COMPARATIVE LINGUOCULTURAL ANALYSIS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS OF THE THEMATIC GROUP “HUMAN” (IN RUSSIAN, CZECH, UKRAINIAN AND POLISH)
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2022-1-84-92
Introduction. About 80 % of idioms in any national language has semantics related with a person. Comparison of the cultural and conceptual content of these linguistic units allows us to study the image and verbal representation of man in different Slavic languages. Aim and objectives. Identify the universal and variant characteristics of man that exist in the designated Slavic linguocultures. Material and methods. The material is phraseological units of the thematic group “human” with the nuclear seme “evaluation” collected from lexicographic sources (50 units from each language). The method of research is crosscultural analysis. Results and discussion. Phraseological units with a negative assessment of a person quantitatively dominate in all the analyzed linguocultures. There is an invariant semantic core in the representation of human qualities. The consequence of this is a large number of equivalent and partially equivalent units. The speakers of the linguocultures examined condemn such qualities as stupidity, ignorance, impudence, rudeness, mendacity, laziness, avarice, and the like. Experience, wealth and worldly wisdom, success, good looks, and a healthy appearance are positively assessed. Neutral evaluative connotation distinguishes phraseological units that express the presence of features of similarity / difference between people, the relationship between them. In cases of general cultural interpretation, we are talking about semantic-stylistic and/or formal-structural full or partial equivalents. Full equivalents are units with identical structural, semantic (including figurative) and stylistic characteristics. Partial equivalents, while maintaining the integrity of semantics, may have some differences in meaning, stylistic sound or in the component composition/structure of phraseological units. The variants of evaluative interpretation of a person in different linguistic cultures are determined by both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. In this case, the phraseological units are not equivalent. Conclusion. Thus, the universal characteristics of human beings prevail in the phraseological world picture of Slavic languages. Variant meanings are characterized by cultural and historical conditionality
Keywords: phraseological unit, cultural linguistics, world picture, thematic group, human
References:
1. Teliya V. N. Russkaya frazeologiya. Semanticheskiy, pragmaticheskiy i lingvokul’turologicheskiy aspekty [Russian phraseology. Semantic, pragmatic and linguacultural aspects]. Мoscow, Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kul’tury” Publ., 1996. 284 p. (in Russian).
2. Teliya V. N. Chto takoye frazeologiya [What is phraseology]. Мoscow, Nauka Publ., 1966. 143 p. (in Russian).
3. Zuyeva T. V. Model’ analiza frazeologicheskikh edinits v lingvokul’turologicheskom aspekte [Model for the Analysis of Phraseological Units in the Linguocultural Aspect]. Ural’skiy filologicheskiy vestnik – Ural Journal of Philologyl, 2012, no. 5, pp. 28–34 (in Russian).
4. Kovshova M. L. Sopostavitel’nyy analiz frazeologizmov: lingvokul’turologicheskiy podkhod [Comparative analysis of phraseological units: linguoculturological approach]. Filologiya i kul’tura – Philology and Culture, 2014, no. 4 (38), pp. 115–121 (in Russian).
5. Ratushnaya E. R. Antroponimiruyushchaya paradigma russkoy frazeologii (Semantika, formirovaniye, funktsionirovanyie). Dis. dokt. filol. nauk [The anthroponomic paradigm of Russian phraseology: (semantics, formation, functioning). Diss. doct. philol. sci.]. Kurgan, 2001. 417 p. (in Russian).
6. Kovshova M. L. Semantika i pragmatika frazeologizmov: lingvokul’turologicheskiy aspekt. Avtoref. dis. dokt. filol. nauk [Semantics and pragmatics of phraseological units: linguoculturological aspect. Abstract of thesis doct. philol. sci.]. Мoscow, 2009. 49 p. (in Russian).
7. Mokiyenko V., Wurm А. Česko-ruský frazeologický slovník. Olomouc. 2002. 659 p.
8. Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky. Praha, Academia Publ., 1983. 496 p.
9. Russko-cheshskiy (onlayn) frazeologicheskiy slovar’ [Russian-Czech phraseological dictionary] (in Russian). URL: http://runas.cz/ (accessed 20 Оctober 2021).
10. Cheshskiye idiomy (in Russian). URL: https://www.rupoint.cz/cheshskie-idiomy/ (accessed 20 October 2021).
11. Fliciński P. Wspolczesny slownik frazeologiczny. URL: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/25561/1/Piotr Fliciński_Wspolczesny_slownik_frazeologiczny_author’s version.pdf (accessed 20 October 2021).
12. Slovnyk frazeologizmiv ukrains’koi movy [Dictionary of phraseological units of the Ukrainian language]. Kiev, Naukova dumka Publ., 2003. 1096 p. (in Ukrainian).
13. Birikh A. K., Mokiyenko V. M., Stepanova L. I. Russkaya frazeologiya. Istoriko-etimologicheskiy slovar’ [Russian phraseology. Historical and etymological dictionary]. Мoscow, Astrel’ Publ., AST: Lyuks Publ., 2005 (in Russian).
14. Mokiyenko V. M. V glub’ pogovorki [Into the depths of proverbs]. Мoscow, Azbuka-klassika Publ., 2005 (in Russian).
15. Mokiyenko V. M. Pochemu tak govoryat. Ot Avosya do Yatya: Istoriko-etimologicheskiy spravochnik po russkoy frazeologii [Why they say so. From Avos’ to Yat’: Historical and etymological guide to Russian phraseology]. Saint Petersburg, Norint Publ., 2006 (in Russian).
16. Kratkaya entsiklopediya simvolov (Peter Greif’s symbolarium) [A short encyclopedia of symbols (Peter Greif’s symbolarium)] (in Russian). URL: http://www.symbolarium.ru. (accessed 20 October 2021).
17. Entsiklopediya slavyanskoy kul’tury, pis’mennosti i mifologii [Encyclopedia of Slavic culture, literature and mythology]. Kharkov, Folio Publ., 2013. 798 p. (in Russian).
18. Prosvirnina I. S. O sovremennykh metodakh sopostavitel’nogo lingvokul’turologicheskogo analiza [On modern methods of comparative linguacultural analysis]. Cross Cultural Studies: Education and Science, 2018, vol. 3. issue 111, pp. 156–162 (in Russian).
19. Skvortsova E. V. Nesimmetrichnost’ polozhitel’nykh i otritsatel’nykh otsenok v yazyke i pri ego funktsionirovanii v rechi [The asymmetry of positive and negative evaluations in language and in its functioning in speech]. Izvestiya TulGU. Gumanitarnye nauki – Izvestiya Tula State University. Humanitarian Sciences, 2014, no. 1, pp. 342–347 (in Russian).
20. Krongauz M. Potrebnost’ v otritsatel’noy otsenke u nas bol’she, chem v polozhitel’noy [We have more need for a negative assessment than for a positive one]. Moskovskiy knizhnyy zhurnal – The Moscow Review of Books (in Russian). URL: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/morebo/maksim-krongauz-potrebnost-v-otricatelnoi-ocenke-u-nas-bolshe-chem-v-polojitelnoi604a72f053bd6e5e97868a72 (accessed 20 October 2021).
( 768.11 kB ) 
( 761.86 kB )
Issue: 1, 2022
Series of issue: Issue 1
Rubric: COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
Pages: 84 — 92
Downloads: 1565