.png)
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.4-19.025
Khrebtova Tatiana S.,
Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor of the Foreign
Languages Department
Altai State University
e-mail: hrebtova.tanya2016@yandex.ru
Khalina Nataliya V.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor оf the Public Relations and Advertising Department
Altai State University
e-mail: nkhalina@yandex.ru
The object of this research is George Grebenstchikoff’s texts viewed through the prism of phraseological representation in the English cultural context of the phraseological picture of the Russian world and the peculiarities of the Russian mentality. We consider the phraseological image and the phraseosemantic field as units of construction and reproduction of the Russian mentality. The process of transforming the Russian picture of the world into idioms of American culture and American everyday reality is studied as a derivational process in its understanding within the framework of derivational morphology. Derivational morphology — the linguistic direction actively developing in the last decade — is designed to coordinate in a single theoretical and empirical space the description of non-identical language systems in terms of derivational techniques, system transformations in the derivation of the word basis and morphological models as models of derivational ones. Study of the phraseosemantic fields of Grebenstchikoff’s American texts is considered as an initial stage of theoretical and terminological development in the sphere of the derivational morphology of the subteria “phraseo-derivatology”.
Keywords: phraseosemantics, phraseoscheme, derivational morphology, phraseological image, phraseosemantic field, phraseological derivation.
References
1. Lieber R. Introducing morphology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
2. Aronoff М. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1976.
3. Bybee J.L. Morphology as lexical organization. Hammond, 1988.
4. Bybee J.L. Regular morphology and the lexicon // Language and Сognitive Рrocesses. 1995. Vol. 10. No. 5. P. 425–455.
5. Neuvel Sylvain, Rajendra Singh. Vive la diffеrence! What morphology is about // Folia Linguistica. 2001. Vol. 35. No. 3–4. P. 313–320.
6. Burzio Luigi. Surface-to-surface morphology: when your representations turn into constraints. Boucher P. (ed.) / Many Morphologies, Cascadilla, Somerville, Mass. 2002. P. 142–177.
7. Gorski B. Nabokov vs. Набоков: A literary investigation of linguistic belativity // Vestnik. The Journal of Russian and Asian Studies. 2010.
8. Choi Iun Khi. Frazeologicheskii obraz v konnotativnom aspekte (na primere somaticheskikh frazeologizmov russkogo i koreiskogo iazykov) // Iazyk, soznanie, kommunikatsiia. Moscow, 2001. S. 81–97.
9. Markelova T.V. Metaforicheskaia tsennost' frazeologizmov s opornym komponentom zoonimom ili fitonimom // Filologicheskie nauki. 2005. No. 5. S. 17–27.
10. Cherdantseva T.Z. Iazyk i ego obrazy: Ocherki po ital’ianskoi frazeologii. Moscow, 1977. 167 s.
11. Solodub Iu.P. Natsional’naia spetsifika i universal’nye svoistva frazeologii kak ob"ekt issledovaniia // Filologicheskie nauki. 1990. No. 6. S. 55–65.
12. Filonenko T.M. Frazeologicheskii obraz v iazykovykh modeliakh prostranstva, vremeni i kolichestva (na materiale frazeologii sovremennogo russkogo iazyka). Magnitogorsk, 2004.
13. Kriuchkova Iu.M. Frazeosemanticheskoe pole “radost’” v angliiskom iazyke // Aktual’nye voprosy filologicheskikh nauk: materialy II Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. (Chita. Iiul’, 2013). Chita: Molodoi uchenyi, 2013. S. 59–64.
14. Voloshkina I.A. Frazeosemanticheskoe pole “kharakter cheloveka” (na materiale frantsuzskogo iazyka). Belgorod, 2009. 233 s.
15. Kirillova N.N. Frazeologiia romanskikh iazykov: etnolingvisticheskii aspekt. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo RGPU, 2003. Ch. 1. 319 s.