukov V.P. Slovar' russkih poslovic i pogovorok. 2-e izd. ster. — M.: Sovetskaja jenciklopedija, 1967. — C.14.

[3**] Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T.G. Bol'shoj slovar' russkih pogovorok. — M.: ZAO "OLMA Media Grupp", 2007. — 784s.

[4**] Rossija: Bol'shoj Lingvostranovedcheskij Slovar', pod redakciej Prohorova Ju.E.,

— M.: Ast-press, 2007. — S.353.

83