Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Lexicology. Practical Course. Лексикология. Практический курс. Учебное пособие
.pdf
while traveling, communicating with foreigners, etc. And, conversely, we
understand the peculiarities of a foreign culture when comparing it with our
own. It is the same with the language.
When analyzing the reflection of cultural factors in a language, it is
necessary to take into account that the cultures of different peoples interact
with each other. There are cultural phenomena that are common to people
speaking different languages. A. Wierzbicka believes that the only words
that do not depend on a specific culture are the lexical universals of words
that name basic concepts that are common to all peoples: good, bad, to
want, to know, to feel, to think, to say, etc.
Despite the connection between the semantics of all other words that do
not belong to lexical universals, with the culture of the people, it is possible
to distinguish groups of words in which cultural specifics appear most
clearly. These include, firstly, words denoting various objects of material
culture, typical for the people (realities), e.g. hedge, clogs, pudding, ale,
mantel-piece, penny, pound, etc. The names of realities can also include the
names of various entertainment establishments, games, favorite activities:
pub, golf, cricket, fox-hunting, etc.
The word mantel-piece denotes such an integral characteristic of
English everyday culture as a shelf above the fireplace, on which various
dear trinkets are placed. Pudding and ale are traditional English dish and
drink since before the Roman invasion, and they still drink it. The
importance of pudding not only in national cuisine, but also in
understanding the world is evidenced by a number of proverbs: Praise is not
pudding; The proof of the pudding is in the eating; A gentleman without an
estate is like a pudding without suet.
In addition to the names of realities, there are words that name nationalspecific abstract concepts, e.g. privacy, identity, self. What is their
specificity? The word privacy means personal space, the personal world of a
person, free from outside interference and encroachments (privacy the state
of bеіng аlоne аnd nоt watched or disturbed by other people). The
importance of personal independence and the readiness to defend it are very
essential for the English-speaking culture. In the Russian language, on the
contrary, there is no one-word name for this concept; the meanings of this
word can be conveyed only descriptively and rather approximately. It is just
as difficult to convey in Russian the full semantics of the words identity
(who or what somebody is) and ѕеlf (the type of person you are). These
three words very clearly illustrate the importance of the individual, his own
161
“I” in the English-speaking culture. National specificity in the field of
phraseology is especially clearly manifested, e.g. a stiff upper lip – a firm
resolve coupled with a suppression of the emotions. The dictionary adds as
commentary: a supposed traditional characteristic of the English. It can be
added that the British, at least of the older generation, absolutely agree with
the consideration of this characteristic as a typical English one.
There are also words denoting nationally colored abstract concepts,
such as love, fate, death, presented in any linguistic worldview, but, as a
rule, with the specific cultural colouring. These concepts are interpreted
somewhat differently in them, they have, to one degree or another, a
different set of connotations, e.g. the English “sad, sadness” in their
semantics are not completely equivalent to the Russian «грусть, печаль».
Cultural factors interact with the mechanism of world cognition. The
laws of cognition are universal and largely determine the similarity of the
worldview reflected in different languages. For example, the inexpediency
of spending a lot of effort to carry out some small business is conveyed in
English and Russian with the help of a single generalized image based on
the opposition of a large instrument and a small object: to crush a fly on a
wheel; to break a butterfly on a wheel; to use a sledge-hammer to craсk a
nut; стрелять из пушки по воробьям. To what extent are the differences
in specific images expressed in an internal form connected with culture or
with cultural differences between peoples? And are they connected at all?
Obviously, if you understand the culture very broadly in the spirit of
A. Wierzbicka, then yes. If we consider that it is imperative to establish a
connection between the differences noted in the language and other cultural
factors, then apparently not. In the above examples (ale, pub, identity, etc.),
such a connection could be established, but in this case it is difficult.
The worldview of different social groups is reflected in the linguistic
view of the world. So, English proverbs, present the view of the world of a
wealthy person traveling around the world (With Latin, a horse and money,
уоu mау trаvel the world), having castles (A fair wife and a frontier castle
breed quarrels). Russian proverbs, in the overwhelming number of cases,
present the mentality of the peasant – his horse is not a riding one, but, as a
rule, harnessed to a cart (на ретивого коня не кнут, а вожжи), and he
lives in a hut (
не красна изба углами, красна пирогами).
The linguistic worldview is also influenced by the geographic living
conditions of peoples. For example, in the Russian picture of the world
“far” means “far horizontally”, and in the picture of the world of the
162
Balkan peoples “far” is “far vertically”, “high”. This circumstance is
directly related to the geographical conditions of residence: the endlessness
of the Russian steppes, which open space up to the horizon, and the height
of the Balkan Mountains, which hide this horizon, forcing to look up.
The sea has the highest frequency of all the characteristics of the
landscape in English proverbs: It is hard to sail over the sea in an egg-shell;
He that forecasts all perils, will never sаіl the sea. And in Russian proverbs,
the forest comes first: в лесу медведь, а в доме мачеха.
So, the linguistic picture of the world reflects the cognitive, cultural and
social characteristics of the native speaker, as well as the geographical
conditions of their residence. These characteristics are in very close
relationship. In a number of cases, they can be quite simply identified and
described, in a number of cases they have to be considered together,
speaking about the peculiarities of the perception of the world, the
peculiarities of the mentality, reflected in the linguistic worldview, as a
whole.
3. COMPONENTS OF THE LINGUISTIC WORLDVIEW
A person's perception of the external and internal world is manifested at
all levels of the language. At the level of grammatical characteristics and
grammatical constructions, this is especially evident when comparing two or
more languages.
A. Wierzbicka notes that in English, emotions are called mainly with the
help of adjectives (cheerful, merry, unhappy, etc.), there is little emotive
verbs (to grieve, to rejoice). They mainly talk about the emotional state: to
be sad, to be happy. This thing finds its explanation in the fact that it is not
customary to show emotions in the English-speaking culture. Therefore,
emotions do not appear in the language as an action. In the Russian
language there are many emotive verbs: радоваться, тосковать,
ликовать, скучать, злиться, любоваться, etc. They introduce direct
speech (удивился, обрадовался), while in English there are few emotive
verbs that introduce direct speech (to exult, to thunder). This is due to the
fact that in Russian culture, the manifestation of emotions is not prohibited.
Or another example, in English people say “I failed, I succeeded”. The
subject of the action in such sentences is directly indicated and “takes
responsibility” for what happened. In Russian, in situations like this, we say:
у меня не получилось; мне удалось. There is no subject of action “taking
163
responsibility” in them. It is not clear who is to blame for the fact that
something did not work out. But the specificity of the perception of the
world is especially clearly manifested in the material of vocabulary and
phraseology. The importance of the vocabulary for the linguistic worldview
study determined the consideration of this concept and the issues of its study
within the framework of a textbook on lexicology.
We can distinguish three main components of the linguistic worldview:
lexical, phraseological and proverbial. Let's consider some of their
characteristics.
3.1. LEXICAL WORLDVIEW
The analysis of various semantic and thematic groups that form the
vocabulary of the English language allows us to describe the human view of
the world, reflected in the semantics. The number of these groups is very
large. The analysis of metaphorical vocabulary is of paramount interest,
since it allows you to identify and describe the specificity of associative
connections common to people speaking a particular language. For
example, the study of the thematic group “Food / Nutrition” shows which
metaphors and which associative connections are realized in the formation
of derived meanings of words. Thus, we reveal the person's view of the
world through the “prism of products”.
The gastronomic metaphor forms a vast fund of figurative names of a
person, conveying the characteristics of his appearance, physiological states,
behavior, moral and social qualities, e.g. fruit / vegetable – the meaning of
face: apple, berry, nut, fruit, potato, cabbage, bean acquire the meaning of
“a person”; product – woman: dish, tart, cookie, jam, cheese, pancake,
lemon, peach, etc.; fruit / vegetable – stupid man: onion, nut, gooseberry,
vegetable, turnip, pumpkin, prune, cabbage.
The gastronomic metaphor is also productive when naming money. This
is apparently explained by the fact that in the human mind the idea of food
and the idea of money are closely related, since both of these objects are the
source of human energy: lettuce, cabbage, cucumber, wafers, etc.
The gastronomic metaphor is also realized when naming some abstract
concepts: meat (the gist оr meаning of a story, book, play or the like); juice
(the essence of a thing in which its characteristic qualities are found);
peppercorn (an insignificant amount), etc.
164
A detailed description of these and other types of metaphor allows us to
reconstruct a separate fragment of the English lexical worldview, to see
what objects of the external and internal world of a person are associated
with various qualities of food, and to trace how the vision of food and the
world through it changed from era to era.
The lexical worldview is characterized by anthropocentricity.
Describing the world around him, a person compares its structure with the
structure of his own body, finds similarities between parts of his body and
objects of the surrounding world. For example, eye (the hole in the end of
the needle that you put the thread through), neck (a long narrow part of
something, a neck of a bottle, a neck of land), nose (the front part of a
plane, spacecraft), etc.
A zoomorphic metaphor is also widely represented in the lexical
worldview: monkey (a child who is active and likes playing tricks on
people); pig (an unpleasant or offensive person, a person who is dirty or
greedy); bird (a person of a particular type, especially somebody who is
strange or unusual in some way).
The quantitative characteristics of lexical-semantic groups show which
“areas” of the surrounding world are important for a person. The more
significant an object, phenomenon or action, the more different names it
has. So, researchers have found, for example, that there are more words that
name negative emotions than positive ones. This indicates that a person
seeks to differentiate the unpleasant experience as much as possible,
obviously, in order to make it easier to deal with it.
3.2. PHRASEOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW
The phraseology of the English language has a pronounced
anthropocentric character. With the help of phraseological units, a person
describes, first of all, his own appearance, his moods and experiences,
relationships with other people, activities: a dog in the manger (a person
who stops other people from enjoying what he or she cannot use),
to compare notes (to exchange opinions), to dance to somebody's tune
(to do whatever somebody tells you to), like a cat on hot bricks (very
nervous).
Speaking about himself, a person very often draws parallels between his
world and the world of animals, e.g. a bull in a china shop (a clumsy
person); like sheep (of people who do what the others are doing, without
165
thinking for themselves); to have a frog in your throat (to lose your voice or
be unable to speak clearly for a short time).
As in all European languages, there are many phraseological units in
English with the names of parts of the human body (these names are called
somatisms in linguistics). This is also explained by the anthropocentrism of
language: a person constantly draws an analogy between himself and the
world around him, fixing this vision of the world in linguistic signs. For
example, the phraseological units “close / near at hand”. The proximity of
an object or phenomenon in space or time measured against the ability to
reach it with a hand. Spatial distances correlate with the ability of the human
eye to see: “аѕ fаr аѕ an eye can / could ѕее”.
The law and the world get “the eyes”: in the eyes of the law / world
(according to the law / mоst people in the world). A small number of
objects is associated with the number of fingers on the hand and the ability
to count them on the fingers: “tо be аblе tо count somebody / something on
the fingers of your hand” (used to say that the total number of people оr
thіngѕ іѕ vеrу ѕmаll). The emotional state of the person himself, his
relationship with other people is described in phraseological units through
the state and position in space of various parts of the human body: to have /
keep уоur feet on the ground (to have a ѕеnsiblе аnd realistic attitude), to put
your foot down (to be very strict in opposing what someone wishes to do),
to keep your head (to remain calm in a difficult situation), to take something
into your own hands (to deal with a particular situation yourself), to look
down your nose at somebody (to behave in a way that suggests, you think
that you are better than somebody).
Describing himself, a person uses not only metaphors from the animal
world or somatisms, but also resorts to various other images from everyday
life. They involve the surrounding objects, for example, his own house (to
get on like a house on fire – to become friends quickly and have a very
friendly relationship; off the wall – unusual and amusing, slightly crazy; to
hit the roof – to become very angry); clothes (to keep something under your
hat – to keep something secret and not tell anyone else); food (to take the
bread out of somebody's mouth – to take away somebody's job); furniture (to
turn the tables – to сhаngе a situаtiоn); various everyday objects (to get / be
on уоur soapbox – to express the strong opinions that you have about a
particular subject; to throw the book at somebody – to punish somebody
who has committed an offence as severely as possible).
166
The description of the relationship is built, for example, on the images
of fire and water: to be under fire (to be severely criticized); to play with
fire (to act in a way that is not sensible and take dangerous risks); out of the
frying pan into the fire (from a bad situation to one that is worse); to be in
murky waters (to be in a difficult or dangerous situation).
In addition to himself, his relationships and experiences, a person also
describes the world around him, for example, space and time (no room to
swing a cat – not enough space; till the cows come home – for a very long
time, forever); characteristics of objects and phenomena (short and sweet –
pleasant but nоt lаѕting a long time), etc.
In this phraseological interpretation of the world, the anthropocentrism
of the language is also clearly manifested. In the English phraseological
worldview, one can find phraseological units that have parallels in other
languages. For example, to stew in one's own juice (to suffer the natural
consequences of one's own actions) has correspondences in French (cuire
dans son jus), German (im eigenen Saft schmoren), Italian (cuocere nel
prorio bodo). In the Russian language there is a phraseological unit, built on
the same image, but differing from the phraseological units given in its
meaning: вариться в собственном соку – to be left to yourself.
There are phraseological units that express a purely English worldview
and have no parallels in other languages. For example, to be born within
sound of Bow Bells (to be a real Cockney). St Mary-le-Bow Church was
famous for its bell ringing. To be born within earshot of this ringing meant
to be born in the very center of the City of London, and therefore to be a
true Londoner, Cockney.
The national specificity of the worldview is especially clearly revealed
when comparing the phraseological units of two or more languages. We can
trace it, for example, when comparing the phraseological units of the
English and Russian languages, in which there are components – names of
another (third) nation with the stereotyped ideas about it. These
stereotypical representations find their manifestation, in particular, in
phraseology.
Let's compare the English and Russian phraseological units with the
Dutch / Голландский components. First of all, attention is drawn to the fact
that there are much more English phraseological units with “Dutch” than
Russian with «голландский». This is an indirect confirmation that the
Dutch were more familiar to the British than to the Russians. In English,
there are more phraseological units, the semantics of which are based on
167
associative links with some typical (according to the British) personal
characteristics of the Dutch: Dutch courage (the courage еxеrtеd by drink;
the Dutch were considered heavy drinkers), Dutch uncle (a person who
criticizes sharply or reproves severely; the Dutch were noted for their
discipline), Dutch bargain (a one-sided bargain), Dutch talent (more the
result of brawn than brain), etc. As you can see, in English phraseological
units, the Dutch appear as big drunks seeking to solve the case profitably for
themselves to the detriment of another, relying more on their physical
strength than on the mind, strict and demanding.
In the Russian linguistic worldview, the portrait of the Dutch is not so
detailed. Only two phraseological units have imagery: голландский петух –
it is said about a scrappy person; сопля голландская – about a weak-willed
person. Basically, among the stable combinations with the adjective
“Dutch” there are non-descriptive combinations that are idiomatic
(idiomatisms according to A.V. Kunin): голландское полотно,
голландское белье, голландские изразцы, голландская курица (крупная
курица элитной породы), and a number of others. These phrases,
originally denoting certain products manufactured in the Netherlands, later
came to denote certain types of objects with characteristics similar to those
of Dutch objects. For example, Dutch tiles are tiles with the same pattern as
those made in the Netherlands. At the same time, the seme “high quality”
appears in the denotative meaning of the phrase. As you can see, the
Russians were more familiar with the products from the Netherlands than
the Dutch themselves.
3.3. PROVERBIAL WORLDVIEW
The proverbial worldview is a real proverbial portrait of the world with
its own space and time. The proverbs represent various characteristics of the
landscape: sea, river (even a weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea);
hill, mountain, valley (great winds blow upon high hills); wood (he that
fears leaves, let him not go into the wood). A large number of foreign
countries and cities are mentioned in English proverbs. The English
proverbial “world map” is very wide: it contains most of the countries of
Western Europe (France, Spain, Italy, etc.), China, Egypt (French leave –
departure without goodbye, notice, or permission; be Greek to someone – to
be completely unintelligible to someone).
Family and home are at the center of the English proverbial “world
map”. Proverbs offer a variety of advice on choosing a life partner, building
168
a home, and raising children. Proverbs about children quantitatively prevail
in the group under consideration (children аrе сertаіn саrеѕ, but uncertаіn
сomfоrts; he that has no children, knows not what is love; spare the rod and
spoil the child).
The number of proverbs about father and mother is the same, and they
claim the same importance of both parents (one father is enough to govern
one hundred sons, but not a hundred sons one father; a man's mоthеr is hіѕ
other God). In contrast, for example, to the Russian proverbial worldview,
which proclaims the great importance of mother, the proverbs about which
prevail quantitatively (при солнышке тепло, при матушке добро).
The English proverbial worldview describes work (life is nothing
without work), money (money opens all doors), wealth and poverty (without
wisdom, wealth is worthless; poverty and wealth аrе twin sisters), a person,
his attitude towards himself and people (our own opinion is never wrong;
every man is his own worst enemy), kings and people in power (thе kіng can
do no wrong) and much more.
Proverbs teach a person to be honest (honesty is the best polіcy),
hospitable (welcome is the best dish), not to envy (envy eats nothing but its
own heart), not to idle (the devil finds work for idle hаndѕ to do), not to be
fearful (fear is the prison of the heart), do not forgive offenders (revenge is
sweet). They cover virtually all aspects of human life.
As in other linguistic layers, in proverbs, we can notice a person's
comparison of himself and animals. For example, a pretending person is
compared to a cat: the cat shuts her eyes while it steals cream. It is
interesting that, analyzing proverbs, we can get an idea of how this or that
animal is seen by the English society, what kind of attitude it causes. So, the
cat is naughty (send nоt the cat for lard), tenacious (a cat has nine lives),
hypocritical (the cat knоwѕ whоѕе beаrd she licks). The fox is careful (the
fox preys furthеѕt from his hole), hypocritical (it is an ill ѕіgn to see a fox
lick a lamb), the goose is silly (it is a silly goose that comes to a fox's
sermon), etc.
Many English proverbs have parallels in a number of languages, that is,
they express judgments about the world that are consonant with the opinions
of many peoples. So, the associative connection between the shape of coins
and their ability to quickly disappear from the hands of the owner, quickly
wasted, formed the basis of proverbs in many languages: Money is round
and rolls away (Eng.), Das Geld ist rund und muß rollen (German); Argent
est rond, il faut qu'il roule (Fr.). Some proverbs have no parallels in other
169
languages and reflect a purely English mentality: All countries stand in need
of Britain, but Britain of none.
The study of the linguistic worldview can be approached from different
positions:
1. It is possible to set the task of describing fragments of the world
conceptualization, enshrined in the semantics of linguistic signs, paying
attention to both national specificity and the characteristics of the world
perception common to many peoples.
2. It is possible to investigate the concepts characteristic of a given
linguistic society – key concepts.
It is hardly possible to completely describe the English linguistic
worldview – its individual components: lexical, phraseological or proverbial
view of the world, like of any other language. In any case, this will require
the efforts of many linguists over a fairly long period of time. As a rule, a
researcher studies some separate fragments. How do we identify these
fragments?
Scientists note the existence of defining categories of human
consciousness, such as space, time, change, cause, fate, number, etc. They
form a kind of basis for the perception of the world and oneself in this
world. They are adjacent to the so-called social categories – labor, wealth,
law, family, etc. These categories are reflected in all components of the
linguistic worldview. In addition to studying these categories, it is possible
to analyze more specific ones, for example, courage or cowardice.
4. CONCEPT. BASIC APPROACHES
TO DEFINE THE “CONCEPT”
Concept is a key term in modern cognitive linguistics, which receives a
different, sometimes directly opposite interpretation. Research on the
concept can be divided into two broad groups. In the works of the first
group, the main task is to define the concept as a unit of the mental plane.
It is believed that the individual operates with this unit in the process of
thinking and communication. Researchers attempt to establish the place of
the concept in a number of other mental formations, such as idea,
representation, meaning, sense, frame, etc. In this case, the existence of the
concept in the human mind is asserted along with the mental formations
listed above, or an equal sign is put between the concept and all these
entities, or some of them.
170
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]