Article

Article title NATIVE AND ALIEN ETHICAL SPACE IN THE LIGHT OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR OF IDIOMATIC ETHICAL CONCEPTS
Authors E.V. Poliakova
Section SECTION I. PROBLEMS OF MODERN PHILOLOGY
Month, Year 10, 2012 @en
Index UDC 81:39
DOI
Abstract In the given paper Russian and English idiomatic expressions the target domain of which is the concept “stupidity” are analyzed. The analyses of conceptual metaphors aims at singling out similar, different and partially similar metaphoric and metonymic conceptual structures, limiting typically Russian and typically English space in moral consciousness of the linguocultural communities. Full similarity of idiomatic expressions is seen in the cases of the application of the same conceptual metaphor and use of the same source domain lexemes, which show identical algorithm of minimization of nationally determined notions. Full dissimilarity is the result of functioning of different algorithms of minimization resulting in different source domains and different conceptual metaphors indicating the existence of “alien” ethical space. Overlapping of ethical spaces is noticed in the cases of partial similarity of idiomatic expressions, revealing national and cultural peculiarities in minimization of ethical notions.

Download PDF

Keywords Idiomatic expression; conceptual metaphor; target domain; source domain; ethical concept; nationally determined minimized notion; ethical space.
References 1. Kovešces Z. A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics // Cognitive linguistics. – 2010. – Vol. 21, № 1–4. – P. 667.
2. Gibbs R.W.Jr. Embodied Action in thought and Language // Cognitive Linguistics: internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Berlin/New York, 2005. – P. 228-235.
3. Gibbs R.W.Jr. Embodied Action in thought and Language // Cognitive Linguistics: internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Berlin/New York, 2005. – P. 235.
4. Gibbs R.W.Jr. Embodied Action in thought and Language // Cognitive Linguistics: internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Berlin/New York, 2005. – P. 239.
5. Ponterotto D. Cross-cultural variation in idiomatic expression: Insights from Cognitive Metaphor Theory and implication for Translation Studies // Linguistics in Action: from theory to
application and back. Berlin/New York, 2010. – P. 356-358.
6. Evans V. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. – P. 85-86.
7. Гудков Д.Б. Теория и практика межкультурной коммуникации. – М.: Гнозис, 2003. – 98 с.
8. Лубенская C.И. Русско-английский фразеологический словарь. – М.: Языки русской культуры, 1997.
9. Лакофф Дж., Джонсон М. Метафоры, которыми мы живем. – М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2004. – 53 с.
10. Ожегов С.И. Словарь русского языка. – М.: Русский язык, 1985.
11. Kovešces Z. Language, figurative thought and cross-cultural comparison // Metaphor and Symbol. – 2003. – № 18 (4). – P. 315.

Comments are closed.