Images of Nature in Tuvan, Tatar, Russian, and Spanish Riddles

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The article offers evidence of contrastive ethnolinguoculturological analysis of images of major natural phenomena (the sun, the moon, the day, the night, the stars, the wind, the rain, the snow/ice) in the riddles of four folk cultures that belong to Turkic (Tuvan and Tatar), Slavic (Russian), and Romance (Spanish) linguocultures, with interpretation of peculiarities of the poetics. Nature binds together different levels of cognition, evokes imaginative associations, refers to the archetypal constants of mythopoetic creativity. Riddles about nature are presented in the verbal creativity of any ethnic group. Theoretically and practically, it is important to develop a unified ethnolinguoculturological approach to study the poetics of thematically identical riddles of multilingual cultures. The subject of the article is riddles about nature, the object is linguistic means that create images of the sun, the moon, the day, the night, the stars, the wind, the rain, the snow/ice in Tuvan, Tatar, Russian-speaking, and Spanish ethnic groups. In the study, around 400 Tuvan, Tatar, Russian and Spanish riddles about nature from books on Tuvan, Tatar, Russian and Spanish folklore were used, along with riddles found on the Internet. The study methods include semantic, interpretative, linguoculturological analysis, culturological commentary, and comparative analysis. The main objective of the article is to analyze models of figurative representation and poetics of nine natural phenomena in four linguocultures. The article establishes that the ethnolinguistic content and poetics of riddles about nature vary depending on objective natural and geographical factors, dominant folk worldview, and typological affiliation of languages. The most numerous and metaphorically branched in all four linguistic cultures were the riddles about the sun, the wind, and the moon . The investigated riddles about nature show the characteristic determinant of the Turkic and the sporadic determinant of the Russian and Spanish riddles. The similarity of the images suggests a Eurasian continuum of riddles about nature.

About the authors

Olga S. Chesnokova

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN university)

Email: chesnokova-os@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7025-4098

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Philological Faculty

6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

Timur F. Usmanov

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN university)

Author for correspondence.
Email: timur.usmanov25@gmail.com
PhD student of the Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Philology 6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117198

References

  1. Dal’, V.I. (2000). Proverbs of the Russian people. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russ.).
  2. Toporov, V.N. (1999). The second origin is a riddle in ritual (Vedic cosmological riddle of the brahmodya type: structure, function, origin. In: Studies in the field of Balto-Slavic spiritual culture. A riddle as a text. Moscow: Indrik. pp. 8–53. (In Russ.).
  3. Propp, V.Ya. (1976). Folklore and Reality. Moscow. (In Russ.).
  4. Krasnykh, V.V. (2011). Fundamental Postulates and Some Basic Terms of Linguo-Culture Studies. Russian language abroad, 4 (227), 60–66. (In Russ.).
  5. Abdrashitova, M.O. (2012). The world-modeling function of the riddle genre in folklore discourse [dissertation]. Tomsk. (In Russ.).
  6. Kovshova, M.L. & Orlova, O.S. (2020). Cognitive analysis of riddles and cultural comment: research experience. Cognitive Studies of Language. Vol. 2 (41): Сognitive and discursive paradigm in linguistics and related sciences: current problems and research methodology. Papers of the X International Congress on Cognitive Linguistics September 17–20, 2020, Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University. pp. 97–101. (In Russ.).
  7. Medvedeva, E.S., Chesnokova O.S. (2019). Linguocognitive analysis of spanish animal riddles. Vestnik of Moscow state linguistic university. Humanitarian sciences. Vol. 13 (829). S. 59–71. (In Russ.).
  8. Mugtasimova, G.R. (2012). Ethno-cultural features of tatar riddle. Philology. Theory & Practice. № 7 (18). 2. S. 144–147. (In Russ.).
  9. Lazareva, O.V. (2021). Language Personality: Results and Prospects of the Study. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 12(2), 229–237. (In Russ.). https:// www.doi 10.22363/2313-2299-2021-12-2-229-237
  10. Orlova, O.S. (2021). The principle of indirect nomination in riddles and euphemisms on the topic of birth and death [dissertstion]. Moscow: Institut yazykoznaniya RAN. (In Russ.).
  11. Medvedeva, E. (2022). Linguosemiotic Analysis of Spanish Animal Riddles. URL: https:// www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2020.12.02.76 (accessed: 24.01.2022) 10.15405/epsbs.2020.12.02.76
  12. Tuvinskie zagadki = Tyvy tyvyzyktar: Sbornik (2002). G.N. Kurbatskiy (Ed.). Kyzyl: Tuvinskoje izdatel’stvo. (In Russ.).
  13. Tatar national riddles (2014). (tөz. hәm keresh T23 sүz avt. KH. Mәkhmүtov). Tatar. kit. nәshr.
  14. Russian folklore (1941). Yu.M. Sokolov (Ed.). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe uchebnopedagogicheskoe izdatel’stvo Nrkomprosa RFSRS. (In Russ.).
  15. Russian folklore (2007). Collection of myths, epics, fairy tales, songs, riddles, proverbs and sayings, V. Modestov (Ed.). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura. (In Russ.).
  16. Garfer, J.L. & Fernández, C. (1994). Adivinancero antológico español. Ponferrada: Ediciones del Prado. (In Spanish).
  17. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Russ.).
  18. Lamazhaa, Ch.K. (2021). Tuva as a limitrophe zone: language, religion and people’s identity. New Research of Tuva, 3, 178–194. https://www.doi.org/10.25178/nit.2021.3.14 (In Russ.).
  19. Samdan, Z.B. (2016). Myth in the folklore tradition of Tuvinians: (forms of existence, plot composition, character system). Novosibirsk: Nauka. (In Russ.).
  20. Kurbatskiy, G.N. (2001). Tuvans in their folklore. Kyzyl: Tuvinskoje izdatel’stvo. (In Russ.).
  21. Mikhal’chenko, V.Yu. (2015). Language situation and language policy in modern Russia. In: The language situation in Europe at the beginning of the XXI century: Collection of reviews. Moscow. pp. 14–31. (In Russ.).
  22. Regional linguistic consciousness of Komi, Russians, Tatars: problems of mutual influence (2017). N.V. Ufimtseva (ed.). Moscow. (In Russ.).
  23. The Tatar nation: history and modern development (2002). D.M. Iskhakov (Ed.). Kazan. (In Russ.).
  24. Telyashov, R. (2014). Tatars and Russians: historical and linguistic reflections. SaintPetersburg. (In Russ.).
  25. Shihab, K. & Enikeev, G.R. (2017). Tatar heritage. Moscow: Algorithm. (In Russ.).
  26. Fuentes, C. (1997). El Espejo enterrado. Madrid.
  27. Pérez-Reverte, A. (2019). Una historia de España. Madrid: Alfaguar.
  28. Gumilev, L.N. (2019). Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere. Saint-Petersburg: Azbuka. (In Russ.).
  29. Mel’nikov, G.P. (2000). Systemic typology of languages. Textbook. Moscow: RUDN Publ. (In Russ.).
  30. Bakhtikireeva, U.M., Valentinova, O.I. & Rybakov, M.A. (2019). The factors of Slavic and Turkic languages typological complementary in the light of systemic linguistics and ethnology. Philological Sciences. Scientific Essays of Higher Education, 3, 21–30. https://www.doi. org/10.20339/PhS.3-19.021 (In Russ.).
  31. Mitrofanova, V.V. (1978). Russian national riddles. Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.).

Copyright (c) 2022 Chesnokova O.S., Usmanov T.F.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies