Summary
Studying a language as such does not yet provide such extensive and deep information about a language as an analysis of two or more language systems, as a result of which common moments of similarities and differences are revealed not only at the linguistic, but also at the mental, cultural and historical level. Consequently, the knowledge stored in the language has a more complex character and a layered structure, represent not only linguistic value, but also provide rich information about the life of the people, their way of thinking and cognition. The study of stable comparisons shows that they most clearly preserved such fragments of worldview as tradition, customs, foundations and way of life of the people. A comprehensive study of a linguistic unit requires consideration of extralinguistic factors. This approach, which received so great support among linguistic scholars, has led to the development of new branches in science: ethnolinguistics and linguoculturology . From this moment, many cultural phenomena based on the worldviews of the people received a scientific explanation and interpretation. Everything that undergoes conceptual analysis is the result of a long process of human cognition of the surrounding reality and is considered as a basis for ethnolinguistic research. In this case, CSS is not an exception, and it is the anthropocentric orientation and the nationwide nature of stable comparisons that require ethnolinguistic analysis in order to obtain linguistic and regional information about native speakers. In the period of growing intercultural communication and in order to achieve intercultural understanding, the solution of ethnolinguistic and linguocultural problems acquires special significance and relevance.
Резюме
Изучение языка как такового еще не дает столь обширных и глубоких сведений о языке, как анализ двух и более языковых систем, в результате которого выявляются общие моменты сходств и различий не только на лингвистическом, но и на ментальном, культурно-историческом уровнях. Следовательно, знания, хранящиеся в языке, имеют более сложный характер и слоистую структуру, представляют не только лингвистическую ценность, но и дают богатую информацию о жизни народа, способе его мышления и познания. Исследование устойчивых сравнений показывает, что в них наиболее ярко сохранились такие фрагменты миропонимания, как традиция, обычаи, устои и уклад жизни народа. Всестороннее изучение языковой единицы требует учета экстралингвистических факторов. Данный подход, получивший столь огромную поддержку в кругах ученых-лингвистов, привел к развитию новых отраслей в науке: этнолингвистики и лингвокультурологии. С этого момента многие явления культуры, основанные на мировоззренческих концепциях народа, получили научное объяснение и толкование. Все, что подвергается концептуальному анализу, является следствием долгого процесса познания человеком окружающей действительности и рассматривается как база для этнолингвистического исследования. В данном случае УС не являются исключениями, и именно антропоцентрическая направленность и общенародный характер устойчивых сравнений требуют этнолингвистического анализа с целью получения информаций лингвострановедческого характера о носителях языка. В период роста межкультурной коммуникации и для достижения межкультурного понимания решение этнолингвистических и лингвокультурологических задач приобретает особую значимость и актуальность.
Keywords:CSS - stable comparisons, KN - cognitive science, NJ - animal names, VF - internal form, AKFE - adjective comparative phraseological units.
In modern linguistics, the relationship and interaction of language and culture are one of the key problems, because “In most cases, a person does not deal with the world itself, but with its representations, with cognitive pictures and models - the world (or various worlds) is presented to a person through the prism of his culture and, in particular, language, which is an integral element of culture.”
Language, as the main means of materializing and transmitting our thoughts, is presented mainly in the form of a kind of “packaging” . However, the knowledge stored in the language is by no means limited to information about phonetic, lexical, and grammatical phenomena. The content of the language consists of information about the culture of the people that it serves. Consequently, language is represented as an intermediate environment, located between the world of external phenomena and the inner world of man.
Under the "world of external phenomena" should be understood not only the surrounding nature, but also that which is the result of human activity. Everything that is consciously created and transmitted to the next generation is called culture. Thus, culture is not a heavenly gift and does not exist as a separate natural phenomenon, but acts as a medium artificially created by man as opposed to the natural world. "Culture is the totality of human achievements in the subordination of nature, in technology, education, social order."[1]
A culture of many faces, its components do not repeat each other. On the one hand, if the difference is in the creation of material wealth, then on the other it is expressed in the totality of spiritual values. “Often people serve goals that go beyond human existence. In culture, there is a tendency to the sublime , unearthly. This is also an important characteristic of culture. People are trying to understand the meaning of the universe and their place in it. "
The idea of studying culture through the language set forth by W. von Humboldt, got its logical development in the works E.Sepira , B.Uorfa , Ya.Grimma , R.Raska , K.Levi-Strauss , AA Potebnya , EM Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov .
The description of the “hidden” traces of the interaction of the natural language with the “language” of culture in the naive picture of the world served as an impetus for the development of ethnolinguistics . As a result, at the end of the 20th century, at the intersection of linguistics and culturology, a new science arose - linguoculturology , "exploring material culture and mentality embodied in a living national language and manifesting themselves in linguistic processes in effective continuity with the language and culture of an ethnic group." Linguoculturology is the fruit of many years of scientific work by many scientists who have been dealing with this problem from the 19th century to the present.[2]
The dual unity of language and culture has always existed, regardless of human will. The interconnection of language and culture is not a chaotic process, but an ordered movement in one direction. With the improvement and complication of the cultural organization of society, there is an acceleration of language development, which leads to a change in language form and content.
The subject of linguocultural analysis is culturally-labeled language units. Phraseologisms, stable comparisons, paremias belong to the means of accumulation of culture. They are intergenerationally broadcast, bringing to the present, those collective representations that were formed at certain historical moments in the life of an ethnos, people, or nation. The meaning of these language units is associated with a figurative – associative mechanism, i.e. with connotation, they acquire symbolic, reference, figuratively-metaphorical significance in culture and generalize the results of the human consciousness itself - “archetypal and prototypical , fixed in myths, legends, rituals, rites, folklore and religious discourses, poetic and prose literary texts, phraseological units and "metaphors, symbols and paremias (proverbs and sayings), etc." .[3]
But, as researcher N.G. Bragin notes , those that belong to the field of intangible culture should be studied to a greater extent: light sorrow, brilliance of mind, in the recesses of memory (and not in the sphere of material culture, rites: to decorate a Christmas tree, paint eggs, exchange rings, etc. ). Like any nascent science, linguoculturology is no exception, where there are various interpretations of scientists on the formation of general principles of research.
The following statement belongs to A. Islam , whose work is devoted to a comparative study of the key concepts of Kazakh, and more broadly, Turkic culture. In the work, words that are close in meaning and use are analyzed in terms of their role in explaining cultural phenomena that contribute to identifying the mechanism for forming the specifics of the worldviews of a particular ethnic group. Her opinion is diametrically opposed to that mentioned above. And we believe that any expressed opinion should not be rejected or refuted, since linguoculturology is still going through a period of its development and formation as a separate, independent branch of linguistics. A.Islam believes that within the framework of linguoculturology , not only live verbal communication, but also non-verbal aspects of the national culture, which consist of ethnocultural signs, should be studied. “They are the result of a ritual, in other words, a gesture, a ritual or a custom is the basis of any ethnocultural sign.” All of them relate to the hereditary memory of culture.
In fairness, it must be said that, being different semiotic systems, language and culture have much in common:
1. Culture, like language, is able to accumulate values.
2. Culture and language develop in parallel, mutually affecting each other.
3. Language, as well as culture, is a product of the collective experience of people in the process of cognition.
4. Culture and language are forms of representing a person’s worldview.
5. A person creates a culture using language.
Comparison has not only expressive, but also cognitive function. The fact that it played an important role in mythological systems of thought is beyond doubt. No wonder the comparison is considered one of the earliest types of human intellectual activity. Comparison functions in human speech through thought and language. Therefore, before considering the question of comparison in the process of cognition, we dwell briefly on the problem of the relationship between language and thinking.[4]
The problem of language and thinking has deep roots in its development, the ancient philosophers Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle were studying this problem. If the question of how thinking relates to being was more or less clearly formulated by the ancient Greeks, the question of the nature of the relationship between language and thinking provoked a heated discussion “both in the ontological and epistemological terms, sharpened the polemic’s attention to the nature and essence of language and to his role in man’s knowledge of the world. "
If ancient philosophers were interested in the essence of language and tried to formulate provisions relating to all known languages, then the philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century . develops thanks to a thorough analysis of the language, considered not only as a means of expressing philosophical concepts, but also as the main organic tool for understanding the world and man. It must be remembered that in the end, any information goes back to the natural language as the primary source of expression of a person’s mental activity.
Undoubtedly, the lexical concept, as a result of cognition, is connected with a person’s mental activity, it can make its way through the mouth to the outside world “with the help of language, even when the process of thinking proceeds in silence, the formation of concepts and, consequently, thinking itself is impossible . Even without touching on the needs of people to communicate with each other, it can be argued that language is a prerequisite for thinking and in conditions of complete isolation of a person. ” So, language is a verbal reflection of thinking and cognition.[5]
Human thinking is connected with the real world, in which there are no rigid boundaries between objects. It consists not only of a combination of discrete things, but of a continuum of transition from one to another. The continuum of reality must correspond to the continuum of values. Abstract thinking, which operates on theories, propositions, and concepts, requires language design. When dealing with a new subject, a person is faced with a problem for its designation. The difficulty is associated not so much with the lack of a corresponding word, but with the lack of a given concept in the human mind, because it is only at the stage of formation. Ultimately, “in the thinking of man, new concepts are actually being formed. There is a need for their name. Using various associative connections, a person in this case does not find any new sound complexes, but is content with existing sound complexes. It is important here that the newly emerged concept has any connection with the old concept. ”
The similarity has a graduated character, is laid down on a scale where there is a beginning and an end. Identity does not form a scale: it corresponds to reality and testifies to the presence of identity or its absence. The scale affixes the degree of similarity between “signs of substance and is established between different objects that have more or less common features”.
1) He is rather older than she is
( HEBates “Making it all right” p. 70)
He is quite the same over its
2) Do you take me for the biggest
dance you've known?
( H.James “Short stories” p.33)
Take me to the biggest
the disco you know?
3) The day had been much hotter than
usual ..
( HEBates “Making it all right” p. 68)
The day was hotter than usual
4) Maғan bar dyny қyp - Kyzyl bolyp
ketkendai
( Ә.Nұrshayyқov , Taңdamaly , 37 b.)
For me it’s like the whole world has become
in red
5) Buyn - buyundary nerly
қattıraқ cheese қıras , jáңbyr yes
tezdeti p zhauyp , myna zherdі
sergіtі n Keter edі
( Ә.Ә l imzhanov Zhaushi 22 b.)
The more joints hurt, the
it would rain faster and the earth would
dusted off. [6]
The similarity has the ability to decrease or increase, as close as possible to its limit, i.e. identities. This characterizes the similarity as a dynamic and moving process, while the identity is static and motionless. “It correlates with two situations of reality: the identity of the object to itself and the absence of identity, i.e. the existence of one or two objects correlated with these language expressions. The problem of the identity of objects belongs entirely to ontology. The concept of identity, like a shadow, constantly accompanies entities: No entity without identity . "There is no essence outside the concept of identity."
Forming the unity of such a process as comparison, identity and difference are not united in their categorical status. They are located at the two ends of the same scale, like two different poles. [7]
The ability of human thinking to establish relationships of similarity and difference underlie any classification. The idea of similarity is purely subjective, because this is not a real reflection of the world, it can be approximate, based on the associative mechanism of thinking. Similarity implies the presence of representatives of different classes of common common signs or properties. The most vivid moments of similarity are manifested between representatives of such classes as man - animal, man - inanimate objects, man - the other world (imaginary), man - natural phenomena. All of them are used to portray a person. There are a huge number of such examples in both English and Kazakh. [6]
Logical comparison, as a formal model of the concept of identity, serves as the basis for language comparison and requires the presence of three elements necessary for the act of comparison:
a) a concept that requires explanation ( comparandum ):
b) the concept that serves to explain ( comparatum ):
c) the mediating, connecting element, which serves as a “bridge between the two concepts,” is the common between the newly recognized “ tertium comparationis ”, that is, the third comparison, the third value for the two compared. It is from this position that the structure of comparison is determined. Structural elements of comparison are indicated by the following symbols A , B, C, m. Here A is the subject of comparison, B is the image, C is the base, m is the comparison indicator. The significant differences between stable comparisons from phraseological units, as we noted above, are that the elements in the comparison function as separate lexical units, without showing any particular dependence on each other, are able to omit or function in an implicit form, which does not significantly affect semantics all comparative design.
Depending on the elemental composition, comparisons can be single-element, two-element, or three-element.
In conclusion, the connection of language and culture is a complex interweaving of two systems. Developing independently as completely different systems, they nonetheless functioned in parallel, interpenetrating and interacting with each other. Everything that was created by people over the centuries was directly reflected in the language. Many prominent scholars in the ancient east and west have paid attention to this feature in the language.
One way to convey the world in its entirety, not divided into separate fragments, is a comparison. Choosing the object of his study of man, the comparison undoubtedly covers all aspects of reality in which the process of interaction between the subject and the object takes place. It is the anthropocentric orientation that allows comparison to convey a holistic, vibrant picture of the world and its systematic nature.
The largest number of comparative constructions of the English language falls on adjective comparisons with a structure of the type as + adj . + As + noun . This fact is not in vain in languages. The simple and concise form of designs indicates that they are products of the creative activity of the people. CSS of a paremiological nature can also rightly be attributed to this category. [8]
Human knowledge is multilateral. Conclusions made in the course of studies of the English and Kazakh languages indicate that objects and phenomena that are of the greatest or least interest to him fall into the field of vision of a person . A greater number of expressions with one image and a smaller number with another in two comparable languages shows that the circle of human knowledge is wide and diverse. A peculiar generalization of our thoughts is the data presented by us below in the Kazakh and English languages. A further comparative study of the comparative constructions of two or more languages involves a significant increase in the actual material, the expansion of the semantic framework for the functioning of stable comparisons, taking into account the need to create linguistic and regional lexicographic developments, etc.
List of sources used:
1. Makovsky M.M. Comparative dictionary of mythological symbolism in Indo-European countries. The image of the world and myths of images. M .: VLADOS, 1996 .-- 415 p.
2. Gerasimov V.I., Petrov V.V. On the way to the cognitive model of language // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1988. - S. 5–11.
3. Humboldt V. von. Selected Works on Linguistics / Per. with him. - M.: NG Progress OJSC, 2000. - 400 p.
4. Stepanov Yu. Constants: Dictionary of Russian culture. M., 1997 .-- 435 p.
5. Gurevich P.S. Culturology. Tutorial. M.: Knowledge, 1999 .-- 288 p.
6. Taylor E.B. Primitive culture Per. from English - M .: Politizdat, 1989 .-- 573 p.
7. Sepir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. - M .: Heritage, 1993 .-- 656 p.
8. Telia V.N. Russian phraseology: Semantic, pragmatic and linguocultural aspects - Moscow: School of Languages of Russian Culture, 1996. - 288 p.
