Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)9258ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleGrammatical Structures in Cross-Cultural ComparisonsГрамматические структуры в межкультурных сравненияхGladkovaAnna NГладковаАнна НSchool of HumanitiesФакультет гуманитарных наукangladkova@gmail.comUniversity of BrightonУниверситет Брайтона15042015194VOL 19, NO4 (2015)ТОМ 19, №4 (2015)576809092016Copyright ©; 2015, Gladkova A.N.Copyright ©; 2015, Гладкова А.Н.Copyright ©; 2015, Gladkova A.2015Gladkova A.N.Гладкова А.Н.Gladkova A.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/9258The article discusses how cultural information is embedded at the level of grammar and it treats grammar as inseparable from semantics and pragmatics. The study is done within the approach known as ethnosyntax. The article provides examples of cultural meaning embedded at the level of syntax relying on examples from Russian and English. In particular, it demonstrates variation in impersonal constructions in Russian and causative constructions in English. It then discusses variation in the use of grammatical structures due to the influence of cultural factors on the basis of ways of wording ‘requests’ in English and Russian. The linguistic examples in the discussion are sources from the Russian National Corpus for Russian and Collins Wordbanks Online for English. The article argues for the importance of culture-sensitive linguistic studies in language teaching.На материале русского и английского языков в статье обсуждается вопрос о том, как культурная информация передается на уровне грамматики. В данном случае грамматика рассматривается в неразрывной связи с семантикой и прагматикой. Исследование проведено в рамках этносинтаксиса. В работе анализируются безличные конструкции в русском языке и конструкции причины в английском. Также на примере речевого акта «просьба» в английском и русском языках рассматриваются различия в употреблении грамматических структур, вызванные культурными факторами. В качестве источника примеров используются Национальный корпус русского языка и Коллинз Вордбанкс Онлайн. В статье подчеркивается практическая важность лингвистических исследований, выявляющих культурный компонент значения, для преподавания иностранных языков.ethnosyntaxNatural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM)RussianEnglishrequestsimpersonal constructionscausative constructionsэтносинтаксисЕстественный Семантический Метаязык (ЕСМ)русский языканглийский языкпросьбабезличные конструкцииконструкции причины1.Apresjan, V. (2012) ‘The ‘Russian’ attitude to time’, in L. Filipovic and K. Jaszczolt (ed.) Space and Time across Languages and Cultures. Vol. II: Language, Culture and Cognition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103-120.2.Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.3.Bowe, H. and Martin, K. (2009) Communication Across Cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.4.Bromhead, H. (2009) The Reign of Truth and Faith: Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th century English, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.5.Cobuild Wordbanks Online http://www.collinslanguage.com/content-solutions/wordbanks.6.Enfield, N.J. (2002) ‘Ethnosyntax: Introduction’, in N.J. Enfield (ed.) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-30.7.Enfield, N.J. (ed.) (2002) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press.8.Gladkova, A. (2012) ‘Universals and specifics of ‘time’ in Russian’, in L. Filipovic and K. Jaszczolt (eds.) Space and Time across Languages and Cultures. Vol. II: Language, Culture and Cognition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167-188.9.Gladkova, A. (2013a) ‘“Is he one of ours?” The cultural semantics and ethnopragmatics of social categories in Russian’, Journal of Pragmatics, 55: 180-194.10.Gladkova, A. (2013b) ‘“Intimate” talk in Russian: human relationships and folk psychotherapy’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, Special issue “Semantics and/in social cognition”, edited by C. Goddard, 33(3): 322-344.11.Goddard, C. (2002) ‘Ethnosyntax, Ethnopragmatics, Sign-Function, and Culture’, in N.J. Enfield (ed.) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 52-73.12.Goddard, C. (2003) ‘Whorf meets Wierzbicka: variation and universals in language and thinking’, Language Sciences, 25: 393-432.13.Goddard, C. (2006) ‘Ethnopragmatics: A new paradigm’, in C. Goddard(ed.) Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-30.14.Goddard, C. (ed.) (2006) Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.15.Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (2014) Words and Meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.16.Goddard, C. and Wierzbicka, A. (Eds.) (2002) Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and empirical findings. Vols. I, II, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.17.Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.18.Larina, T. (2009) Kategorija vežlivosti i stil’ kommunikacii. [The category of politeness and styles of communication], Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.19.Larina, T. (2013) Angličane i russkie: jazyk, kul’tura, kommunikacija. [The English and the Russians: Language, culture and communication], Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.20.Malchukov, A. and Ogawa, A. (2011) ‘Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semantic map approach’, in A. Malchukov and A. Siewierska (eds.) Impersonal Constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17-54.21.Russian National Corpus www.ruscorpora.ru.22.Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.23.Searle, J.R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.24.Simpson, J. (2002) ‘From Common Ground to Syntactic Construction: Associated Path in Warlpiri’, in N.J. Enfield (ed.) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 287-307.25.Wierzbicka, A. (1979) ‘Ethnosyntax and the philosophy of grammar’, Studies in Language, 3(3): 313-83.26.Wierzbicka, A. (1988) The Semantics of Grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.27.Wierzbicka, A. (1992) Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.28.Wierzbicka, A. (1999) Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.29.Wierzbicka, A. (2002) ‘English causative constructions in an ethnosyntactic perspective: Focusing on LET’, in N. J Enfield (ed.) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 162-203.30.Wierzbicka, A. 2003[1991]. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.31.Wierzbicka, A. (2006) English: Meaning and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press.32.Zalianiak, Anna. (2005) ‘Zametki o slovax obščenie, otnošenie, pros’ba, čuvstva, ėmocii’. [Notes about the words obščenie, otnošenie, pros’ba, čuvstva, ėmocii]. In A. Zalizniak. et al. Ključevye idei russkoj jazykovoj kartiny mira. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.