Linguoculturological Specific Features Of Phraseological Units And Paremias In Multi-Structural Languages

Abstract

The article examines the national and cultural specificity of phraseological units and proverbs containing an insectonym component, or the name of an insect, in two languages of different structures: Kyrgyz and Russian. The relevance of the work is due to the lack of a comparative analysis of one of the important fragments of the phraseological worldview clearly reflecting the peculiarities of the national worldview of the Russian and Kyrgyz ethnic groups, as well as the need to study the ways of translating these units in languages of different structure. The close relationship between extralinguistic and intralinguistic factors that determine the specifics of the phraseological picture of the world of different peoples is demonstrated on the example of linguoculturological analysis. The purpose of the study is to describe the linguocultural specifics of phraseological units and paremias with an insectonym component in the Russian and Kyrgyz languages, identify semantic universals and national and cultural differences of these units, describe the ways they are translated into another language. The study has revealed a significant similarity in the composition of phrase-forming insectonyms, singled out the types of correspondences of phraseological units and proverbs, found that the dominant type of correspondences are partial equivalents, or analogues, named nationally specific units, whose presence is due to extralinguistic factors determining the specifics of the mentality of different ethnic groups. This contributes to the formation of a holistic phraseological worldview of different peoples.

Keywords: Insectonym component, linguoculturological specific, phraseological unit, paremia

Introduction

The languages comparative study is one of the priority areas in modern linguistics. The description of similarities and differences in the systems of languages with different structures benefits the formation of a holistic linguistic worldview and is of great importance for intercultural communication and translation theory and practice. A valuable place in the comparative direction is held by the study of phraseology and paremiology in the linguoculturological aspect; the study is carried out on the material of both related and unrelated languages. The works of many domestic and foreign linguists are devoted to this problem (Kovshova, 2014; Nikitina & Zhumaniyazov, 2019; Nikitina et al., 2021; Reichstein, 1980; Solodub, 2002; Teliya, 1996). The linguoculturological specificity of phraseological groups with integral components in Russian, English, Chinese and other languages has been studied (Ju 2020; Ratushnaya & Zhaparkulova 2017; Radbil et al., 2020; Saryan, 2006 and many others). However, to date, the national and cultural features of phraseological units with an insectonym component remain unexplored on the material of such diverse languages as Kyrgyz and Russian.

Problem Statement

The identification of universal and nationally specific features of various linguistic cultures is one of the most important problems of modern linguistics.

Linguistic and cultural features of phraseological units and paremias with an insectonym component in the Kyrgyz and Russian languages are practically not studied. Although, they are of great importance for creating a phraseological worldview, allow describing the specifics of the national worldview of the Russian and Kyrgyz peoples and contribute to the construction of a theory of translating languages with different structures.

It is relevant to study the similarities and differences of two linguistic cultures on the material of one of the brightest fragments of the phraseological worldview expressing the specifics of the mentality of the Russian and Kyrgyz peoples in comparative and translational aspects.

Research Questions

The object of the study was phraseological units and paroemias including the insectonym component (the name of an insect) in two languages of different structure, specifically, Russian and Kyrgyz. More than ten insectonyms functioned as components with almost identical composition in the compared languages. The material of the study was a catalogue of phraseological units and paremias with an insectonym component in the Russian and Kyrgyz languages. The catalogue was compiled based on various lexicographic sources (Abdubaliyeva, 2009; Dahl, 2009; Tajieva & Kurmanbekova, 2016; Voinova, 2001).

The subject of the study was the semantic-linguoculturological features of phraseological units and paremias with an insectonym component in the compared languages.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to describe the linguocultural specificity of phraseological units and proverbs with an insectonym component (the name of an insect) in the Russian and Kyrgyz language, identify semantic universals as well as national and cultural differences of these units, characterise the ways of their translation into another language.

Research Methods

Comparative analysis is the main method of studying phraseological units and paremias with an insectonym component (the name of an insect) in the Russian and Kyrgyz languages. It helps to find universal and nationally specific linguoculturological features of units. To analyze the semantic structure, the method of component analysis was used;

Findings

A comparative analysis of the component composition of phraseological units and proverbs showed the identity of phrase-forming insectonyms used to name insects that are widespread in the daily life of ethnic groups: кене (a tick), чымын (a fly), бит (a louse), аары (a bee), жөргөмүш (a spider), кумурска (an ant), бүргө (a flea), an ant, a mosquito, a bug. The highest phrase-forming activity in both linguocultures is shown by the lexeme чымын (a fly), for example:There is a semantic divergence of some phraseological units that have identical component composition: ̶ “нетрезвый, находящийся в состоянии алкогольного опьянения” (in Russian); (literally “having a fly, with a fly”) ̶ “a seer” (in Kyrgyz). At the same time, the same property of a person can be expressed through the images of different insects: (“ant’s waist”) in the Kyrgyz language and (“wasp’s waist”) in Russian.

Many phraseological units with a чымын (component in Kyrgyz are nationally specific: (literally “to be a tornado fly”)– “a tornado”; (literally “not even feel how the fly sat down on someone”) – “not to pay attention”; (literally “a place where you can hear a fly buzzing”– “not far away”; (literally “like a fly in the ear”)– “about an annoying person”. In the Russian language there are also phraseological units that do not match on semantics and figurative basis:(literally “white flies” – snowflakes)(literally “as if a fly has bitten” – what is the matter with)(literally “are dying like flies” – drop like flies)(literally “flies are dying” – drop like flies)(literally “making an elephant out of a fly” – make a mountain out of a mole hill)(literally “will not hurt a fly” – he cannot say do to a goose)(literally “as if swallowed a fly” – in a bad mood).

For both linguistic cultures, a subgroup including the names of blood-sucking parasitic insects: louse, tick, flea, nit is universal. These units are characterized by a sharply negative connotation. The semes “negative appraisal”, “disapproval”, “condemnation” are distinguished in their semantic structure, which is due to the fact that these insects bring inconvenience to humans and pets, for example: (literally: “nits cannot stand water”) – “someone is in a bad mood, angry, very nervous”; (literally: “having crushed lice, lick their blood”) – characteristic of a very greedy person;(literally: “A louse that is on feet will get to the head”);(literally: “You will learn good things from a good person, you will get lice from a bad person”). Many units from this subgroup are nationally specific, for example:– “a craftswoman able to do any housework” (literally: “to pour blood into the intestines of a louse”), since cleaning the insides of pets was considered a very difficult task. In Russian, the following phraseological unit conveys similar semantics:A very short person in the Kyrgyz linguistic culture is characterized by the following nationally specific phraseological: (literally “like the louse of the earth”).

Insectonyms “tick” and “bug” in both languages are used as part of comparative phraseological units built according to the syntactic model of comparative construction and based on a comparison of the features of an insect and a person. Such phraseological units also have a sharply negative connotation: (literally “cling like a hungry tick”) – about a person who annoys someone very much;(literally “cling like a tick”) (in Russian).

Phraseological units denoting a person in appearance, mode of movement are nationally specific for the Russian people:(literally “as black as a beetle”)(literally “to buzz like a bumblebee”)(literally “to flutter like a butterfly”);

Furthermore, a distinctive feature of the Russian language is phraseological units denoting a person and formed on the basis of a metaphorical transfer from homonymous terminological names of insects (ladybug, potato beetle). In addition, a synonymous series of phraseological units specific to the Russian language is distinguished:which convey a sharply negative attitude towards someone, disapproval caused by negative behavior, actions of a person, and contain the connotative semes “sharply negative appraisal”, “disapproval”, “condemnation” in their semantic structure. In Russian linguistic culture, the following phraseologism is used to characterize a job well done:(literally “the mosquito will not undermine the nose”), missing in Kyrgyz language.

Phraseologisms and paroemias with an insectonym component differ in the degree of their semantic and figurative correspondence, which enables to distinguish different ways of their translation into another language.

The first type of correspondences is made up of equivalent phraseological units and paroemias, which completely coincide in semantics and figurative basis, have an identical component composition, for example: ̶ A bee stings with a sting, and a man with a word; Having been angry at the lice, throw the fur coat in the oven; ̶ A mosquito gives birth to a mosquito, a man – to a man; (grab) like a tick ̶ (literally “to cling like a hungry tick”); – jump like a flea.

When translating such units, the method of selecting a semantically equivalent phraseological unit or proverb is used, while the corresponding unit should not have any semantic, connotative, or stylistic differences in the figurative basis. The parallelism of such units is due to the similarity of the worldview of different ethnic groups, the identity of the assessment of typical situations associated with certain insects.

The largest category is made up of phraseological units and proverbs, which coincide in semantics, but have a different figurative basis and component composition. The figurative basis is formed within the scope of associative links with certain types of insects, concurrently, the insectonym component may be absent in the second language, for example: (literally “like the louse of the earth”) – “about a very short person” ̶ мужичок с ноготок, метр с кепкой; (literally: “nits cannot stand water”) – “someone is in bad mood, angry, very nervous” ̶ to be in bad mood; (literally “having crushed lice, lick their blood”) – characteristic of a very greedy person – глаза завидущие, руки загребущие; на чужое добро и глаза разгораются; (literally “burn the dress, taking revenge on the lice”) – “to do something without thinking” ̶ рубить сплеча;characterizes a craftswoman with skillful hands. In a literal translation, the phraseological unit means “to pour blood into the gut of a louse.” In Russian language: золотые руки; блоху подковать; дело мастера боится.

When translating these units, the replacement of the image is used while maintaining the semantic and stylistic similarity of phraseological units and paremias in different languages. In the absence of an equivalent, it is necessary to choose a phraseological unit or paremia in the Russian language that have the same semantics, but are based on different images.

Conclusion

Phraseologisms and proverbs with an insectonym component hold a valuable place in the Russian and Kyrgyz language fund, they convey the ideas of the ethnic group concerning the world around them in a bright, nationally original form. These units reflect the centuries-old observations of the Kyrgyz and Russian people over various types of insects that were constantly next to humans. When translating phraseological units and paroemias with a component naming an insect, it is necessary to take into account the degree of semantic, stylistic correspondence and figurative basis. Depending on these factors, various methods of translation are used.

References

• Abdubaliyeva, B. Z. (2009). The Turkish leader's speech is an industrial revolution (Kyrgyz, Altai, Khakass, Tuva Makaldary) [Doctoral Dissertation]. Karakol.

• Dahl, V. I. (2009). Proverbs of the Russian people: Collection. Russian language; Media.

• Ju, C. (2020). Semasiological structure of proverbs with a zoonym component in Russian and Chinese [Doctoral Dissertation]. Ufa.

• Kovshova, M. L. (2014). Comparative analysis of phraseological units: linguoculturological approach. Philology and culture, 4(38), 115–120. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sopostavitelnyy-analiz-frazeologizmov-lingvokulturologicheskiy-podhod

• Nikitina, T. G., & Zhumaniyazov, M. A. (2019). Vocabulary and phraseology in a bilingual comparative educational dictionary. Scientific dialogue, 12, 70–83. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Nikitina, T. G., Rogaleva, V. I., & Piao, L. (2021). Dictionary representation of linguocultural stereotypes: communicative behavior of Russians in the thematic dictionary of proverbs. Scientific dialogue, 10, 117–133. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Radbil, T. B., Akhmetzhanova, G. A., Zhumagulova, Z. Z., Seralieva, A. E., & Seralieva, G. vE. (2020). SOUL and BODY in the aspect of a comparative analysis of the concepts of culture: materials for the linguoculturological phraseological dictionary of Russian-Kazakh correspondences. Scientific dialogue, 3, 127–150. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Ratushnaya, E. R., & Zhaparkulova, N. N. (2017). Proverbs and phraseological units with an ornithonym component in the Kyrgyz and Russian languages. Modern scientist, 1, 55–58. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/izuchenie-frazeologizmov-s-komponentom-zoonimom-v-vuze-na-materiale-russkogo-i-kirgizskogo-yazykov

• Reichstein, A. D. (1980). Comparative analysis of German and Russian phraseology. Higher School.

• Saryan, M. A. (2006). Comparative linguoculturological analysis of phraseological units of Russian and English: [PhD dissertation]. Maykop.

• Solodub, Y. P. (2002). Russian Phraseology as an Object of Comparative Structural-Typological Research. Science.

• Tajieva, G., & Kurmanbekova, A. (2016). Treasure of the national spirit. (Proverbs, sayings and sayings of the Kyrgyz people in Russian). Uluu toolor.

• Teliya, V. N. (1996). Russian phraseology. Semantic, pragmatic and linguoculturological aspects. School “Languages of Russian Culture”.

• Voinova, L. A. (2001). Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. AST.