Lectures 7. Linguistic concepts and culture.

Problems of
intercultural communication. Linguocultural concepts
and their main features. Linguistic representations of
linguocultural concepts. Precedent phenomena. Proverbs
and sayings in the light of the cognitive approach.
Lecturer-Adilzhanova U.R.
Linguocultural concepts and their main
features.
• Linguoculturology is a new branch of science, that deals with
manifestations of the culture of different nations, which became fixed
and are reflected in the language. Linguoculturology first appeared in
the 70th of the XX century as an independent field of linguistics on a
base of the triad by Emil Benveniste: language, culture, and human
personality.
• The most complete in modern domestic linguistics the theoretical and
methodological foundations of Linguoculturology are set forth in
Vorobev’s work Linguoculturology: Theory and Methods. x
• The concept of "linguoculture" was introduced into scientific use by
V.V. Vorobyov, who understood by it the unity of the form of a
linguistic sign, its content and cultural meaning that accompanies this
sign [Vorobiev 2008]. Linguoculture is defined as “an abstract entity,
the concrete expression of which is a linguistic unit of a certain
structure (lexeme or phraseological unit, which includes not only
denotative-significative meaning, but also cultural semes expressing
certain cultural connotations)” [Kirillova 2008]. The latter include
culturally marked functions, customs, facts of conduct, etc., noted in
the semantics of the nominative unit.
• Any foreign language should be viewed not only as a system of
linguistic norms but also as a system of social norms and behavior,
spiritual values. It has long been recognized that any living language
develops together with the speech community, that is, with the
people who speak it. Consider that, languages should be taught and
studied in integral unity with the world and culture of the people who
speak these languages. It is clearly shown that the “learning a
language in indissoluble communication with culture”[Academic Research in
Educational Sciences Volume 3 | Issue 4 | 2022 ISSN: 2181-1385 Cite-Factor: 0,89 | SIS: 1,12 DOI: 10.24412/2181-1385-2022-4-
802-806 SJIF: 5,7 | UIF: 6,1 803 April, 2022 https://t.me/ares_uz Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal definition of Linguoculturology
in science, ]
Linguistic concepts and culture
• For example, the Russian word береза (birch) is considered as a
linguocultureme in the case when the object of this consideration is
not so much the denotation “deciduous tree with white (less often
dark) bark and fragrant heart-shaped leaves”, as cultural meanings
“symbol of Russia”, “symbol of an innocence”, etc.
• One of the important Kazakh family terms is the concept of шeжipe in
the sense of a genealogical tree, tradition or genotype.
• Thus, the difference between a linguistic culture and a concept is as
follows:
• 1. If a concept, undoubtedly associated with a linguistic sign, is
nevertheless a mental unit embodied in a word, which forms the
thinking and behavior of a person, then a linguocultureme acts as a
linguistic unit, considered primarily from the point of view of the
implementation of culturally significant meanings in it.
• 2. If for a concept all models of categorization are important, both
structure models and display models, then for linguistic culture the
most significant are metaphorical and metonymic display models. In
other words, a linguocultureme is a linguistic unit, which is a sign of a
concept that is considered from the point of view of culturally
significant knowledge contained in it. Any nominative units can be
considered as linguocultures: words (берёза, балалайка, дружба,
etc.) and phrases of various types (белая ворона, бить баклуши,
русский характер, etc.).
Problems of intercultural communication.
• In cultures that differ radically from each other, human interaction
develops along the lines of entirely different rules of conduct and
regulations. Not knowing the rules, or understanding how to apply
them, inevitably leads to misunderstandings in a given country. T
• There are many definitions of culture. By 1952, Kroeber and
Kluckhorn had found over 150 and began comparing them. The
American psychologist Harry Triandis, for example, defines culture as
“the human-made part of the environment” (1989, p. 306). The Dutch
cultural psychologist Hofstede (1991) defines culture as “the
collective programming of the mind”. All researchers dealing with the
concept of culture on a theoretical basis agree that culture covers a
very broad field. The scope reaches from man-made objects, tools,
etc. to values, ideas, worldviews, languages and philosophies,
including the way in which animate and inanimate things, subjects
and objects are treated
• Culture is a universal phenomenon. All human beings live within a specific
culture and contribute to its development. Culture creates a structured
environment within which a population can function. It encompasses
objects we created and use in our daily lives, as well as our institutions,
ideas and values. Culture is always manifested in a system of orientation
typical to a country, society, organization or group. This system of
orientation consists of specific symbols such as language, body language,
mimicry, clothing and greeting rituals and is passed on to future
generations from the respective society, organization or group. This system
of orientation provides all members with a sense of belonging and inclusion
within a society or group and creates an environment in which individuals
can develop a unique sense of self and function effectively.
• Under normal circumstances, we are not conscious of what “makes sense”
to us, thus we perceive and process relevant information automatically. It is
a uniquely individual experience that does not occur spontaneously or by
coincidence, but is directed by collective, culturally relevant and binding
social norms and rules.
• Under “normal” everyday conditions, a person living in a culturally familiar
setting is likely to be understood and accepted by other members of the
collective who share the same cultural background. In special cases,
clarification may be required to create rapport and understanding.
However, the common culture-specific background knowledge is generally
enough to facilitate mutual understanding without further clarification.
• Seven German cultural standards and orientation patterns become
evident on the basis of this research and emphasize: – task orientation
(tasks are more important than people) – rules and regulations
(structures and rules are held in high esteem, adhered to and expected)
– directness/truth (low-context communication style. There is right and
wrong and very little in between. The most direct path is always the
most goal oriented and efficient.) – interpersonal distance (don’t get
involved in the business of others: keep your distance and be discrete!) –
internalized control – time management (time is a valuable commodity
and may not be squandered. Planning and scheduling are essential.) –
separation of the personal and public domains (Thomas 2000a).
• In general, cultural standards can be defined on the basis of the
following five indicators: – Cultural standards are forms of perception,
thought patterns, judgment and interaction that are shared by a majority
of the members of a specific culture who regard their behavior as
normal, typical and binding. – Own and other unfamiliar behavior is
directed, regulated and judged on the basis of this cultural standard. –
Cultural standards provide a regulatory function for mastering a given
situation and dealing with people. – The individual and group-specific
way of applying cultural standards to adjust behavior can fluctuate
within a range of tolerance. – Forms of behavior that exceed this specific
range are not accepted or sanctioned by the respective collective.
The self The other

Culture
Own culture overlap Other culture

Intercultural
• Without doubt, individuals from other-culture religious, social, value,
legal and economic traditions have developed different forms of
perception, judgment, feeling and behavior. They have grown up
under different geographic, economic, political, social and religious
conditions and experience a different cultural consciousness over
many generations. They have developed different survival and
problem-solving strategies and forms of social interaction. Certain
similarities between one’s own and other cultures may exist which,
seen from a historical perspective, are not entirely a result of
interaction
Naturally, individuals
socialized in other
cultures assume that
their behavior and the
way in which they react
to people and objects is
“the right way” and will
ultimately lead to
success.
One of the most significant problems is that we, perhaps inadvertently, may
indeed reinforce stereotypes because, instead of fostering ICC, we often focus
exclusively on the language as communication, while the context in which that
communication occurs, and which gives meaning to the messages, is often
relegated to second place.
Эту семантику слова, связанную с национальной культурой, Н. Г. Комлев
называет культурным компонентом значения слова. Он продолжает:
«Признавая наличие какого-то „внутреннего“ содержания слова-знака, т. е.
факта, что слово-знак выражает нечто кроме самого себя, мы обязаны
признать и наличие культурного компонента. Слова языка как социального
явления несут на себе отпечаток жизни общества, его материальной и
духовной культуры. Это „культурное значение“ есть часть языка» [Комлев
1966: 46]
It is necessary to distinguish between Intercultural Competence and
Intercultural Communicative Competence. According to Byram (1997),
the first refers to people’s “ability to interact in their own language
with the people from another country and culture,” while ICC takes
into account language teaching and focuses on “the ability to interact
with people from another country and culture in a foreign language”
In Byram’s (1997) view, a person who has developed ICC is able to
build relationships while speaking in the foreign language;
communicates effectively, taking into consideration his own and the
other person’s viewpoint and needs; mediates interactions between
people of different backgrounds, and strives to continue developing
communicative skills
• In order to avoid such ineffective and emotionally draining
interactions, it is necessary to be able to recognize conditions
underlying other-culture perception, thinking, feeling and acting. The
following requirements are based on this understanding:
• – Learning to understand and acknowledge other-culture conditions
and strategies for life and problem management and to accept that
these forms are equally sensible and meaningful.
• – Accepting other-culture systems of orientation, like our own, is only
one option among a large variety of possible cultural systems of
orientation.
• – Developing an understanding of how to deal effectively with other-
culture systems of orientation and the consequences thereof.
Linguistic representations of
linguocultural concepts.
• The concept of otbasy (oтбacы), translated as ‘family’, has a
metaphorical origin. It consists of two morpehems: ot—‘fire’ and basy
‘beginning, source’, generating the metaphorical sense of
family/home as gathering ‘at the fire’, in the middle of a yurt.
According to Kazakh belief, fire is the patron saint of the home of the
hearth. Otag‘ asy (Oтaғacы), the father of the family is “the head of
the fire”. Otanasy (Oтaнacы), the mother of the family is “the hearth
keeper”. The concept of otbasy appears in other Kazakh phrases such
as e.g.: (12) otbasyn qurý (oтбacын құpy) – to marry (13) otbasy
berekesi (oтбacы бepeкeci) - family affluence
• The word áýlet (əyлeт) is another term for ‘family, extended family’, in the sense of
‘dynasty’. (20) Syuanczan – áygili qıtay býdda monahy, g‘ alym, fılosof, jıhanger jáne
aýdarmashy. Tan áýleti kezinde ómir súrgen. (Cюaньцзaн – əйгiлi қытaй бyддa мoнaxы,
ғaлым, филocoф, жиhaнгep жəнe ayдapмaшы.Taн əyлeтi кeзiндe өмip cүpгeн.) –
‘Xuancan (Syuanczan) is a famous Chinese Buddhist monk, scientist, philosopher, fighter,
and translator, lived during the Tang dynasty. (21) Batys Han áýleti (Бaтыc Xaн əyлeтi) –
the Western Han dynasty The meaning distinction between the more semantically
extended forms áýlet on the one hand and otbasy, which encompasses a more compact
family concept on the other, is more transparent when (20, 21) are contrasted with (22):
(22) Muhtar Áýezov pen Abaı Qunanbaevtı ´n otbasy ejelden tyg‘yz aralasqan (Mұxтap
Əyeзoв пeн Aбaй Құнaнбaeвтың oтбacы eжeлдeн тығыз apaлacқaн). – The family of
Mukhtar Auezov and AbaiKunanbayev has long been involved. The form áýlet is also
used metaphorically as e.g., in: (23) g‘ alymdar áýleti (ғaлымдap əyлeтi) – dynasty of
scientists Áýletti ´n abyroıyn tógý (əyлeттiң aбыpoйын төгy) – dishonored his family
• The term januıa (жaнұя), also used in the sense of ‘family’, is composed of the
morphemesjan ‘soul’, and uıa/ ұя ‘nest’, which can be considered a literal
equivalent of the metaphorical ’soul’s nest’. It is a new term, which was introduced
into Kazakh kin terminology to cope with the Russian word ‘ceмья’ by translator
Jaryl ˘gapov Islám (Amantay, 2012). In her interview “Дұpыc cөйлeйiк - 5”, Fazyljan
Anar, the candidate of philological sciences, argues against the use of the word
januıa (жaнұя): “Kazakhs are representatives of Muslim culture, therefore, talking
about the “soul” and where the “nest of the soul” is prohibited according to
Islamic canons. Therefore, this word must not be used in our culture”.
(https://kitap.kz/music/9/ 85-durys-soyleyik-5). Nevertheless, this term is quite
frequent in modern Kazakh discourse in a number of phrases as e.g., 104 B.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and B. B. Utegaliyeva (18) Januıa baqyty (жaнұя
бaқыты) – family happiness (19) Berekeli januıa (бepeкeлi жaнұя) – wealthy family
• The concept of "logoepisteme" proposed by E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G.
Kostomarov, N.D. Burvikova, in many respects is similar to the concept
"linguocultureme": it is "a linguistic expression of the trail of
reflection of reality in the minds of native speakers fixed by social
memory as a result of their comprehension (or creation) of spiritual
values ​of domestic and world cultures" [Kostomarov, Burvikova 2001].
But unlike linguoculturemes, logoepistemes are not all words with
cultural semes, but precedent words and expressions that have as a
presupposition “an indication of the text or situation that gave rise to
them” [Kostomarov, Burvikova 2001].
Precedent phenomena
• Precedent phenomena are not simply lexical units, but mental
structures containing factual and axiological information, as well as
emotional and evaluative components.
• The precedent theory was proposed by Y.N. Karaulov in 1986 who
denoted precedent texts as “significant texts for a particular individual
in cognitive and emotional way, known by a wide range of people
including predecessors and new generation; finally, the linguistic
identity faces with the multiple reference to such texts in the
discourse. In linguistics, a number of other terms has been
distinguished. A.A. Adzinova introduced the term “precedentizm”,
which means a speech unit in terms of precedence [1, 15].
• The source of precedency is often taken from mythology: the travel
agency “Avalon Waterways” (Avalon is a mythical island in the Celtic
legends), razor “Venus” (Venus is goddess of love in the Roman
Pantheon), translation agency “Phoenix” (Phoenix is a mythological
bird that has the ability to burn itself and then be reborn), “Nine Lives
Cat Food” (a reference to the belief that cats have nine lives). In
Russia there are also many examples which are based on the
mythological names: a transportation provider “Noah”, a steel
structure factory “Prometheus”, a business center “Samson”
• A logoepisteme is a culturally significant quotation of a part of a precedent text,
which “in the process of communication can be modified within the limits of the
preservation of recognizability; in this case it acquires text-forming power”
[Kostomarov, Burvikova 2001]. For example, the logoepisteme is a quote from the
novel by L. Tolstoy "Anna Karenina" “Everything was in confusion in the
Oblonskys' house” (Все смешалось в доме Облонских), which began to denote
situations of confusion, quarrels, etc. A number of texts note modifications of
this phrase: “Все смешалось в доме. Почему в парках строят музеи, а в
опере гоняют скейтбордисты” (headline in Forbes magazine), “Как и в
большинстве российских театров, все смешалось в Тульской драме” (in an
article in the Petersburg Theater Magazine), “Все смешалось в доме
боксерских. Новые единоборства уже отнимают аудиторию у бокса”
(headline in the newspaper "Kommersant").
• Logosystemes can be words (леший, Сивка-Бурка), phrases
(Куликовская битва, Мамаево побоище), sentences (И ты, Брут!
Вот тебе, бабушка, и Юрьев день). The logosysteme is fully tuned
to the implementation of metaphorical structures of the concept.
• The concept of "mythologeme" was introduced into scientific use
back in 1941 by K. G. Jung to denote "persistent designers who are
repeated in the collective popular fantasy, which generally reflect
reality in the form of concrete-sensual personifications, various
creatures that were perceived as archaic consciousness as quite real
”[Jung 1991]. Now in linguistic studies it is used to designate “units of
collective consciousness that reflect objects of possible worlds and
are verbally represented in the national memory of native speakers”
[Pitina 2002].
•
• There are two types of mythologemes.
• First, these are mythologemes that implement zero denotation,
concepts of completely fictional (or possible) worlds, labeled, for
example, with the words witch, unicorn, samsara, etc. In this case, we
can talk about mythological concepts that have mytholexemes as a
sign.
• Secondly, these are mythologemes that are included in the
propositional structures of concepts, that is, mythological, fictional
frames or scripts - interpretations of any objects, processes, events,
etc., which have stereotypical prototypes, for example, propositional
structures “sleeping before sunset is harmful”
• Concept and notion
• It is often said that a concept as a unit of everyday knowledge is
opposed to a concept as a unit of scientific knowledge. The
opposition of these entities is conditional: a concept can be included
in the structure of a concept as an integral part, for example, in a
scientist. It is unlikely that in the minds of a biologist, the concept of
"berry" coincides with the ordinary ideas about berries. The only
thing that is beyond doubt is that the formation of concepts and
notions are two related, but still different processes of cognition.
• Concept sign
• An obligatory component in the structure of a concept is its language sign.
Two roles of the linguistic sign in the processes of conceptualization and
categorization are noted.
• a) A linguistic sign is a categorical and conceptual marker, a milestone around
which a category and concept is created. In order to create a category, it is
necessary to designate a prototype with a name, and then, realizing the
family resemblance of this or that referent (nomination object) to the
prototype, transfer the prototype's name to this referent, thus fixing it in our
minds as an element of the category. In this case, the concept is created
around the nominated category by linking knowledge about the category
elements to the linguistic sign.
• b) A linguistic sign is itself a categorizer: it places a concept with the help of grammatical
meanings in a language-defined structure of the world. First, he establishes the status of
a concept with the help of the category “part of speech”, which assigns the referents of a
sign to one or another class of referents (a noun to the class of actants-participants in a
situation, a verb to the class of events-situations, etc.). Secondly, he interprets categories
and concepts through the obligatory grammatical headings established by the language -
grammatical meanings that define the “framework of linguistic interpretation” of the
concept. For example, any event associated with a verb must be placed in the parameters
"type of event in relation to the characteristics of the perception of its course: fact or
process" (category of the species), "type of event in relation to reality" (category of
mood), "place of the event on time axis ”(time category),“ event producer ”(person
category),“ event producer status ”(collateral category), etc. But these rubrics also have
the signs of a concept: they are categorical and carry some stereotyped knowledge about
the objects of lingual (embodied in language) reality imposed by the language.
 The grammatical concepts here are “feminine gender” (in
this case, the definition of the gender of the elements of the
category), “singular” (shows the possibility of calculating the
elements of a category) and the nominative case (indicates the
actant role of the subject in the phrase “a woman entered”, the
predicate role - she is a woman, and the attribute role - the head
physician is a woman).
• These theses reflect the onomasiological approach to determining the
relationship between concept and sign: from concept to sign. In any
case, with this approach, we must state that the concept is objectified
in a linguistic sign.