One of the basic human emotions is anger – a state of extreme discontent, indignation. The result of anger can be a curse to the person who has become an irritating factor in a particular situation. The purpose of the study is to describe the malevolence in the Russian and Tatar languages, which are stable verbal patterns having the features of phraseological units. Phrasing is the result of metaphorization, but the structure and figurative basis of malevolence depend on extralinguistic factors and are nationally determined. The study of malevolence was conducted on the material selected from one-and bilingual dictionaries, using system-structural and comparative methods. Russians’ and Tatars’ active contacts, cultural and historical experiences lead to the appearance and use of units of negative semantics, which are characterized by national markings. Speakers of different system languages use unified symbols for malicious wishes. At the same time, both in Russian and Tatar speech, on the one hand, units were formed representing a direct threat (influence from the speaker), on the other – units expressing a curse (influence of a third party). The structure of malevolence in both languages is diverse, but it is systemic, and speech patterns are based on identical models. Malevolence in any language is a part of the language picture of the world, its formation and use are dictated by certain communicative conditions and goals. The patterns of malevolence are always figurative, laconic and give speech a special stylistic color.
Keywords: Phraseological unitthe Russian languagethe Tatar languagemalevolencethreatcurse
One of the main functions of the language is to reflect the expressive states, to express speaker’s feelings and emotions. The basic human emotions include anger – a state of extreme discontent, a feeling of extreme resentment.
Anger can be expressed verbally and with both mimic and pantomimic codes. The expression of angry emotions is accompanied by closing lips tightly, clenching the teeth, inflating and squeezing the wings of the nose, breathing rapidly or heavily (in the case of restraining anger, searching for a verbal form corresponding to the situation and emotions), threatening with a fist or an index finger, crying, spitting in the direction of the offender. Formal sign of aggression is a special intonation (raise in the tone, up to the cry, the pace of utterance, the strength of the voice).
Anger can result in a statement of threat or curse (malevolence) to the person who has become an irritating factor in a particular life situation. Malevolence is a stable verbal pattern that has all the features of a phraseological unit. The structure and figurative basis of malevolence depend largely on extralinguistic factors and are always nationally determined.
Patterns of malevolence, along with oppositional patterns of good wishes, often become the object of consideration in modern linguistics. The speech implementation of malevolence in certain languages is considered in the studies of Vetrova ( 2016) (the Ukrainian and Lezgin language), Zamaletdinov, Zamaletdinova, Faizullina, Fattakova, and Gabdrakhmanova ( 2018) (the Tatar language), Dinislamova ( 2017), Panchenko ( 2018) (the Mansi language), Dushenkova ( 2017) (the Udmurt language), Pirniyazova ( 2019) (the Karakalpak language); dialectal evil wishes are analyzed by Grishanova 2001), Markina ( 2019). Beresovich and Surikova ( 2017) consider malevolence in dialects. Vodyasova and Uchevatkin ( 2011) describe functions of malevolence in a literary text. Mokienko ( 1994) determines the status of either censorship or obscene of these patterns. The researches of Novozhenova, and Probst ( 2019), Plotnikova ( 2017) are dedicated to verbal threat and construction mechanisms of communicative acts of threat. Lexicographic representation of malevolence patterns is reflected in one-and bilingual dictionaries ( Safiullina, 2001; Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language, 1967).
The modern world order is characterized by active contacts of peoples with different cultural and historical experience, which causes a variety of psychological attitudes and ethical principles. In these conditions, it is relevant to study speech situations that accompany the course and resolution of conflicts, speech ways of expressing human emotions, including a comparative study of the emotional activities of different ethnic groups that speak related and unrelated languages.
Phraseological units expressing malevolence contain a national-cultural code that reflects the uniqueness of the national culture of a particular people. This can be fully stated about the phraseological units of the Russian and Tatar languages. The internal form of phraseological units depicts a person's ideas about morality, good and evil, ideas about the degree of human suffering, attitude to illness and death, and stereotypes of behavior and actions. Each language has its own stable expressions to express the emotional and mental state of anger.
According to semantics, malevolence can be divided into two groups: a direct threat, in the implementation of which a speaker can potentially take a direct part (
Malevolence expressed in the form of threat, depending on the intensity of the angry emotions experienced by the speaker (resentment – anger – rage, etc.) has different degrees of possible negative impact on the addressee. This can be: 1) intimidation with the promise of trouble without specifying it:
A speech situation based on a threat can take a form of a dialogue. The threat causes a verbal response from the interlocutor by means of phraseological units with the value: 1) warning:
As noted above, malevolence expressed in the form of a curse, implies an impact on the addressee of a third part. Verbal patterns of this kind go back to ancient rites and conspiracies aimed at harming the enemy, the opponent with the help of supernatural forces. The universal patterns
Curses can also be ranked by the degree of potential damage. The figurative basis of curses largely characterizes the perception by native speakers of archetypal dichotomies of misery – happiness, grief – joy, suffering – pleasure, that is, they give an understanding of what has long been considered the greatest evil, misery within a certain culture.
Most curses draw a situation of causing physical injury or ill health: чтоб у тебя руки отсохли, что у тебя глаза повылазили, лопни твои глаза, отсохни твой язык, чтоб тебе повылазило; телең корысын // телең череп төшсен (literally: I wish your hands withered! I wish your eyes popped, I wish your tongue withered). In the Tatar language phraseological unit телең корысын (literally: let your tongue dry out) is used with the identical component part, however there is a unit that is used more often and does not have an equivalent in Russian which is : телең череп төшсен (literally: let your tongue rot and dry out).
This indicates that health has been recognized and is recognized as a great value, an important condition for a full life, and its absence is one of the worst circumstances imaginable. A large number of nouns denoting different parts of the body (hands, feet, heart, head, throat, eyes, tongue, etc.) is due to the traditional enumeration of body parts in medical and love malicious conspiracy, for example:
Another component of a happy life in the collective consciousness has always been security, prosperity, and luck. Accordingly, the loss of luck and prosperity is an extremely negative thing represented in many curses:
Phraseological units with the meaning of wishes not to meet the speaker are semantically and structurally similar to malevolence:
It is important to pay attention to speech situations in which malevolence can be inverted and directed at the speaker himself:
An interesting phenomenon in the field of semantics of phraseological units-wishes is the change of their meaning to the opposite. Thus, the expression
The structure of phraseological expressions-malevolence is diverse, but at the same time, it is systemic. Certain models can be identified in the malevolence case:
Malevolence of the first groups (threats) are built on the basis of verb future tense: 1) verb in the first person singular (
горло перегрызу , дам прикурить , отбивную сделаю : I will gnaw your throat, I will light your cigarette, I will make a chop of you), 2) verb in the second person singular ( ты у меня попляшешь получишь на орехи(literally: you will dance , you will get be punished
The main components of malevolence of the second group is in the Imperative mood: черт тебя побери, отсохни твой язык, катись колбаской, пес (тебя) укуси, будь проклят, лягушка заклюй, күземнән югал ʻ(уйди) с глаз долойʼ телең корысын // телең череп төшсен, кулы корысын (корышсын) (lerally: damn you, let your tongue withered, roll like a sausage, let a frog (dog) bite you, get away from my eyes); in the Tatar language күземнән югал (literally: get away from my eyesight), дөмегеп кат (literally: when you die, numb), дөмегеп кит (literally: when you die, leave). It is noteworthy that, along with expressions with a component composition similar or identical to Russian analogues, phraseological units with a unique composition are used in the Tatar tradition. For example, wishing bad for someone йөзе йөзтүбән килсен / йөзең белән йөзтүбән каплан is literally translated as «wish you were facing the ground».
The meaning of the Imperative mood has the form of the Indicative mood:
The individual, personal aspect of malevolent phraseologisms, as well as their specifically targeted nature, is emphasized by the presence of a significant number of components in their structure, expressed by personal and possessive pronouns (
Some part of malevolence is used by native speakers in an elliptical form:
The inclusion of proper names in the composition of phraseologisms studied is rare; however, there are such examples:
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to describe the expression of malevolence in the Russian and Tatar languages using phraseological units:
analysis of metaphorization processes as a method of phrasing in different languages;
definition of semantic properties;
identification of specific and unified symbols in the formation of nationally marked units.
The complex of General linguistic and linguoculturological methods and techniques enabled us to present the versatility and complexity of the material associated with different language and cultural concepts. General linguistic methods and techniques were used in the system analysis of language units (from meaning to form, from form to meaning) and their functioning. Methods and techniques of linguistic and cultural analysis were applied in the consideration, analysis and description of a person's reaction to reality, to the behavior of other people. The system-structural method helped to consider units having a certain structure. The comparative method identified common and special features in the expression of malevolence among different peoples.
The results of the study of the structural and semantic properties of phraseological units – malevolence in the Russian and Tatar languages enabled us to come to the following conclusion:
despite the fact that the expression of a curse is an individual, personal and situational expression of emotions, the representation of specific speech means, the centuries-old neighborhood caused the interpenetration of certain standards and symbols, traditions of one people in the traditions of another;
there is much in common in the speech patterns of the ill-wishes of Russians and Tatars living in common territories.
The emotions of anger, expressed in patterns-phraseological units with the meaning «wishes» are understandable to all speakers of the same language because they were formed in the process of national communication. They are the result of knowledge and reflection of reality, their worldview, imaginative thinking, and, finally, the national temperament.
Malevolence in any language is a part of the language picture of the world. It is a national-specific pattern in certain communicative conditions.
The patterns analyzed in the article are inherent only in colloquial speech. The malevolent patterns that have been formed in each language are always figurative, but at the same time, they are laconic and give a special stylistic color to speech.
The study was financially supported by Grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research: 19-012-0039 Linguistic and Culturological reconstruction of ethnic area of Western Siberia.
- Beresovich, Ye. L., & Surikova, O. D. (2017). K sematicheskoi rekonstrutsii leksiki proklyatii (na materiale govorov Volgo-Dvinskogo mezhdurechia) [About semantical reconstruction of speech expressions connected with curses. (based on the dialects of the Volga-Dvina interfluve)]. Bulletin of Kostroma State University, Special issue, 28-32.
- Dinislamova, O. Yu. (2017). Yazykovaya reprezentatsiya bazovoy emotsii «gnev» v mansiyskoy frazeologicheskoy kartine mira [Language representation of the basic emotion «anger» in the Mansi phraseological picture of the world]. Bulletin of Ugric studies, 3(30), 28–35.
- Dushenkova, T. R. (2017). Leksicheskiye definitsii emotsii gneva v udmurtskom yazyke [Lexical definitions of the emotion of anger in the Udmurt language]. Bulletin of Ugric studies, 2(29), 39–45.
- Frazeologicheskiy slovar' russkogo yazyka [Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language]. (1967). Moscow: SE.
- Grishanova, V. N. (2001). Ustoychivyye sochetaniya so znacheniyem nedobrogo pozhelaniya [Stable combinations with the meaning of an unkind wish]. Slavic almanac, 467–472.
- Markina, L. V. (2019). Brannyye formuly kak sredstvo vyrazheniya verbal'noy agressii v dialektnoy kommunikatsii [Expletive formulas as a means of expressing verbal aggression in dialect communication]. Bulletin of Volgograd State University, 7, 157-162.
- Mokienko, V. M. (1994). Russkaya brannaya leksika: tsenzurnoye i netsenzurnoye [Russian expletive vocabulary: censored and obscene]. Russian Studies. Berlin, 1/2, 50–73. http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/mokiyenko-94.htm
- Novozhenova, Z. L., & Probst, N. A. (2019). K voprosu o rechevoy prirode verbal'noy ugrozy [About the question of communicative nature of a verbal threat]. Baltic Federal University of I. Kant, 4, 31-36.
- Panchenko, L. N. (2018). Strukturno-semanticheskii analiz mansiiskikh blagozhelanii [Structural and semantic analysis of Mansi good wishes]. Bulletin of Ugric studies, 8(1), 37–50.
- Pirniyazova, A. K. (2019). Etnolingvisticheskiye osobennosti frazeologizmov so znacheniyami dobrozhelatel'stva i nedobrozhelatel'stva (na materiale karakalpakskogo yazyka) [Ethnolinguistic features of phraseological units with the meanings of benevolence and malevolence (based on the material of the Karakalpak language)]. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 6(428), 127–135.
- Plotnikova, A. N. (2017). Lingvokreativnyye mekhanizmy konstruirovaniya rechevogo akta «ugroza» [Linguistic-creative mechanisms of construction of speech act «threat»]. Ural philological Journal, 2(26), 81-88.
- Safiullina, F. S. (2001). Tatarcha-ruscha frazeologik syzlek [Tatar-Russian phraseological dictionary]. Kazan: Məgarif.
- Vetrova, E. S. (2016). Pozhelaniya zla v kommunikativnoy kul'ture ukraintsev i lezgin [Wishes of evil in the communicative culture of the Ukrainians and Lezgins]. Scientific dialogue, 1(49), 16–31.
- Vodyasova, L. P., & Uchevatkin, A. A. (2011). Funktsii emotivnykh mezhdometiy v khudozhestvennom tekste (na materiale romana A.M. Doronina «Kuz'ma Alekseyev») [Functions of emotive interjections in a literary text (based on the material of A.M. Doronin's novel «Kuzma Alekseev»)]. Bulletin of Ugric studies, 3(6), 16–20.
- Zamaletdinov, R. R., Faizullina, G. C., Fattakova, A. A., Zamaletdinova, G. F., & Gabdrakhmanova, F. H. (2018). Frazeologicheskiye edinitsy sibirskikh tatar s komponentom-samatizmom ets-«zhivot», obrazovannyey na baze formul zlozhelanii [Phraseological units of the Siberian Tatars with the component-somatism ec -«Belly», formed on the basis formulas of malevolence]. Modern journal of language teaching methods, 8(11), 272-277.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
03 August 2020
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, translation, interpretation
Cite this article as:
Ermakova, E., Prokopova, M., Fayzullina, G., & Dorodneva, N. (2020). Structural And Semantic Properties Of Russian And Tatar Phraseological Units–Malevolence. In & N. L. Amiryanovna (Ed.), Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects, vol 86. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 434-442). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.08.51