The Role of Linguocultural Studies in Modern Times: Basic Principles and Method of Research

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The author presents the arguments for the defining role of linguocultural studies at the present stage of the development of linguistics. It is noted that linguistics continues its search for the space of language studies in the light of integral human knowledge. Whereas structural approach views any language as an autonomous semiotic formation, “self-enclosed and self-supported”, as a rule, without taking into account extralinguistic aspects, which are studied in the framework of other humanities, anthropological approach is based on understanding language as a constitutive human property, as a part of humans’ daily living activities and their spiritual life. Linguistics has reached the point of studying language as an anthropological phenomenon and at this point solely linguistic analysis is not enough as it is insufficient to rely just on the traditional pattern including linguistics plus deep introspection or accidental, non-systematic knowledge taken from various humanities and sciences. It is suggested that anthropological “twist” in linguistics will let us overcome the long-running stage of spontaneous connection of the existing and potential linguistics. The article highlights the process of differentiation of linguistic approaches existing on the neighboring, but not identical, scientific platforms. At the same time the research conducted reveals the trend towards their convergence in the framework of the unified linguo-anthropological methodology. It is claimed that the defining role in this process belongs to linguocultural studies. The study deals with the basic principles of linguocultural approach. Various signs such as words, phraseological units and even the signs of the text size are used to identify the points of convergence between so similar, though not identical, branches - linguocultural studies and ethnolinguistics. The processes of interaction of mental structures and the language forms of their representation are explicated. Culturally marked signals in the semantics of language signs are identified and described.

About the authors

Maria L. Kovshova

Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: mlk@iling-ran.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8920-8638
SPIN-code: 2677-4438
Scopus Author ID: 57222537296

D.Sc. (Philology), Chief Researcher at Yuri Stepanov Department for Theory and Practice of Communication

1 bld. 1, Bolshoy Kislovsky lane, Moscow, Russian Federation, 125009

References

  1. Benveniste, É. (1974). Problems in General Linguistics. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.).
  2. Stepanov, Yu.S. (1995). The Shifting Image of the Language in the XX Century Science. In: Language and Science at the End of the 20th Century. Moscow: RSUH. pp. 7–34. (In Russ.).
  3. Saussure, de F. (1974). Course in General Linguistics. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.).
  4. Postovalova, V.I. (2016). The Science of Language in the Light of Integral Knowledge. Moscow: LENAND. (In Russ.).
  5. Kovshova, M.L. (2020). The Science of Language as a Part of Human Science. Cultural Approach in Linguistics. Russian Language Abroad, 1, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.37632/PI.2020.278.1.007 (In Russ.).
  6. Bulygina, T.V. & Shmelev, A.D. (1997). Language Conceptualisation of the World. Moscow: Yazyki Russkoi Kultury. (In Russ.).
  7. Shmelev, A.D. (2014). Language and Culture: Are There Any Points of Contact? In: Trudy Instituta Russkogo Iazyka imeni V.V. Vinogradova (Proceedings of the V.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute). Vol. 1. Moscow: V.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 36–119. (In Russ.).
  8. Bartmiński, J., Berezovich, E., Vepreva, I., Kovshova, M. & Shmelev, A. (2021). The Interaction of Language and Culture: Research Boundaries and Perspectives. Quaestio Rossica, 9(4), 1389–1408. https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2021.4.645 (In Russ.).
  9. Tolstoy, N.I. & Tolstaya, S.M. (2013). About the Dictionary “Slavic Antiquities”. In: Tolstoy, N.I., Tolstaya, S.M. (eds.). Slavic Ethnolinguistics: Theory Issues. Moscow: Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 83–97. (In Russ.).
  10. Peeters, B. (2019). On Linguoculturology and Cultural Linguistics. NSU Vestnik. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 17(4), 6–11. https://doi. org/10.25205/1818-7935-2019-17-4-6-11
  11. Sharifian, F. (2016). Cultural Linguistics. Ethnolinguistics. Problems of Language and Culture, 28, 31–55. (In Polish).
  12. Berezovich, E.L. (2007). Language and Traditional Culture: Ethnolinguistic Papers. Moscow: Indrik. (In Russ.).
  13. Vinogradova, L.N. (2011). Birch. In: Slavic Mythology. Encyclopaedical Dictionary. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya. pp. 31–32. (In Russ.).
  14. Kovshova, M.L. & Gudkov, D.B. (2018). Dictionary of Linguoculturological Terms. Moscow: Gnozis. (In Russ.).
  15. Novikov, L.A. (1982). Semantics of the Russian Language. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola. (In Russ.).
  16. Denisenko, Ye.N. (2022). Representation of the tree mythologem in Russian and Belarusian paroemias and phraseological units. In: Slavic Phraseology and Paroemiology. Cultural Heritage and Modernity. Gomel: Francisk Skorina Gomel State University. pp. 62—66. (In Russ.).
  17. Mokienko, V.M., Nikitina, T.G. & Nikolaeva, E.K. (2010). The Unabridged Dictionary of Russian Proverbs. Moscow: OLMA Publ. (In Russ.).
  18. Cassirer, E. (1998). Selected Works. An Essay on Man. Moscow: Gardarik. (In Russ.).
  19. Lotman, Yu.M. (2000). Culture and Explosion. In: Culture and Explosion. Inside the Thinking Worlds. Articles. Studies. Notes. Saint Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB pp. 12–146. (In Russ.).
  20. Tsiv’yan, T.V. (1990). Linguistic Bases of the Balkan World Model. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.).
  21. Teliya, V.N. (2004). Cultural-linguistic Competence: its high probability and deep secrecy in phraseological units. In: Cultural Layers in phraseological units and discursive practices. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kultury. pp. 19–30. (In Russ.).
  22. Gudkov, D.B. (2020). Humans and Beasts: Russian Culturally Laden Human and Animal Names in the National Myth. A Linguocultural Dictionary. Moscow: LENAND. (In Russ.).
  23. Orlova, O.S. (2022). Euphemisms and Riddles on Life and Death in Russian and English Cultures: The Principle of Indirect Nomination. A Cognitve–Culturological Paper. Moscow: LENAND. (In Russ.).
  24. Radbil, T.B. (2021). “Cultural background” as an implicit cultural component in the semantics of language signs. In: Cognitive Studies of Language. Vol. 2. (45): Signs of language and senses of culture. Moscow—Tambov: Tambov State University named after G.R. Derzhavin publ. pp. 283–293. (In Russ.).
  25. Dem’yankov, V.Z. (2022). On the creativity of simple wisdom. In: Language. Man. Culture. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 45–51. (In Russ.).
  26. Kukhareva, A. Barefoot, Pregnant, and in the Kitchen: Why Does the Image of an American Farm Woman Haunt Minds of Russian Men? URL: https://n-e-n.ru/fermersha/ (accessed: 03.03.2023). (In Russ.).
  27. Eliade, M. Aspects of Myth. URL: http://yanko.lib.ru/books/sacra/eliade-aspektu_mifa.pdf (accessed: 03.03.2023). (In Russ.).

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2023 Kovshova M.L.

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

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies