Comparative Semantics in Russian and Chinese Languages: Integrative Approach

Q2 Arts and Humanities
E. Zinovieva, Zhao Simin
{"title":"Comparative Semantics in Russian and Chinese Languages: Integrative Approach","authors":"E. Zinovieva, Zhao Simin","doi":"10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-2-328-346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study deals with the proverbs of the conceptual field “Directness - Slyness” expressing comparison in Russian and Chinese. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the comparative analysis of these units from the structural-semantic, linguocognitive and linguocultural points of view in Russian and Chinese languages hasn’t been previously carried out yet. The novelty of the research lies in the integrative approach to the study of proverbs in two structurally different languages. The aim of the study was to compare Russian and Chinese proverbs of the conceptual field “Directness - Slyness” with the semantics of comparison to identify the conditionality of similarities and differences in the analyzed fragment of the proverbial space in two languages. Structural models of proverbs are studied, their classification in two languages is given. The authors analyzed the figurativeness of proverbs, expressed cognitemas, characteristic similes and oppositions. As a result of the comparative integrative analysis of proverbs selected from the section “Directness - Slyness” of the collection of V.I. Dal “Proverbs of the Russian people” and “The Big Dictionary of Russian Proverbs”, as well as the “Great Dictionary of Chinese Proverbs”, there have been drawn the conclusions about the similarities and differences between the proverbs of the two languages bot at the levels of syntactic models of paraemias, expressed cognitemas and figurativeness of proverbs. The similarities consist in the presence of matching types of structural models in two languages, the coincidence of the most cognitemas expressed in the proverbs of both languages, the dominance of animal images and the reflection of value preferences. In the proverbs of both languages, there is a contamination of the selected structural categories of proverbs and the inconsistency in some of the cognitemas, which is due to the situational nature of proverbial units. The differences are found in the composition of the categories of proverbial structural models, which is associated with the different linguistic structure of Russian and Chinese languages, in the predominance of comparative turns in Russian proverbial models, and the syntactic parallelism in Chinese ones, which is due to the figurative structure of Chinese language. The differences in figurativeness and private cognitemas results from the geo-sociocultural context of two linguocultures.","PeriodicalId":52389,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-2-328-346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study deals with the proverbs of the conceptual field “Directness - Slyness” expressing comparison in Russian and Chinese. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the comparative analysis of these units from the structural-semantic, linguocognitive and linguocultural points of view in Russian and Chinese languages hasn’t been previously carried out yet. The novelty of the research lies in the integrative approach to the study of proverbs in two structurally different languages. The aim of the study was to compare Russian and Chinese proverbs of the conceptual field “Directness - Slyness” with the semantics of comparison to identify the conditionality of similarities and differences in the analyzed fragment of the proverbial space in two languages. Structural models of proverbs are studied, their classification in two languages is given. The authors analyzed the figurativeness of proverbs, expressed cognitemas, characteristic similes and oppositions. As a result of the comparative integrative analysis of proverbs selected from the section “Directness - Slyness” of the collection of V.I. Dal “Proverbs of the Russian people” and “The Big Dictionary of Russian Proverbs”, as well as the “Great Dictionary of Chinese Proverbs”, there have been drawn the conclusions about the similarities and differences between the proverbs of the two languages bot at the levels of syntactic models of paraemias, expressed cognitemas and figurativeness of proverbs. The similarities consist in the presence of matching types of structural models in two languages, the coincidence of the most cognitemas expressed in the proverbs of both languages, the dominance of animal images and the reflection of value preferences. In the proverbs of both languages, there is a contamination of the selected structural categories of proverbs and the inconsistency in some of the cognitemas, which is due to the situational nature of proverbial units. The differences are found in the composition of the categories of proverbial structural models, which is associated with the different linguistic structure of Russian and Chinese languages, in the predominance of comparative turns in Russian proverbial models, and the syntactic parallelism in Chinese ones, which is due to the figurative structure of Chinese language. The differences in figurativeness and private cognitemas results from the geo-sociocultural context of two linguocultures.
俄语和汉语的比较语义学:综合研究
本文研究了“直接-狡猾”概念领域的谚语在俄语和汉语中的表达比较。这项研究的相关性在于,以前还没有从俄语和汉语的结构语义、语言认知和语言文化的角度对这些单元进行比较分析。这项研究的新颖之处在于对两种结构不同的语言中的谚语进行了综合研究。本研究的目的是将俄语和汉语谚语的概念领域“直接-狡猾”与比较语义进行比较,以确定两种语言谚语空间片段中相似性和差异性的条件。研究了谚语的结构模型,给出了谚语在两种语言中的分类。分析了谚语的形象性,表达了认知性、特征性的明喻和反语。通过对《俄罗斯人民的谚语》、《俄罗斯谚语大词典》、《中国谚语大词典,从句法模式、表达共格性和比喻性三个层面,得出了两种语言bot谚语异同的结论。相似之处在于两种语言中结构模型的匹配类型、两种语言谚语中表达的大多数共构词的一致性、动物形象的主导性和价值偏好的反映。在两种语言的谚语中,由于谚语单元的情境性,谚语的选定结构类别受到污染,一些共名词不一致。俄汉语言结构不同,谚语结构模式的范畴构成也存在差异,俄汉谚语结构模式中比较转折占主导地位,汉汉汉谚语结构中句法平行是汉语比喻结构的结果。形象性和私人认知的差异源于两种林国文化的地缘社会文化背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics
RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信