Valentyna Volodymyrivna KALKO


Introduction. Investigating paremia stock within ancient tradition is basically rooted in Aristotle’s writings. However, language studies still lack the unified paremia notion. Therefore, problem of its scholar definition is quite significant and needs consideration. The variety of functions, specific genre applications, syncretic nature of their semantics as well as pragmatic features add to the complexity of defining paremia that though being investigated for quite long time yet now still join up a sophisticated discussion. Purpose. The purpose lies in analyzing the problems of defining proverbs as cognitive discursive phenomenon, the national culture output, multifunctional folk genre, and giving own proper paremia definition based on most appropriate linguistic and folklore studies. Results. Paremia both presuppose some allegoric idea, and as well reveal essential human, ethic. The definition of paremia appears generally complicated being in the first place regarded through folklore, poetics, linguistics with concentration on different aspects of paremia and on its controversial features; secondly, through historic lexical semantics in multiple meanings, and thirdly, through its vague linguistic status among other units of the nominative language system. Originality. The main definition for paremia is proposed as an ethnic culturally marked utterance phrase, formerly precedent, reproduced, steady in form, with deeply motivated meaning, functioning as a text component. Тhe proverb sentence has the following integral characteristics: 1) ethnocultural marking; 2) precedent; 3) reproducibility and stability; 4) deep nature of the content; 5) brevity and clarity; 6) pragmatism; 7) text-discursive immersion. Conclusion. Modern linguistic studies had put paremia into a quite new perspective: it’s the 20th - 21st century linguistic investigation mostly cognitively aimed at the discourse features of the language phenomena that enable the application of the newest approaches to the lingual sense of paremia.


proverb; paremia; sentence; precedent; deep semantics; ethnocultural marking


Telia, V. N. (1996). Russian phraseology. Semantic, pragmatic and linguistic-cultural aspects. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture (in Russ.)

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

Selivanova E. (2010). Synergetics of Discourse of Phrase and Paremius. Naukovyy visnyk Khersonsʹkoho derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriya «Linhvistyka» (Scientific Herald of Kherson State University. Series "Linguistics"). Kherson: KhDU Publishing House. 12, 417–421 (in Ukr.)

Humboldt, V. von. (2000). Selected works on linguistics. Moscow: Progress (in Russ.)

Selivanovа, O. O. (2012). The world of consciousness in the language. Cherkassy: Y. Chbanenko (in Ukr. & Russ.)

Leontiev, A. A. (1993). Language consciousness and the image of the world In Language and consciousness: paradoxical rationality. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences.

–21 (in Russ.)

Casares, H. (1958). Introduction to modern lexicography. Moscow: Foreign Literature (in Russ.)

Selivanovа, O. O. (2017). Modern Linguistics: Directions and Problems. Cherkassy (in Ukr.)

Lotman, Yu. M. (2001) The Semiosphere. St. Petersburg: Art of St. Petersburg (in Russ.)

Danilenko, L. I. (2007). Linguocultural and cultural characteristics of the precedent of the paremian text

Movoznavstvo (Linguistics). 8, 78–84 (in Ukr.)

Karaulov, Yu. N. (1997). Russian language and linguistic personality. Moscow: Science (in Russ.)

Krasnih, V. V. (2003). «Own» among «others»: Myth or Reality? Moscow: Gnosis (in Russ.)

Grigoryan, A. G. (1993). Proverb in the mirror of the proverb. In Slavonic and Balkan linguistics: The structure of small folklore texts. Moscow: Science, 216–227 (in Russ.)

Gudkov, D. B. (2003). Theory and practice of intercultural communication. Moscow: Gnosis (in Russ.)

Sharmanova, N. N. (2014). Linguistic identification of parema: semiotic and cognitive parameters. Vestnyk Novhorodskoho hosudarstvennoho unyversyteta. (Bulletin of the Novgorod State University). 77, 151–153 (in Ukr.)

Osipova, T. F. (2007). Paramées as presenters of contemporary speech. (Linhvistychni doslidzhennya. Linguistic research). Kharkiv: KhNPU them. G.S. Skovoroda.24, 33–38 (in Ukr.)

Norrick, N. R. (1985). How proverbs mean: semantic studies in English proverbs. Berlin; New York: Mouton

Permyakov, G. L. (1988). Fundamentals of structural paremiology. Moscow: Science (in Russ.)

Nikitina, S. E. (1993). Oral folk culture and linguistic consciousness. Moscow: Science (in Russ.)

Mokienko, V. M. (1989). Slavic phraseology. Moscow: High School (in Russ.)

The old adage is not for nothing that says: teachings, sayings and proverbs in the translation and processing of V. V. Kolesov (2007). St. Petersburg: Avalon: Classical Alphabetа (in Russ.)

Mieder, W. (1991). General thoughts on the nature of the proverb. Revista de Etnographie si Folklore. 36. ¾, 151–164.

Mieder, W. (1985). Popular views of the proverb. Proverbium. 1985. 2, 109–143.

Luria, A. R. (1979). Language and consciousness. Moscow: Publishing house of the Moscow University (in Russ.)

Losev, A. F. (1982). Sign. Symbol. Myth. Moscow: Publishing house of the Moscow University (in Russ.)

Mieder, W. (2004). Proverbs: A Handbook. Westport: Greenwood Press, CT

Miller, J. A. (1998). The magic number is seven plus or minus two. About some limits of our ability to process information. In Psychology of Memory. Moscow: CheRo, 564–582.

Nikolaeva, T. M. (1995) Generalized, specific and indefinite in paremia. In Small forms of folklore. Moscow: Eastern Literature, 311–324 (in Russ.)

Full Text: PDF (Українська)


  • There are currently no refbacks.
2014 320    
2015 358 360 363
2016 Том 1,1 2 Том 2,1
2017 1 2  
2018 1 2
2019 1 2  


Journal Content