Article.
Kostiantyn Mizin,
Jiří Korostenski DOI 10.31558/1815-3070.2019.37.1 UDC 81’119 “Western” Cultural Linguistics and
“post-Soviet” Linguoculturology:
CAUSES OF PARALLEL development The article discusses main causes
of parallel development of “western” Cultural Linguistics and “post-soviet”
Linguoculturology. The findings show that these reasons can be quite simple: “English
speaking” Cultural Linguistics and “Russian speaking” Linguoculturology as well
as a slow emergence of post-soviet science outside its area, despite the global
integration of modern science. Besides, different theoretical and
methodological traditions, effecting both their theoretical basis and
analytical tools, make it difficult for both subjects to be in “close”
connection. Keywords: Cultural Linguistics, Linguoculturology, cultural conceptualizations,
linguocultural concept,
theoretical and
methodological “isolation”. 1. Problem Setting. An incentive to writing this
article was attempts of Russian linguists to “introduce” post-soviet recipients
to the new “western” anthropological discipline – Cultural
Linguistics –
by translating the most significant works of foreign linguists (in this case by
“western” we mean anything outside the former Soviet Union, i. e. Western
European, American, Australian, etc.). To the question why these attempts have
been made only recently, the answer is clear: it results from a slow but steady
emergence of post-Soviet science beyond its space due to global integration of
modern science which “makes” researchers publish their works in scientometric
databases indexed journals. It
should be noted that these translations today are still rare, but those that
exist, are of considerable confusion. For example, the Russian translation of
the article by B. Peeters in the journal “Жанры речи”, which seems to be
done on a rather professional level, is quite inaccurate methodologically,
mainly because of only one but very important point which shows the
translator’s linguistic incompetence: O. Dubrovska translated the term Cultural
Linguistics as Linguoculturology – they are two
different subjects. Although objects and purposes of their study may seem to be
similar, this is nothing but an apparent similarity, since they differ
significantly in (1) theoretical and philosophical basis, (2) methods and (3)
the area of distribution. The translation of F. Sharifian’s article by
І. Lebedeva is also inaccurate where Cultural Linguistics is
replaced with Culturological Linguistics, because culturology is mainly
soviet “product” which has nothing in common with Cultural Linguistics. It
is obvious that there are some reasons for giving Cultural Linguistics and
Linguoculturology statuses of “western” and “post-soviet”, the type of
Anthropological Linguistics which mainly aims at studying the triad “man
(consciousness) –
language –
culture”. One of the reasons is the fact that the «godfathers» of these
subjects –
F. Sharifian
and V. Vorob’jov – laid in
their theoretical and methodological foundations a common epistemological idea – the study of
the phenomenon of man, his inner world (vs. consciousness) based on the
latter’s language and culture (see: Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and
Language”; Vorob’jov).
It is strange enough that even under the current globalization processes the
two powerful scientific disciplines, that emerged almost simultaneously in
different parts of the world and have a common goal of research, can be
developing in isolation from one another. We
should note that the term Cultural Linguistics is not new, because it
first emerged more than twenty years ago in the monograph by
J. Anusiewicz. However, J. Anusiewicz’s ideas, and here we fully
agree with B. Peeters, did not become popular neither in “western” – mostly
English speaking –
nor in post-soviet –
mostly Russian speaking – Linguistics, because the monograph was written in
Polish. That is why linguists tend to believe that the primacy in the use of
the term Cultural Linguistics belongs to G. Palmer. Cultural Linguistics was formed on the basis of the ideas of the
American ethno-linguistic school (F. Boas, E. Sapir,
B. Whorf et
al.), where at one time was born lingual relativity hypothesis by Sapir–Whorf,
which, since the mid 20th century and to this day, causes heated debate not
only in the field of Linguistics but also in related sciences (Philosophy,
Psychology etc.). In the late 20th century these ideas fell on the fertile
Australian soil, previously watered by the concept of universal semantic
primitives (natural semantic metalanguage) by A. Wierzbicka. These days
there are methodological tools of Cultural Linguistics, tested on the materials
of many languages (see: Advances in Cultural Linguistics). At the same time (at the end
of the twentieth century) a new human-oriented branch of science known as
linguocultural studies emerged (very much like a supernova) within the field of
post-soviet Linguistics as the ideas introduced by V. Vorob’jov (Vorob’jov) were instantly shared
by a number of famous Russian scholars: М. Alefirenko, О. Babaieva, V. Karasik, О. Khrolenkо, М. Кovshova, V. Кrasnykh, І. Оlshanskyi, V. Тeliia, H. Тоkariov, S. Vorkachjov etc. In Ukraine and Belarus, and later in Kazakhstan these ideas were also presented in a number of doctoral papers, monographs and textbooks (see: Alimzhanova; Zahnitko, Sakharuk; Levchenko; Maslova; Mizin, “Ustaleni
porivnyannya anhliys’koyi, nimets’koyi, ukrayins’koyi ta rosiys’koyi mov v
aspekti zistavnoyi linhvokul’turolohiyi”). Despite linguoculturological “boom”,
Linguoculturology is still being developed because the problem of its methodology
is still incomplete (see: Mizin, “Lіngvokul’turnij
Koncept “Kapcі”, abo
shhe Raz pro Metodologіchnі Slabkі Mіscja Lіngvokul’turologіji” 23–24). The fact that Linguoculturology is
considered to be an indigenous Russian science, and linguoculturological works
are mostly printed in little-known journals and collections of works in Russian
or less often in Ukrainian and Belarusian, did not contribute to its spread
beyond the post-soviet linguistic space. The only exceptions are countries that
border this space – Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic,
Hungary and Bulgaria. But it should be noted that linguoculturological ideas
are not popular here. There is nothing much to say about “Western” Linguistics
where English dominates and foreign linguists often do not speak Russian. This
resulted in the fact that Linguoculturology and Cultural Linguistics are
developing in parallel but “separated worlds”. Therefore, it is no wonder that
F. Sharifian and his followers do not even mention Linguoculturology in
their works. It is noteworthy that this isolation has played a cruel joke with
Cultural Linguistics which remains practically unknown to post-soviet
linguists. 2. Purpose of the Article. The purpose of this article is to find out the main
causes of the parallel development of “western” Cultural Linguistic and
“post-soviet” Linguoculturology. Our discussions are based on the following: if
two sciences are methodologically more different than similar, they should be
considered as two different scientific disciplines, so even with an apparent
similarity between their terminologies, primarily in their names, they cannot
be used interchangeably as well as it is incorrect to adapt or confuse them. 3. Differences on the background of commonalities: relationships between
Cultural Linguistics, Linguoculturology and Ethnolinguistics, and Cognitive
Linguistics. 3.1. Ethnolinguistic origins of Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology. In
“western”, especially in American human sciences, the terms Anthropological
Linguistics and Ethnolinguistics are often used interchangeably.
While in post-soviet Linguistics the term Anthropological Linguistics is
«alien» that is why it is uncommon, but the term Ethnolinguistics is
rather widespread because it corresponds to both a direction and science.
Post-soviet Ethnolinguistics in its “pure” form, i. e. primarily
based on the ideas of V. Toporov’s etymological school and
M. Tolstoi’s dialectological school, is different from its “western”
counterpart which mainly focuses, particularly the US Ethnolinguistics, on the
languages of ethnic minorities and socio-pragmatic aspect of speech activity
(Crystal 412). Taking into account the fact that Soviet Ethnolinguistics,
which promoted the idea of a common general Slavic language and cultural space,
left the borders of the USSR and spread to other Slavic countries, mostly to
Poland, E. Bartmiński, the founder of Lublin ethnolinguistic school, calls
these two types of Ethnolinguistics as “Slavic Ethnolinguistics” and “Western
(English) Ethnolinguistics)” (Bartmiński 18). Thus,
Cultural Linguistics can be considered to be a product of a “western” type of
Ethnolinguistics, while Linguoculturology is a “soviet” and “post-soviet” type.
In fact, that was the reason that methodological tools of the subjects compared
are significantly different. It is noteworthy that the “soviet” and
“post-soviet” types of Ethnolinguistics have some differences because the
methodology constantly evolves and in ethnolinguistic definitions the concept
“culture” has become more commonly used compared to such concepts as “folk
psychology”, “folk language”, “folklore”, “mythology”, “belief”, “rites” and
the like. These days Ethnolinguistics has been transformed in a complex science
in the post-soviet space which aims at studying the content of culture, folk
psychology and mythology regardless of their means, methods and shapes. Some
definitions of Ethnolinguistics create a precedent when all borders between
Ethnolinguistics and Linguoculturology are not found, for example:
“Ethnolinguistics – a
branch of Linguistics that studies language as a creative product of native
speakers i. e.
ethnic group that created this language phenomenon as a key element and an
engine of national culture” (Zhayvoronok 8).
This is not surprising because Ethnolinguistics that lies within the scope of
Linguistics, Ethnography, Folklore Studies, Culturology and Sociology is
closely linked to the culture of an ethnic group. The
common post-soviet linguists’ idea that Linguoculturology is only a part of
Ethnolinguistics (V. Krasnykh, V. Teliia et al.), we understand as
follows: Linguoculturology emerged from soviet Ethnolinguistics and became a
part of post-soviet Ethnolinguistics. This fact is only obvious, however, in
terms of chronology and genetic connection. In fact, you can hardly find any
relationships between current Linguoculturology with etymological, dialect and
mythological studies of Soviet Ethnolinguistics because it was formed mainly
as a result of “qualitative leap” caused by a rapid expansion of Cognitive
Linguistics into post-soviet Linguistics. Moreover, some socio-cultural and
socio-historical processes contributed a lot to the emergence of
Linguoculturology which took place in the late 20th century in the post-soviet
space, especially in Russia, because we should not forget that
Linguoculturology is originally Russian scientific product (Vorkachjov 16).
We should not forget that in Russia at that time there was a social, rather
public, orders for this new field of knowledge, when in 1996 B. Yeltsyn
announced a targeted search for a unifying “national idea”, which could “seal”
all nationalities in Russia around the “great-state” centre (now this idea is
embodied in “spiritual braces” of the Russians). And the very methodology of
Ethnolinguistics changed according to the times. Therefore, ethnolinguistic
studies began to go far beyond ethnographical, mythological and area (dialect)
aspects, because it was more relevant to assess ethnic phenomena
linguoculturally. Actually, this was the foundation which created a new
interdisciplinary field of Linguistics –
Linguoculturology. Our ideas are also confirmed by similar processes in Polish,
particularly Lublin, Ethnolinguistics, where at this very time Dialect
Ethnolinguistics transformed into Cognitive one (Bartmiński 10). 3.2. Cognitive Linguistics
as a methodological basis for Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology. Cognitive
Linguistics, one of the main objectives of which is to find those tools that
can serve as “keys” to the human’s mental world, created a powerful
methodological base for new human studies-oriented disciplines in the field of
Linguistics, particularly for Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology.
However, the latter ones “borrowed” from Cognitive Linguistics its own “set” of
tools. As the article has a limited space we are to briefly outline main
analytical tools of these disciplines. We
should emphasize that the Cultural Linguistics research tools rest
theoretically on the notion “cultural cognition”, which is based on the
integrated understanding of such notions as “culture” and “cognition” in their
correlation with the language. Cultural cognition is a complex adaptive system
which appears as a result of interaction between members of language community
in space and time (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 3);
it is the form of cognition that shows the result of interaction between parts
of the whole (group participants). However, it is not simply a complex of these
parts (i. e. it is not merely a sum of
separate participants’ cognitive systems), it is something greater, something
that stimulates its development. Just like any developing system, cultural
cognition demonstrates a dynamic character. This understanding of cultural
cognition is based on the notion “collective cognition” which characterizes a
cultural group (for details, see: Wilson). Since
language is considered to be the universal cognitive phenomenon, it is the main
constituent of cultural cognition, serving as the depository for collective
memory of a certain language community’s cultural cognition. Moreover, we can
consider language to be a primary cultural cognition accumulation and
communication mechanism i. e. both as a memory “bank” and a rapid means for
transmitting or retransmitting cultural cognition and its components – cultural
conceptualizations. The adherents of Cultural Linguistics emphasize that
language is a form of culture, that is why conceptualizations which underlie
language and speech are mainly formed by cultural systems (Yu, “The Chinese Conceptualization of
the Heart and Its Cultural Context” 65).
Consequently, the main purpose of Cultural Linguistics is to study the
interrelationship between language (speech) and cultural conceptualizations. The
notion “cultural conceptualizations” includes a set of analytical tools used
for studying peculiarities of cultural cognition objectivation in different
world languages. These are such mental constructions as (1) cultural schemas
(including cultural models), (2) cultural categories (including cultural
prototypes), and (3) cultural metaphors. While adopting from
cognitive linguistics the above mentioned tools have not only changed the
attribute cognitive for cultural but also experienced a certain
reinterpretation: 1) cultural
schemas are considered to be one of varieties of cognitive schemas (in
cognitive sciences they are also denoted by other terms, for example: script,
frame, cognitive field). These schemata are formed by a culture; they are
an essential part of collective cognitions which are associated with a certain
cultural group. Consequently, cultural schemata are based on common experience
typically found in this group unlike idiosyncratic experience of individuals.
They are the constructs that provide individuals with cultural senses exchange (Sharifian,
“Cultural Linguistics” 40). It is noteworthy that
anthropologists widely use the term cultural schemas, often substituting
it for a different one – cultural models
(see: Strauss, Quinn). However, such duplication is obviously improper because
the models are usually more complex cognitive schemas which include both
metaphors and schemas. A good example of this is a cultural model the “American
wedding” which is based on such metaphors as MARRIAGE IS AN ONGOING JOURNEY
(Quinn). But such notion as “privacy”, F. Sharifian refers to cultural
schemas (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 42).
However, we believe that such notions are too big for one schema as they have a
great importance for linguoculture by forming cognitive vs. cultural model
based on sets of schemas; 2) cultural
categories are a variety of cognitive categories. Categorization is known to be
the most fundamental human cognitive activity because while perceiving real
world human cognition permanently activates a correlation between any object of
cognition and a certain category. It means that any information, processed by
the human brain, passes through a “filter” formed by cognitive categories which
have a certain system and a structural organization. This organization
demonstrates a clear hierarchy. At the same time, the notion can belong
simultaneously to different over- and subcategories. For example, notions “cup”
or “bowl” can belong to such categories as “meal”, “drinks”, “artefacts”, and
“crockery”. Since categories are culturally determined and associatively
related with language signs (numerous language units serve as a denotation for
categories and their prototypes), it resulted in the emergence of the notion
“cultural categorization” (for details, see: Glushko, Maglio, Matlock, Barsalou 129).
Cultural categories closely correlate with cultural schemas. F. Sharifian
(Advances in Cultural Linguistics 43)
emphasizes that, for example, the above mentioned notion “wedding” can be both
a category (e. g.,
“wedding ceremony”, “wedding reception” etc.) and a schema (e. g., various
actions and roles performed by wedding participants); 3) cultural
metaphors are based on cognitive metaphors which are a part of the cognitive
conceptualization process of one area of human knowledge in terms of another
one (Lakoff, Johnson). The representatives of Cognitive Linguistics have shown
in a vast number of studies how a human comprehends both themselves and the
world around through cognitive metaphors. A good example here is the fact that
“hour-calendar” industrial linguocultures usually interpret time in terms of
goods, money, limited resource etc. In English it is represented by such word
combinations as buying time, saving time and the like. Cognitive metaphors allow an individual
to conceptualize, for example, opinions, senses, character traits etc. in terms
of the body parts (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 43).
As well as cognitive metaphors, cultural metaphors present more difficult
mental constructs –
schemas and models. A range of scientific studies, carried out in the field of
Cultural Linguistics, have found out ethnospecific cultural metaphors, which
emerged in different linguocommunities on the base of folk traditions, customs,
beliefs etc. For example, Indonesians have a widely spread cultural metaphor
LOVE is A LIVER (Siahaan), while the representatives of Chinese language ethnos
have the metaphor HEART is A BODY DRIVER (Yu, “The Chinese
HEART in a Cognitive Perspective: Culture, Body, and Language”). Thus,
cultural schemas, cultural categories and cultural metaphors are three basic
“keys” for studying peculiarities of cultural cognition objectivation in
different linguocultures. Here we should also emphasize the importance of
cultural models and cultural prototypes. These mental constructs are so closely
related to cultural schemas and cultural categories, though, that their
distinction often has subjective character and depends on a researcher’s
theoretical and methodological position. Scientific validity of these tools is
confirmed by a wide range of research in the framework of Cognitive Linguistics
from which they have been adapted to Cultural Linguistics being somewhat
reformulated. On
the background of clearly defined research tools of Cultural Linguistics,
methodological “chaos” of Linguoculturology is especially noticeable as it
still lacks (1) both more or less well developed and verification reliable
procedures for linguocultural analysis, (2) a clearly defined basic
epistemological unit of linguocultural research, as well as (3) a linguocultural
method itself. A
critical review of linguocultural studies has shown that linguocultureme,
language personality, culture code and
linguocultural concept can function as basic research units in
Linguoculturology. However, epistemological status of the first three, in our
opinion, is doubtful (Mizin, Petrov 11–30). The
main problem here is that linguocultureme, language personality and culture
code, unlike concept, emerged in the environment of post-soviet researchers as
a result of powerful influence of semiotic ideas in soviet and post-soviet
Linguistics. In fact, they are an attempt to connect construct material and
mental in one research – the sign which goes out in a culture, primarily a
language one, and those cognitive mechanisms which this sign activates in
comprehending a person’s objective world. This attempt appeared to be unsuccessful
because, as a matter of principle, it combines uncombinable. It is especially
noticeable in case of linguocultureme. That is why linguocultureme, language
personality and culture code can really have a status of linguoculturological
units, as some of its taxonomies, but not as analytical tools. Things
are different with linguocultural concept which is not simply borrowed from
“western” Cognitive Linguistics, but it is also adapted to post-soviet
culturological area in Linguistics since the concept is considered to be a
multidimensional semantic formation which includes conceptual, perceptive and
imaginative, and value components (V. Karasik, A. Prykhodko).
Epistemological potential of this mental construct is based on the idea that
“it is the consciousness that provides an interaction between language and
culture, for this reason any linguocultural
research is a cognitive research as well” (Karasik, Slyshkin 76). Methodological
adequacy of linguocultural concept as a research tool in linguoculturological
studies is based on its nature, as this mental construct links cognition, as an
element of human consciousness, with the latter’s culture and its language,
because the only way of these mental phenomena empiric legalization is their
objectivation in language. The capacity of language signs for the concept
reconstruction is primarily based on their cognitive function since it is the
knowledge (information) about objective world accumulation that facilitates
concepts formation: first in the naive picture of the world, and then – in
scientific. Concepts are known to be constructed in consciousness that is why
we have a possibility to use these language signs to trace this cognitive
process in the opposite direction i. e. to reconstruct a concept, find
out a set of factors and pre-conditions of its formation – universal
(common cultural legacy, historical and geographical contact of language
ethnos) and specific (peculiarities of historical, sociocultural development of
linguocommunity, its geographical location etc.). Methodologically relevant for
the concept reconstruction is the analogy “tooth is a dinosaur”: “[…] if a
tooth makes it possible to recreate a dinosaur; a concept which is
system-related to all other concepts within a certain linguoculture allows
finding a system of values of this linguoculture” (Karasik, Prokhvacheva,
Zubkova, Grabarova 7). For
linguoculturological studies a language based fragment reconstruction of
cognitive (vs. concept) picture of the world where universal cognitive,
psycho-mental and psycho-physiological mechanisms and constructs, which form
this picture as a result of etno- and socio-cultural development of a speaker
vs. speakers, are “influenced” by the factors which affect world perception,
world understanding and behaviour of linguocommunity representatives. These
fragments of cognitive picture of the world are presented by specific concepts,
that is why concepts reconstruction is a reliable information source of
language ethnos’s value references. Consequently, in our opinion the main
purpose of Linguoculturology is to “draw”, through the analysis of language
signs (it is a matter of principle!), as much linguoculturally significant
information as possible for both universal and unique concepts objectivation
(reconstructions) of two and more language communities. 4. Discussion. If we compare the methodology of Cultural
Linguistics and Linguoculturology in general, we can easily notice the
following points: 1) among
analytical tools of Cultural Linguistics there is no room for one of the basic
epistemological units of Cognitive Linguistics – concept;
while conceptological studies are predominant in Linguoculturology which
resulted in a methodological basis for a new direction –
linguoconceptology (Міzin, “Lіngvokul’turnij
Koncept “Kapcі”, abo
shhe Raz pro Metodologіchnі Slabkі Mіscja Lіngvokul’turologіji” 17); 2) works of
cultural linguistics adherents rarely mention such crucial notion for any
culture as “value” (vs. “cultural value”). Researchers even emphasize that the
most important differences between cultures are not differences in customs,
traditions, art forms, etc., but the differences in cultural values as the
latter ones are the values which dominate in a specific linguoculture and serve
as a basis for beliefs, opinions and attitudes (vs. relationships, vs.
relations), communicative habits of representatives of this linguoculture
(Peeters 769). However, it might not be necessary to focus on the term
“cultural values” in cultural linguistics because values are hidden behind the
term “cultural conceptualization”, since the latter includes cultural
categories and cultural schemata and cultural metaphors determined by a system
of values in a specific linguocommunity.
Fig. 1
demonstrates that analytical tools of Cultural Linguistics can potentially
correlate with each of the three components of the linguocultural concept –
conceptual, perceptive and imaginative, and value. This fact is a strong
argument in favour of the latter’s scientific validity and it also confirms the
above mentioned thoughts on the important role of epistemological concept in
the field of linguocultural studies. 
If
we study this drawing superficially, the first thing that catches our eye is a
complexity of concept as an analytical unit. It is no wonder that the analysis
of any linguocultural concept involves a number of research procedures,
verified by representatives of both traditional and modern Linguistics. For
this reason, post-soviet Linguistics has not worked a clearly defined concept
analysis, although the number of concept studies after “concept boom” does not
decrease but they have risen in early 21st century. We believe that this is
caused by the complexity of the concept which requires interdisciplinary
methodological approach making this epistemological construct “methodologically
open”. In this regard, linguocultural
concept seems, especially when looking closer at the above drawing, to “absorb”
the analytical tools of Cultural Linguistics: firstly, cultural schemas,
cultural categories as well as cultural metaphors are manifested in a language – a
name behind which there is a concept. Examining this concept is one of the
first stages in scientific studies that are carried out in both Cultural
Linguistics and Linguoculturology as concept always includes a conceptual component.
Secondly, both cultural schemas and cultural categories, particularly prototypes,
and cultural metaphors evoke a certain image vs. some images in the
consciousness. It is clear that any linguocultural concept, even abstract, is
associated with specific figurative ideas. That is why it has an imaginative
and perceptive component. It is cognitive metaphors that help to find these
images. Thirdly, if schemas (models), categories (prototypes) and metaphors
contain an attribute “cultural”, it means that they are directly related to a
linguocommunity culture. Culture as a social phenomenon is defined according to
value guidelines and priorities. This is what creates the basis for the
correlation of Cultural Linguistics analytical tools with the value component
of a linguocultural concept. Conclusions.
This article examines a parallel development of “western” Cultural Linguistics
and “post-soviet” Linguoculturology. It has been found out that these two
sciences emerged almost simultaneously in different parts of the world.
However, despite practically identical goal of research – research into
relationships and interactions between language and culture in the processes of
categorization and conceptualization of the objective world by different
linguocultures representatives, they are developing in «isolation» from each
other. Since Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology have more differences
rather than commonalities in terms of their methodological tools, they should
be considered as two different scientific areas, so even with the apparent
similarity between their terminologies, mainly names, they should not be used
interchangeably, adapted or confused. We
have found out that a common point for both areas of Linguistics is their
interdisciplinarity and the fact that they appeared mostly on the theoretical
and methodological basis of Ethnolinguistics and Cognitive Linguistics.
However, these sciences “borrowed” from cognitive linguistics its own “set” of
tools. As for ethnolinguistic background, here we can also find a significant
difference: Cultural Linguistics originated in the “western” type of
Ethnolinguistics, primarily American, whereas Linguoculturology – “soviet”,
mostly “post-soviet”. Cultural
Linguistics is now actively spreading in Western European Linguistics, since it
aims, as well as Linguoculturology, at solving the problem, which
linguist-anthropologists have had for centuries – a
correlation between language, culture and thinking (primarily cognition as a
component of consciousness). Theoretical basis for the recognition of the
correlation is an idea that a language has a specific way of adjusting
(modelling or even determining) thinking and outlook of a person. Therefore,
Cultural Linguistics, with its interdisciplinary origins, is directly concerned
with identifying features of human languages that contain human experience
conceptualizations designed (constructed, formed) by means of culture. It is
language that stores cultural conceptualizations which incorporate in a single
unity different stages of historical development of a language community that
has left its footprints in language and speech activity of modern
representatives of this community. When defining features of human languages
and their many types Cultural Linguistics is based on such cultural
conceptualizations as cultural schemas, cultural categories and cultural
metaphors, which, in their turn, are based on the theoretical basis of cultural
cognition. We
have found out that the four phenomena, claiming to be an epistemological
construct in linguoculturological studies – linguoculturemes, a (national) language
personality, a culture code, and a linguoculturological concept, only the last
is a scientifically valid research tool. Methodological adequacy of a
linguoculturological concept is based on its nature because this mental
construct connects cognition as a part of human consciousness with the latter’s
culture and language, as the only way of empirical legalization of mental
phenomena is their objectification in a language. A strong argument in favour
of the importance of an epistemological concept in the field of
linguoculturological studies is the fact that major research tools of Cultural
Linguistics –
cultural categories, cultural schemas and cultural metaphors – can
potentially correlate with each of the three components of a linguocultural
concept.
References.
References
1. Advances in Cultural
Linguistics / ed. by Farzad Sharifian. Singapore: Springer, 2017. Print.
2. Alimzhanova,
Gauhar. “Sopostavitel’naja
lingvokul’turologija: sushhnost’, principy, edinicy (Contrastive
Lingvoculturology: Essence, Principles, Units)”. Diss. Ablai Khan U. of International Relations and World
Languages, 2010. Abstract. Print.
3. Anusiewicz, Janusz. Lingwistyka
kulturowa: zarys problematyki. Wrocław: Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego,
1995. Print.
4. Bartmiński, Jerzy. “Ethnolinguistics
in the Year 2016”. Ethnolinguistic 28
(2017): 9–31. Print. DOI: 10.17951/et.2016.28.7.
5. Crystal, David. The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1987. Print.
6. Glushko, Robert, and Maglio, Paul, and Matlock, Teenie, and Barsalou, Lawrence.
“Categorization in the Wild”. Trends in
Cognitive Science, 12/4 (2008): 129–135. Print.
7. Karasik, Vladimir,
and Slyshkin, Gennadij. “Lingvokul’turnyj koncept kak edinica
issledovanija (Linguocultural
Concept as a Unit of Research)”. Metodologicheskie problemy kognitivnoj lingvistiki (Methodological Problems of Cognitive Linguistics). Ed. by Iosif
Sternin. Voronezh: VGU, 2001. 75–80. Print.
8. Karasik, Vladimir,
and Prokhvacheva, Oksana, and Zubkova, Yana,
and Grabarova, Emiliia. Inaja mental’nost’ (A Different Mentality).
Moskva: Gnozis, 2005. Print.
9. Levchenko,
Olena. Frazeolohichna symvolika:
linhvokul’turolohichnyy aspekt (Phraseological Symbols: a Linguocultural Aspect). L’viv: LIDU
NADU, 2005. Print.
10. Maslova,
Valentina. Lingvokulturologiya (Linguoculturology).
Moskva: Akademija, 2001. Print.
11. Mizin, Kostiantyn. “Ustaleni porivnyannya anhliys’koyi,
nimets’koyi, ukrayins’koyi ta rosiys’koyi mov v aspekti zistavnoyi
linhvokul’turolohiyi (Comparative Set
Phrases in English, German, Ukrainian, and Russian from the Perspective of
Contrastive Linguoculturology)”.
Diss. Kyiv National Linguistic U, 2012. Abstract. Print.
12. Mizin, Kostiantyn. “Lіngvokul’turnij
Koncept “Kapcі”, abo
shhe Raz pro Metodologіchnі Slabkі Mіscja Lіngvokul’turologіji (The
Linguocultural Concept “Slippers” or Once Again about Methodological Flaws in
Linguoculturology)”. Movoznavstvo (Linguistics) 6
(2017): 16–29. Print.
13. Mizin, Kostiantyn, and Petrov, Olexandr. Zistavna
linhvokul’turolohiya: metodolohichni problemy ta perspektyvni metodyky (Contrastive Linguoculturology: Methodological Problems and Perspective Methods). Pereyaslav-Khmel’nyts’kyy; Vinnytsya;
Kremenchuk: Shcherbatykh O.V., 2018. Print.
14. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1980. Print.
15. Quinn, Naomi. “Convergent Evidence for a Cultural Model of American
Marriage”. Cultural Models in Language
and Thought. Ed. by Dorothy Holland
and Naomi Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987. 173–192. Print.
16. Palmer, Gary. Toward a Theory of Cultural
Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996. Print.
17. Bert. “PRIKLADNAJA ETNOLINGVISTIKA –
eto lingvokul’turologija, no LINGVOKUL’TUROLOGIJA li? (APPLIED ETHNOLINGUISTICS is
Cultural Linguistics, but is It CULTURAL LINGUISTICS?)”. Zhanry rechi (Genres of Speech) 1/15 (2017): 7–50. Print. DOI:
10.18500/2311-0740-2017-1-15-37-50.
18. Peeters, Bert.
“APPLIED ETHNOLINGUISTICS is Cultural Linguistics, but is It CULTURAL
LINGUISTICS?”. Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Ed. by Farzad Sharifian. Singapore:
Springer, 2017. 758–802.
Print.
19. Sharifian, Farzad. “Kul’turologicheskaja lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaja
kommunikacija (Cultural Linguistics & Intercultural Communication)”. Filologicheskie nauki (Philological Sciences)
3 (2015): 80–97. Print.
20. Sharifian, Farzad. “Cultural Linguistics”. Ethnolinguistic 28 (2017): 33–61. Print.
DOI: 10.17951/et.2016.28.31.
21. Sharifian, Farzad. Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 2017. Print.
22. Siahaan, Poppy. “Did He Break Your Heart or Your Liver? A
Contrastive Study on Metaphorical Concepts from the Source Domain Organ in
English and in Indonesian”. Body,
Culture, and Language: Conceptualisations of Internal Body Organs across
Cultures and Languages. Ed. by Farzad
Sharifian et al. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. 45–74. Print.
23. Strauss, Claudia, and Quinn, Naomi. A
Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997. Print.
24. Vorkachjov, Sergej. ““Kuda
zh nam plyt’?” – lingvokul’turnaja konceptologija: sovremennoe sostojanie,
problemy, vektor razvitija (“Where should we sail?” – Linguocultural
Conceptology: Current
State, Problems and Development Vector)”. Jazyk, kommunikacija i social’naja sreda
(Language, Communication and Social Environment) 8 (2010): 5–27.
Print.
25. Vorob’jov, Vladimir. “Teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty
lingvokul’turologii (Theoretical and applied aspects of linguoculturology)”.
Diss. Peoples’ Friendship U. of Russia, 1996. Abstract. Print.
26. Wilson, Robert. “Collective Memory, Group Minds, and the
Extended Mind Thesis”. Cognitive
Processing 6/4 (2005):
227–236. Print.
27. Yu, Ning. “The Chinese
Conceptualization of the Heart and Its Cultural Context”. Applied Cultural
Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural
Communication. Ed. by Farzad
Sharifian and Gary Palmer. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 2007. 65–85. Print.
28. Yu, Ning. The Chinese HEART in a Cognitive
Perspective: Culture, Body, and Language. Berlin; New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2009. Print.
29. Zahnitko, Anatoliy, and
Sakharuk, Inna. Linhvokulturolohiya (Linguoculturology).
Donets’k: DonNU, 2014. Print. 30. Zhayvoronok, Vitaliy.
Ukrayins’ka etnolinhvistyka (Ukrainian
Ethnolinguistics). Kyyiv: Dovira, 2007.
|