Linguomental anthroposphere in focus of comparative linguocultural analysis
The purpose of this article is to identify the peculiarities of linguomental anthroposphere in Russian, Ukrainian, British and American linguocultures. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that common and national-cultural differences of subsphere FAMILY, EMOTIONS, VALUES in different languages are distinguished. The material of our research was lexicographic and phraseological sources of the Russian, Ukrainian and English languages, as well as the data of the psycholinguistic experiment. It was proved that the linguocognitive structure of subsphere FAMILY in Russian, Ukrainian, British and American linguocultures is presented by four categorical blocks. The results of the psycholinguistic experiment demonstrate, for instance, that the Russian and Ukrainian speakers consider the family as more patriarchal one while the British and Americans associate family with equality of partners. We established that good in the naive linguistic pictures of the world is universally associated with positive notions of kindness, mercy, goodness, virtue. Evil is also a universal category in the linguistic consciousness, associated with bad, disgusting: injustice, dishonesty, indifference, immorality. We found out that the truth is associated with honesty (Ukrainian чесність, Russian честность), and the main associations of lie are semantic synonyms: Russian обман, неправда, Ukrainian брехня, English dishonesty, deceit. Kindness as a quality of a good person comes first for the Russian, British and American speakers. For Ukrainians, honesty is more important than kindness. Generosity is an indicator of a good person for almost 50% of English and American respondents, and for 15-20% respondents from Russia, Ukraine and the USA.
Sergienko, N. A. (2022). Linguomental anthroposphere in focus of comparative linguocultural analysis, Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 8 (1), 93-104. DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-1-0-6
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Agha, A. (2006). Language and Social Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (In English)
Apresyan, Yu. (1995). The image of the human in the language: an attempt of comprehensive description, Topics in the Study of Language, 1, 37-67. (In Russian)
Divjak, D., Levshina, N. and Klavan, J. (2016) Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward, Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (4), 447-463. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0095. (In English)
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (In English)
Geeraerts, D. (1995). Cognitive Linguistics. Handbook of Pragmatics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 111-116. (In English)
Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing cognitive linguistics. Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 726-752, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. (In English)
Huang, J. (2019). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and language. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16 (5), 619-624. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0031. (In English)
Humboldt, W. (1999). On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. (In English)
Ilyinova, E. (2009). Conceptualization of fiction in the linguistic consciousness and in text, D. Sc. Thesis, Volgograd State Pedagogical University, Volgograd, Russia. (in Russian)
Kolshansky, G. (1990). Ob"ektivnaya kartina mira v poznanii i yazyke [Objective world picture in knowledge and language], Nauka, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Kubryakova, E. S. (2004). Yazyk i znanie. Na puti polucheniya znanii o yazyke. Chasti rechi s kognitivnoi tochki zreniya. Rol' yazyka v poznanii mira [Language and knowledge. On the way of learning about the language: parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in the knowledge of the world], Languages of Slavic Cultures, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. (In English)
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live by, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. (In English)
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. (In English)
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. (In English)
Maslova, V. A. (2016). The Russian language through the codes of cultural linguistics, RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 3, 27-33. (In Russian)
Maslova, V. A. (2019). Linguocultural Introduction to the theory of human, Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (Linguistics), 3, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-712X-2019-3-21-28(In Russian)
Maslova, V. (2001). Lingvokul'turologiya [Linguoculturology], Academy, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics, University of Texas Press Austin, TX, USA. (In English)
Sergienko, N. A. and Gramma, D. V. (2019). Linguo-mental sub-sphere of sadness in naïve language pictures of the world of representatives of the Russian, Ukrainian, British and American linguo-cultures: results of psycholinguistic experiment, Topical problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics, 1, 77-84. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079–6021-2019-1-77-84(In Russian)
Sergienko, N. A. (2019). Comparative cognitive linguoculturology as a new scientific direction in modern linguistics, Political linguistics, 6 (78), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.26170/pl19-06-04(in Russian)
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Theoretical Framework and Applications, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. The Netherlands. (In English)
Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural Linguistics and world Englishes, World Englishes, 34 (4),515-532. (In English)
Sorlin, S. and Gardelle, L. (2018). Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and the notion of Animacy Hierarchy, International Journal of Language and Culture, 5 (2),133-162. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00004.gar(In English)
Sousa, L. P. Q. (2019). Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Oxford
and New York: Routledge, Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.,21(1), 139-142. (In English)
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. (In English)
Tyurkan, E. (2015). Holistic Linguistics: Anthropocentric Foundations and the Functional-Cognitive Paradigm, Prague Journal of English Studies, 4 (1), 125-155.https://doi.org/10.1515/pjes-2015-0008(In English)
Wortham, S. (2008). Linguistic Anthropology, available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/162 (Accessed 10 December 2021). (In English)