Идиомы на тему бедности

                                                  Intoduction 

   The connection between language and culture ha been considered by many scholars, and at present it has become an aziom that national culture manifests itself in national language. Language, being a unique storage of the cultura heritage of the nation, serves to transmit the collected wisdom of the nation from generation to generation.

   Specifically, people’s beliefs, views of life and values manifest themselves most vividly in the phraseological system which is losely connected with empirical and spiritua life of the people. Idioms and proverbs not ony accumulate and generalize the people’s nowedge and life experience, but olso convey information about the basic moral values of the nation and norms of behavior  acceptedin the givn culture. They either prescribe a certain mode of behavior or criticize people’s vices ad faults.

   So by studying idioms and proverbs which are a precious source of cultural informatio, one can not only learn more about customs, beliefs and values of the nation, but olso look into the “soul” of people, understand their way of thinking.

   This study is devoted to investigating English and Russin idoms and proverbs representing the concepts of wealth and money. In particular it aims` to determine the role money and wealth play in the life of speakers from the both countries and thereby to rveal the peculiarities of mentality and word perception typical for both cultures.

   The selcted idioms and proverbs will be submitted to etymologycal,semantic and concepual anayses in order to discern the basic concepts that underlie the sphere of wealth.

   The peculiarities of mentality and world perception of the three natins under consideration il be studied on the materia of phraseological units etimologcally related to the units belonging to the semantic field of “money and wealth”.

   The idioms and proverns were selected from authoritative English and Rusian dictionaries, both bilingua and monolingual( a complete list of them is given in the Bibliography at the end of the paper).

   The taks of the work determine the srtructure. The paper consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion and biblography.

   The first chapter contains a theoretical survey of such linguistic problems as interrelation of language and thinking, of language and culture; conceptual and lnguage pictures of the world;cognitive and expressive functions of phraseology. It falls into to parts.

   The first part deals with the interrelations between language, cognition and culture;and also the indivua, conventional and ntional pictures of the world.

   The second part is dedicated to phraseology as a subsystem of the laguage which has most lose links with the national culture and mentality. Special attention is given to as specific phraseological units that possess a didactic character.

   The second chapter presents a contrastive analysis of the selected Engliand, german idiomatic expressions of the semantic field od “money”.

   The results of the research are summed up in the Conclusion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                            Chapter I

            Conitive and Expressive Functions of Fraseology in Representing                                                                               National Culture 

   One of the axioms of contemprorary Linguistics is the important role of natural language in human cognition and thinking. Language facilitates cognitive processes of man and, through a system of meanings, connotations and linguisic images, reflects the results of human mentl and spiritual activities, at the same time actingas intermediary between people.

   The aim of this chapter is to study into the interrelation of national language, national thinking and national culture, and in particular, to look into the roe of Phraseology in representing the ntional picture of the world. 

                  Part 1. National culture and nationl picture of the world

 

   One of the basic notions of the theory of human cgnition is the picture of the world. The picture of the world is a generalized image of the world, a system of knowledge represented by basic notions of outer reality derived from man’s spiritua and empirical activties through generatons. On the other hand, it is haracterized by breadth and completeness of the world vision, hih icludes a multitude of notions nd categores concerning all areas of man’s life and experience. On the other hand, it is not boundless. The word model Is restricted by cognitive abilities of man who is capable of comprehending reality ony as a commensurable with his perceptive power and value orientation( 9, p.174). So it is notsurprsing that cognitive science proceeds from the anthropocentric princeple “Man is the measure of al things”.

    A person cannot percieve or comprhend what les byond his vison of realty.

Ccording to Wilhlm von Humboldt the model of the world, or world outlook(Weltansicht) in his terms, is a peci cirlcle of world comprehension whivj is possble to leave only y entrin a new one (qoated from:6, p.29)

Ognition of the surrounding world which presuppoes bothacqustion of objetive knowledge and its subjective evauation results in introducing an ideal world of notions, images and connotations. Existing as an abstraction, it requires a certain “shortage” where its eemnts are properly strucrured and logically arrnged. Ths enatl structure which “houses” and organizes hman knowledge is called conceptul picture of the world.

   As man’s mental model of reality the conceptual picture of the world factually a system of conventional concepts – units of huan memory reflcting man’s genralized knowledge and experience. In other words, a concept is a certain “quantum” of information about a particular objct which comprises bsides the basic ntion all relevant dat about this object, including its eotiv ecaluaton. It is “what a person knows, supposes, thinks, imagines” in relation to an object of rality (3, p.90).

   Being a global conceptual model, the conventional picture of the world represents knowledge common for all people and thus serves as a universal natural intermediary not only between people but also between various spheres of human culture which makes possibe mutual understanding and human communication as such.

   However, the existence of this conventional image of relty does not at all mean that all people on Earth think and see things in the same way. Apart from being a unique personality with peculiar physical, mental, psychologica properties, each person gains specific experience in the process of cognizing and interrupting the world. As a result he  creates his own, individual visual of reality and determines his place in it. The individua picture refects not only man’s personal knowledge of the world and experience, but also his inborn qualities, values, attitudes and inclinations etc, formed under the influence of his contacts with the outer world, family background, professional activities and many other factors.

   Such an individual mde of realityis important not ony in itsef, as a person’s “private shell”, a kind of conceptual medium ithin whch he exists. It is also a source of and basis for creating the global picture of the world. According to V. I. Postovalov, “a really adequate global and integral model of the world can be compiled only by a collective suject in the process of all-round cognition of outer world which results in the common picture where all shades of individual perception fade away”(6, p.31).

    So, the conventional model of the world is a kind of summing up of numerous individual images of reality, which provides a cognitive bassse for a unified informationa system. This common conceptul bse is necessary, as it has already been mentioned, for interconnection and harmonization of various spheres of human activity, as well as social integration of people. What is vitally important, it regulates, among other things, people’s intercourse and behavior in society as it forms man’s attitde towards himself  as an integral part of the world and consequently determines the norms of man’s behavior in relation to the other constituents of this system ( other people, nature, society etc).

   It shoud be pointed out that such a division of world pictures into the global  and inddividual ones is fairy relative for oe cn single out as many @images@ of the world as there are peopl on Earth. Moreover, every rea of man’s mental or empirical activity (economy, scienc, philosoph, religion etc) is characterized by a specific “vision” of reality, a  certain “prism” through which mn sees and perceves the outer world. So one can speak about the mythological, scientific( physica, biological etc), religious and many other models of the world whch wil reflect a specific comprehensiv of reality. These conceptual systems can be either integral (reflecting knowledge of the world as a whole) or specific (representing only a fragment). Although based on their own laws, they all have some common knowledge and are closely interconnected and, what is more important, contribute part of thir knowledge to the conventiona picture of the world, providing that information they contain is available and understandable for all the people.

   The most important property of the picture of the world consists in its absoluteinner reliability and authenticity for the person – it is  regarded  by all its bearers not as a historically stipulated vision of reality but as meaningful doublet of the world (6,p. 46). L.V. Yatsenko points out that “world images may vary in the width and co-ordination of their parts but they al claim to be dentical with reality being based on belief that the word is just like it is reflected in the picture of the world. As a component of the leading world outlook the model of the world acquires an enormous impressive power and belief in its absolute reliability” (quoted from: 6.p. 46).

   Apart from the global picture of the world comprising universal noional categories, shared by people wordwide irrespective of their nationality and cultural background, there exixts a certain amount of knowledge which varies from nation to nation. It’s  a recognized fact that people, belonging to different nations have considerable differences in the system of values, moral views, beliefs and ven general idea of the world. Different scholars pointed out the existence of a peculiar mentality, “spirit” of the nation. For instance, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdjaev (1874-1948) spke about a prely spiritual “irrational” core which determined the life of a nation.

   The central notion of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s philosophy of lnguage was what he called “the soul of the nation” (he identified it with the national anguage) : “Any study of the national peculiarities without applying to the language as to an additional means woud be of no use for only in the language all the national chracter is imprinted. (…) Besides, in it as in the communicative means of the nation individual peculiarities disappear to et the universal become apparent (2, p. 303).

  Information lying outside the conventional world image constitutes national picrures of the world peculiar to different peoples and their culture. N fact, one can speak about unique, “ntionality coloured” concepts typical to one particular nation. For exmple, he concepts “health” or “sportsman” are consideres specifically English, meaning that they reflect peculiarites of the English world perception. Andthough these words can be translated into other languages, the corresponding foreigh words will hardly render the same amount of information as their English counterparts. Analogically, such concepts as «душа», «тоска», «страдание» are thought to be typically Russian (1).

    In this sense, each national picture of the world is a “prism”  of world perception through which the nation ses outer reality. It’s a specific interpretation of the gobal, conventional model of the world.

   In contemporary cognitive studies this specifically national wy of thinking and perception of the wrld is often called national mentality, which  in The Contemporary Philosophical Dictionary is defined as “the combination of different traditions, beliefs, habits, ideas which charecterize the socety, its mode of thinking and actions of the whoe nation”. Obviously the mentality ( “spirit” or “soul”) of the nation manifesrs itself in the national culture.

   Culture can be understood as the full range of  acquired human behavior patterns. This dea was first introduced by the English anthropologist Edward B. Tylor (1823 – 1917). In his book “Primitive Culture” published in 1871 he stated that culture was “that complex whoe which includes knowedge, belief, art, law, morals, customs, and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a meber of society” (quoted from 16)/ So when we speak of Englsh, German, Russian or any other culture, we imply the common knowledge, belefs, language,   customs  and traditions that distinguish one people from another.

   The famous researcher of cross-cultural dfferences, Edward Hall distinguishes “overt” and “covert” cultur. By the former he means some outward sighns of culture like the cult, eating habits, desigh of houses, fshion – all the elements of culture that have a mterial form. By the atter he means religious beefs. Values, attitudes whch rersent the natinal metaty. Covert component of culture affects and even shapes poeole’sbehavot  and lifestyle.

   The problem of interrelation of language and culture has always been considered by various scholars here are different points  of view on this issue.

   It was Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767- 1835 who made this connection between language and culture. For Humboldt language was something dynamic, an activity (energia) rather than a static inventory of items as the product of activity (ergon). At the same time language is an expression both of the cultural identity and individuality of the speaker, who perceies the world through language.

   A century later, these ideas were developed in American ethnolinguistics by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, resulting in the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis, or principle of linguistic relativity, which maintains that thought soesnot “precede

‘ language, but on the contraryit is conditioned by it.

Like in Humboldt’s theory of language, such conclusions ere bsed on detailed study of barely accesible “exotic” languages such as those of the American Indians. Whorf maintained, for example, that the verb system in Hopi directly affected the speaker’s conception of time (13:57-64).

   Similar conclusions have been reached in disciplines devoted to the study of ancient cultures: Sumerologists doing research into the civilization of Old Babylonia, for example, have put forward the principle of “Eigenbergrifflichkeit” (10). Maintaining that the scholar can only approach some understandin of that world if he deals with it in its own concepts and in its own terms, without imposing the 20 th century European concepts and values upon it. So according to this theory, each language is absolutely singular and so is each natioanl culture represented in language.

   The opposite point of view also goes back to Wilhelm von Humboldt: it is the principle of language universals propagated by Chomsky and the school of generative grammar. Chomsky’s concept of dep structure and surface struture is a development of Humboldt’s theory of “inner” and “outer” form of language. From this point of view translation of “recording” or change of surface tructure in representation of the – non-linguistic and ultimately universal – deep structure underlying it (13). It claims that thinking process is identical in all people and language is a means of codng the results of thinking process. This principle claims that language is independent from culture.

   We are faced with a dichotomy of two extremes, and the answer lies not in choosing one of the two conflicting alternatives, but n detremining the point which is valid for the case in question. Most of the modern scientists share the idea that different cultures, on the one hand, share some common cultural elements and. On the other hand, have some peculiar, individual cultural elements.

   Apparently, national language, being an integral part of national culture, reflects all peculiarities of cognition and mentality of the people. The outstanding Russian linguist A.A. Potebnya pointed out a close interconnection between the histry of the language and that of its bearers – the nation. He emphasized the necessity of studying semantics of words in connection with the development of the language and thinking in the history of the nation. He believed that sytems of word meanings referring to certain lexico-semantic spheres must be correlated with the social life of the nation, it world outlook, beliefs and traditions(7).

   Natinve speakers of various languages look at the world from their qwn angle and see something special, not seen by another nation (5, p.94). This means that the natinal conceptual picture of the world as a vision of reality typical of  particular nation finds its verbal manifestation in the corresponding nationl language. Through a system of meanings language represents all what is conventionally regarded as the national-cultural heritge, including not only the most important concepts inherent n the given culture, but also involves the “naive”, “nationaly colored” model of the world which is reflected through various connotation, images and symbols (9, p.175-176).

   Furthermre, any language can be characterized by social and regional varieties, each of  which serves to convey culturl identity of the corresponding language community.  R.W.  Langacker states, “Let us in fact admit that every speaker has adistinct idiolect and that no speaker has even passive knowledge of ll hthe varieties spoken or all the structural features tey exhibit” (11, p.230). It is clear then, a language like English, for example, - in all its variegated compexity – cannot exist in any single mind. To be tenable. The position of individual minds has to be understood as ascriding to any one person only a portion of the total knowledge of the language, which might then be identified as the union of the specifications apprehended by individual speakers (11, p.230).

   Thus, one can speak of another model of the world – linguistic, which functions to explicate verbally the conceptual picture of the world. It is through the language that experience, gained by individuals, turns into a collectve property, or collective experience. The two models coexist in a very close interaction, though, it should be pointed out, language is not so rich and varied as the conceptual model. Limited in its means of expression, language fails to convey the whole amont of inforation provided by man’s cognition, including various types of thinking. As B.A. Serebrennikov states, “in comparison with the language, thinking is, as a rule, much widr and more flexible. (…) Words are more stable and conservative than notions and in this respect less adequatey reflect the process of world development” (8, p.104)

   However, language would be unable to perform its function as means of communications, if it were not capable of conveying relevant conceptual information. So, searching for better maens of expression, language has to resort to “roundabout” ways of nomination: figurative, idiomatic, symbolic expressions and their non-conventional variants which will evoke bright, living associations with particular concepts and thus will activate all relevant knowledge connected wth them and stored in man’s memory.

   Culture can be defined as a “design for living hared understandings that people use to co-ordinate their acivities”. Members of a society must share certain basic ideas about the world works, what is important in life, how technology is used, and what their artefacts and their actions mean. Whereas social structure refers to the practical/ instrumental aspects of the social relations, culture refers to the symbolic/expressive aspects of social relations.

   Another definition of culture was sggested by goseriu. Culture is the historical objectivity of the spirit in shapes that last, in shapes that turn into traditions that become historc shapes describing man’s own world, man’s own universe. The spirit is nothing lse than activity capable of creation, it is creativity itself, not something that creates but the creative activity as such. Energy, that activity which is anterior to the concept of any dynamism, of any learned or experimented technique. And mman creates culture, he is a creator, he is endowed with energy to the extend to which it goes beyond what man has learnt, beyond what is gained through experience, language, art, religion. Myth. Science, and philosophy. This sum of forms is what we call culture in so far as they are achieved at in history as products of man’s creative activity.