.png)
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6-21.012
Dondokov Dorzhi D.,
Senior Lecturer of the Chinese Philology Department
Institute of Oriental Studies;
Junior Scientific Researcher of the German Philology Department
Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
e-mail: dondokovdd@herzen.spb.ru
ORCID: 0000-0003-1886-0271
The paper presents results of the interim stage of contrastive study on revealing national and sociocultural distinctiveness of linguistic personality representation in the Internet discourse based on the material of Chinese, Russian and English languages (Chinese, Russian and American linguacultures). The paper aims to compare the features of Chinese, Russian and American linguistic personalities’ thesaurus level. The survey included a task to determine the specifics of respondents’ own culture through words, collocations and idioms. The results of contrastive analysis show that Chinese cultural keywords are still the words that verbalize concepts related to traditional Chinese culture, e.g. Confucianism. Survey results have proved the point of Russian linguists that душа ‘soul’ is one of the key concepts of Russian linguaculture. Even though we have found similarities between thesaurus levels of Chinese, Russian and American linguistic personalities, they are not completely alike, because the content of these concepts is different. The majority of cultural keywords named by respondents represent culture specific concepts which determine national and socio-cultural distinctiveness of Chinese, Russian and American linguistic personalities’ thesaurus level.
Keywords: linguistic profile, thesaurus level, linguaculturology, linguaculture, cultural keywords.
References
1. Karaulov Iu.N. Russkii iazyk i iazykovaia lichnost’. Moscow: Izd-vo LKI, 2010. 264 s.
2. Sedov K.F. Obshchaia i antropotsentricheskaia lingvistika. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom IaSK, 2016. 440 s.
3. Krasnykh V.V. Lingvokul’tura kak ob”ekt kognitivnykh issledovanii // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 9: Filologiia. 2013. No. 2. S. 7–18.
4. Sternin I.A. Kontsept i znachenie: kakomu vidu soznaniia oni prinadlezhat? // Iazyk i natsional’noe soznanie. Voronezh, 2005. Vyp. 7. S. 4–10.
5. Alefirenko N.F. Metodologicheskie osnovaniia issledovaniia problemy verbalizatsii kontsepta // Vestnik VGU. Seriia: Gumanitarnye nauki. 2004. No. 2. S. 60–66.
6. Bochegova N.N. Ob”ektivatsiia natsional’no-kul’turnogo svoeobraziia v angliiskom iazyke USA: avtoref. dis. … d-ra filol. nauk. St. Petersburg, 2006. 37 s.
7. Wierzbicka A. Ponimanie kul’tur cherez posredstvo kliuchevykh slov. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2001. 288 s.
8. Wierzbicka A. Semantics, culture and cognition: universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 487 p.
9. Zaliznyak A.A., Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. Kliuchevye idei russkoi iazykovoi kartiny mira. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2005. 544 s.
10. Leontovich O.A. Russkie i amerikantsy: paradoksy mezhkul’turnogo obshcheniia. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002. 434 s.