METAPHORICAL INTEGRATION PET → HUMAN IN UKRAINIAN PROVERBS

Valentyna Volodymyrivna KALKO

Abstract


Introduction. Zooonym s form a most ancient lingual system to reflect the experience in the practical and cultural-myphological investigation of fauna as one of the meaningful part of human surroundings so that analyzing their representation in proverbs in the cognitive aspect as well as nominating phenomena in the mental processing reveals perspectives for spotting new cases in the national ethnic conscience.

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze in the complex the metaphor domestic animals namesin regard of the ethnical cognitive psyche structures.

Results. It has defined, that the basis of conceptualization of Wildlife is formed by naive ideas of people about animal behavior stereotypes, and also by axiological ethnoconsciousness. We believe that a metaphor proverb units primarily reflects the typical situation established in the Ukrainian consciousness, formed on the basis of experience, as their foundation is shaped motivation clear to all members of the linguistic community. The symbolism of fauna names becomes the key factor to the determination of the metaphoric meaning of a number of proverb units. National-cultural elements of the semantics of a proverb may be expressed through images of reinterpretation, metaphorization, semantic shift of a fauna lexeme.

Originality. Words-images as key units of paremic complexes reflect the conception of the world inherent to a people, national coloring connected with humor, irony, sometimes grotesque. The same attributes are the most widely spread for its ideographic synonym пес, while the combinability of variable synonyms with specific attributive words may not coincide. The investigation of the combinability of variants of lexical and semantic field of fauna names makes possible the consideration of variability as a manifestation of contextual synonymy of certain syntactic constructions: words close by meaning are interchangeable and have equal meaning in some constructions and are not synonymous in others. In some constructions variation row is limited (sometimes it consists of two words), and in others is much broader.

Conclusion. Lexical and other language means convey specific for each ethnos psychological and behavioral archetypes, which in their entity reflect generalized features of the national “soul”. As many researchers believe Ukrainian psychic structure is distinguished by its emotional and sensual character, sentimentality, lyricism. Basing on scientific sources one can state the “Ukrainian world” is more emotional in comparison with others. Proverbs the names of animals reflect the experience in investigating the surroundings by numerous generations through centuries, and enable to perceive the peculiarities in the national Ukrainian mentality, regarding the conceptual and lingual, as well as scientific and naïve world views, to explain the special ethnic part in the lingual interpretation of the world.


Keywords


language picture of the world; proverb; metaphor; prototype; symbol; zooonym

References


Humboldt, von V. (1985) Language and Philosophy of Culture. Moscow: Progress (in Russ.)

Sandomirskaya, I. I. (1991) Emotive component within the meaning of the verb (verbs in the material, indicating the behavior). In Human factor in language. Moscow: Science. 114–136. (in Russ.)

Selivanovа, O. O. (2004) Essays on Ukrainian phraseology (psychocognitive and ethnocultural aspects). Kyiv – Cherkasy: Gate (in Ukr.)

Levchenko, O. Р. (2001) The principle of zoocentrism in phraseology. Problemy zistavnoyi semantyky (Problems comparable semantics) 5, 206 – 209. (in Ukr.)

Kryzhko, A. A. (2006) Ethnic symbols and stereotypes in Ukrainian zoonim terminology. Aktualni problemy slovyanskoyi filologiyi. (Actual problems of Slavic Studies. 11, 62–69. (in Ukr.)

Krivenko, G. L. (2006) Zoosemizm as a means of displaying zoomorphic picture of the world in English and Ukrainian: Theses of Candidate of Philology. 10.02.17 «Comparative-historical and typological linguistics». Kyiv (in Ukr.)

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1990) Metaphors We Live By. In Theory metaphors. Moscow: Progress. 387–415. (in Russ.)

Selivanova, A. A. (2010) Linguistic Encyclopedia. Poltava: Environment-K (in Ukr.)

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: CUP

Volf, E. M. (1988) Metaphor and evaluation. In Metaphor in language and text. Ed. V. N. Telia. Moscow: Science. 52–65. (in Russ.)

Telia, V. N. (1981) Types of linguistic meanings. Associated meaning of the word in the language. Moscow: Science (in Russ.)

Arutyunova, N. D. (1979) Language metaphor (syntax and vocabulary). In Linguistics and Poetics. Moscow: Science. 147–173. (in Russ.)

Mokienko, V. M. (1989) In the depths of sayings. Kyiv: Soviet School (in Ukr.)

Ukrainian dictionary (1970-1980), 11 vols. / AS USSR. Institute of Linguistics; Ed. I. K. Bilodid. Kyiv: Scientific Thought (in Ukr.)

Voytovych, V. M. (2005) Ukrainian mythology. K: Lybid. (in Ukr.)

Myths of the peoples of the world. Encyclopedia (1997) Moscow: Russian Encyclopedia. T. 1. A–K. (in Russ.)

Bulashev, G. O. (1992) The Ukrainian people in their legends, religious views and beliefs. Cosmogonic Ukrainian people's views and beliefs. Kyiv: Trust (in Ukr.)

Makovsky, M. M. (1996) Language-myth-culture: Symbol of life and the life symbols. Moscow: No publishing (in Russ.)


Full Text: PDF (Українська)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
Archive
2014 320    
2015 358 360 363
2016 Том 1,1 2 Том 2,1
2017 1 2  
2018 1 2

User

Journal Content

Browse

Language