INVARIANCE AND VARIABILITY IN THE PHRASEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE RUSSIAN AND CHINESE LANGUAGES: FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF THE COMPARATIVE LINGUOCULTURAL DESCRIPTION
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2020-5-9-18
Introduction. The article is devoted to the consideration of ways of implementing language variability, represented at the level of phraseological subsystems of the Russian and Chinese languages. The object of the scientific description is the sphere of linguistic semantics, which receives conceptual understanding in connection with its study in the aspect of intercultural and interlanguage communication. The presence of a semantic invariant in the content of Russian and Chinese phraseological units is determined by the existence of general tendencies of sense formation and the action of universal laws of development of any national language. Semantic variants arise due to the peculiarity of national linguistic cultures as a result of the combined action of a number of extralinguistic and linguistic factors. Aim and objectives. The aim of the study is to study the functional manifestations of the theory of variation at the phraseological level of the Russian and Chinese languages in the aspect of comparative linguocultural interpretation. Material and methods. 54 phraseological units operating in modern Russian and Chinese languages, selected because of a continuous selection from lexicographic sources, were used as units of analysis. The main one is the comparative linguoculturological research method. Results and discussion. The starting point of the study was the thesis that phraseological units have not only linguistic, speech, but also linguocultural and linguocognitive status. In the meaning of most Russian phraseological units there is a pronounced national-cultural component of meaning. Taking this factor into account, general (invariant) and private (variative, characteristic for a particular linguistic culture) semantic components in the semantics of phraseological units that make up correlation semantic pairs (equivalent, non-equivalent, incompletely equivalent) are identified. In equivalent paired phraseological units, the core of semantics is the semantic invariant, nonequivalent ones are dominated by variable semantic attributes, incompletely equivalent are transitional types. Conclusion. Comparative linguistic and cultural studies make a significant contribution to the study of various linguistic concepts, including the theory of language variability, semantic interpretation, translation, on the basis of which it is concluded that they are extremely relevant for the modern scientific paradigm.
Keywords: phraseological unit, the Russian language, the Chinese language, comparative linguoculturological analysis, theory of variation, invariant of meaning, variant of meaning, semantic equivalent
References:
1. Solntsev V. M. Variativnost’ kak obshcheye svoystvo yazykovoy sistemy [Variability as a general property of a linguistic system]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya – Voprosy Jazykoznanija (Topics in the study of language), 1984, no. 2, pp. 31–42 (in Russian).
2. Levina T. V. Invariant v yazykoznanii i teoriya invarianta v yazyke [The invariant in linguistics and the theory of the invariant in language]. Vestnik Kazakhstansko-Amerikanskogo svobodnogo universiteta, 2005, no. 2. URL: www.vestnik-kafu.info/journal/2/53 (accessed 20 May 2020).
3. Bondarko A. V. Invarianty i prototipy v sisteme funktsional’noy grammatiki [Invariants and prototypes in the system of functional grammar]. Problemy funktsional’noy grammatiki. Semanticheskaya invariantnost’ / variativnost’ [Functional grammar problems. Semantic invariance / variability]. Saint Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2003. pp. 54–74 (in Russian).
4. Kruchinkina N. D. Interpretatsiya ponyatiya invarianta v sovremennoy lingvistike [Interpretation of the concept of an invariant in modern linguistics]. Gumanitarnyye issledovaniya: traditsii i innovatsii: sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Vyp. 2 [Humanities Studies: Tradition and Innovation: Collection of Scientific Papers. Issue 2]. Saransk, 2006. Pp. 49–55 (in Russian).
5. Ansimova O. K. Klyuch k russkoy kul’ture: slovar’ lingvokul’turnoy gramotnosti [The key to Russian culture: a dictionary of linguistic literacy]. Novosibirsk, NSTU Publ., 2016. 222 p. (in Russian).
6. Birikh A. K. Russkaya frazeologiya. Istoriko-etimologicheskiy slovar’ [Russian phraseology. Historical and etymological dictionary]. 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moscow, Astrel’ Publ., 2007. 926 p. (in Russian).
7. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. Tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. 4-e izd., dop. Moscow, Azbukovnik Publ., 2000. 944 p. (in Russian).
8. Prokhorov Yu. Ye. (ed.) Rossiya: Bol’shoy lingvostranovedcheskiy slovar’ [Russia: The Big Linguistic and Regional Dictionary]. Moscow, AST-Press Kniga Publ., 2007. 736 p. (in Russian).
9. Kunin A. V. Kurs frazeologii sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka: uchebnik [Modern English Phraseology Course: textbook]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ., 1996. 381 p. (in Russian).
10. Zaika T. V. Frazeologicheskiye sredstva reprezentatsii kontsepta “sovest’” v sovremennom angliyskom yazyke. Avtoref. dis. kand. filol. nauk [Phraseological means of representing the concept of “conscience” in modern English. Abstract of thesis of cand. philol. sci.]. Belgorod, 2011. 26 p. (in Russian).
11. Teliya V. N. Russkaya frazeologiya. Semanticheskiy, pragmaticheskiy i lingvokul’turologicheskiy aspekty [Russian phraseology. Semantic, pragmatic and linguocultural aspects]. Moscow, Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kul’tury” Publ., 1996. 288 p. (in Russian).
12. 丁昕. 成语研究.北京:译文出版社, 2001. 178 页. Din Sin’. Izucheniye russkikh frazeologizmov [The study of Russian phraseological units]. Beijing, Yiwen Publ., 2001. Pp. 178 (in Chinese).
13. Belyayevskaya Ye. G. Rol’ kul’tury sotsiuma v formirovanii kontseptual’nykh osnovaniy semantiki idiom [The role of the culture of society in the formation of the conceptual foundations of the semantics of idioms]. Yazyk, soznaniye, kommunikatsiya: sbornik nauchnykh statey, posvyashchennykh pamyati V. N. Teliya. Vyp. 53 [Language, consciousness, communication: a collection of scientific articles dedicated to the memory of V. N. Telia. Issue 53]. Moscow, MAKS Press Publ., 2016. pp. 27–36 (in Russian).
14. Belaya Ye. N. Mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya: poiski effektivnogo puti: uchebnoe posobiye [Intercultural communication: the search for an effective way: tutorial]. Omsk, Omsk State University Publ., 2016. 312 p. (in Russian).
15. 吴国华, 杨喜昌. 文化语义学. 北京: 军事宜文出版社, 2000. 258 页. Wu Guohua, Jan Xichang. Kul’turnaya semantika [Cultural semantics]. Beijing, Junshi Yiwen Publ., 2000. Pp. 258 (in Chinese).
16. Chikina Ye. Ye. Vyyavleniye natsional’no-kul’turnoy spetsifiki frazeologizmov: sovremennyye podkhody [Identification of the national-cultural specificity of phraseological units: modern approaches]. Inter-Cultur@l-net: mezhdunarodnyy nauchnoprakticheskiy zhurnal, 2004, no. 3, pp. 3–6 (in Russian).
17. Baranov A. N., Dobrovol’skiy D. O. Aspekty teorii frazeologii [Aspects of the theory of phraseology]. Moscow, Znak Publ., 2008. 657 p. (in Russian).
18. Mokiyenko V. M. Zagadki russkoy frazeologii [Riddles of Russian phraseology]. Saint Petersburg, Avalon, Azbuka-klassika Publ., 2005. 298 p. (in Russian).
( 495.31 kB ) 
( 487.98 kB )
Issue: 5, 2020
Series of issue: Issue 5
Rubric: CULTURAL LINGUISTICS AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Pages: 9 — 18
Downloads: 703