Culinary culture code in the secondary naming of the Russian and Czech languages: linguistic and methodological aspects

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Moscow State Regional University

Ss. Cyril and Methodius University

CULINARY CULTURE CODE IN THE SECONDARY NAMING OF THE RUSSIAN AND CZECH LANGUAGES: LINGUISTIC AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

E.M. Markova

Trnava, Slovakia

Аннотация

КУЛИНАРНЫЙ КОД КУЛЬТУРЫ ВО ВТОРИЧНЫХ НОМИНАЦИЯХ РУССКОГО И ЧЕШСКОГО ЯЗЫКОВ: ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ И МЕТОДИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТЫ

Е.М. Маркова Московский государственный областной университет

Университет Св. Кирилла и Мефодия Трнава, Словакия

В статье с позиций лингвокультурного и лингводидактического подходов рассматривается одна из самых активных и устойчивых метафорических языковых моделей, основанных на развитии вторичных значений наименований пищи славян и получивших название кулинарного кода. Кулинарный культурный код «кодирует» наши представления о мире с помощью пищевых образов, имеющих номинации. Автор ставит целью на материале имен существительных двух славянских языков: русского и чешского -- выявить общее и специфическое в развитии вторичных номинаций названий пищи, рассмотреть специфические для сравниваемых этнокультур номинанты еды, проследив их судьбу во вторичном семиозисе: в метафорах, сравнениях, фразеологических выражениях, пословицах. В статье делается вывод, что факты вторичной номинации, транслирующие кулинарный код, нередко несут культурологическую информацию, объективируют особенности восприятия окружающего мира разными этносами, даже восходящие к общему -- праславянскому -- источнику Билингвальное сопоставление лексем, транслирующих культурный код, дает возможность определенным образом организовать лексический материал в целях его изучения в инославянской аудитории. На основании лингвокультурного анализа названий пищи в двух сравниваемых славянских языках предлагается лингводидактическая группировка лексики в их мефорических значениях в соответствии с принадлежностью к тому или иному коду культуры. Это позволит эффективно овладеть лексикой определенной тематической группы не только в денотативном значении, но и в концептуальном, что дает возможность постигать культуру, транслируемую изучаемым близкородственным языком, в сравнении с родной культурой.

Ключевые слова: лингвокультурология, культурные коды, лингводидактическая группировка лексики, славянские языки

Annotation

language culinary code linguocultural

The article considers the realization of one of the most active and stable metaphorical language models based on the development of secondary meanings of the Slavs' food names and known as the culinary code, from the linguocultural and linguo-didactic standpoint. Culinary cultural code “encodes” our understanding of the world through food images having names. The author's goal is to reveal the general and the specific in the development of secondary names of food; consider the food names specific for the ethnic cultures being compared, tracing their fate in the secondary semiosis -- in metaphores, similes, phraseological expressions, proverbs -- on the material of nouns in two Slavic languages, Russian and Czech. The article concludes that the facts of secondary naming transmitting culinary code often carry culturological information, objectify particular perceptions of the world by different ethnic groups, even those going back to the common Proto-Slavic roots. Bilingual comparison of lexical units transmitting cultural code allows a certain way of organizing lexical material for it to be studied by non-Russian Slavic audiences. On the basis of the linguocultural analysis of food names in the two compared Slavic languages, the article offers linguo-didactic grouping of the vocabulary in their figuratve meanings, in accordance with the belonging to a particular culture code. This will ensure effective mastering of the vocabulary of a certain thematic group not only in the denotative, but also in the conceptual meaning, making it possible to comprehend the culture, transmitted by the closely related language under study, in comparison with the native culture.

Key words: Gultural Linguistics, cultural codes, linguo-didactic vocabulary grouping, Slavic languages

Introduction

Apart from their direct, naming function, certain names of the objects in the world around us are also often used in a secondary, metaphorical sense, thus objectifying our attitude to another object or phenomenon of reality. “The names, denominating such objects, form interrelated secondary semiotic systems, which we call codes (somatic, zoomorphic, natural-and-landscape etc.) of the national culture” [1. С. 39]. A culture code is a regulatory and value symbolic system of secondary denotation and manifests itself in the categorization and conceptualization of reality. Cultural codes are called that way because they “encode” our understanding of the world, express it through certain images, which already have names. They occupy the central position in the national cultural space, forming it structurally. As for the national culture itself, it acts as a set of different codes.

In addition to the general linguistic meaning, the names belonging to this or that cultural code, have a special, most often emotionally-evaluative meaning, being the signs of the secondary semiotic system. In the cultural approach to the study of linguistic facts, we are interested in the existence of a lexical unit in the linguistic consciousness of the representatives of the national linguistic and cultural community, the totality of its semantic rethinking and cultural and historical accretion, which is verbalized in the metaphorical meanings of the unit, in phraseology, in proverbs. The “commonplace” meaning of the word is contrasted with his “mythological” or “symbolic” meaning.

Thus, the relevance of the study of cultural codes in general, and of our study of the culinary code realization in particular is due to the fact that at the present stage of the linguistics' development in the aspect of anthropocentric approach, the problem of representation of culture in language lies at the heart of the researchers' interest. Such researchers as N. Alefirenko [2], V. Vorob'yov [3], D. Gudkov [1], V. Krasny'h [4], M. Kovshova [5], V Teliya [6], G. Tokarev [7], L. Shestak [8], J. Mlacek [9], J. Sipko [10], et al. engaged in the study of different cultural codes in language. Culinary (food, gastronomic, gluttonic -- depending on the terminology) culture code was considered in different aspects in the works by A. Arutyunov [11], A. Afonina [12], E. Berezovich [13], G. Gachev [14], E. Kapelyushnik [15], M. Kovshova [5], S. Tolstaya [16], Z. Fomina [17], E. Yurina [18] and other linguists. However, there has been no research on the comparative analysis of the cultural code realization in Slavic languages, in particular from the comparative Russian-Czech perspective, giving the possibility of developing this problem in the linguo-didactic aspect, in terms of vocabulary grouping and raising the efficiency of its assimilation by non-Russian Slavic audiences. This determines the scientific novelty of this research, which has not only theoretical significance, lying in the identifying of the specific features of manifestation of the culinary culture code in the Russian language on the background of the closely related Czech language, but also practical value, consisting in the ability to use its materials in teaching Russian to Czechs and Czech to Russian-speaking audience.

The aim of the article is to compare symbolic meanings of nouns of the Russian and Czech languages indicating ancient names of Slavic food, to identify the common and differential in their semantic and metaphorical proliferation, to isolate specific culinary names and establish their symbolic use, representing the features of the Russian and Czech cultures.

Materials and methods

Nouns of two Slavic languages, Russian and Czech, indicating ancient names of Slavic food and having developed symbolic meanings based on a metaphorical model, served as the research material. The symbolic meanings of the lexical units under study are presented in the secondary use ofnames as metaphors, as part ofphraseological expressions, proverbs and sayings, which also served as the analysis material in this work.

The method of systematic scientific description, used to identify the links and relations between the studied units, that of classification of metaphorical means of language are the methods of analysis of the identified lexical, paremic units. This leading method is realized in the techniques of continuous sampling, observation, classification, systematization, interpretation, component and contextual analysis. The linguistic modeling method, implying the techniques of contextual analysis and introspection, which involves addressing the researcher's own linguistic conscience while analyzing the phenomena of his or her native and a closely related non-Russian Slavic language, was used to reveal deep meanings at the base of the semantics of lexical units. To study the names of food and their symbolic meanings in the Russian language on the background of another Slavic language, a comparative and comparative method, involving the analysis of lexical units on the scale “similarity” -- “difference” scale both in the onomasiological (from form to content) and semasiological (from content to form) aspect was used. The article also used the techniques of etymological and linguocultural comment to analyze the internal form of lexical units, which determined the vectors of their semantic spread, the integrative study of vocabulary and phraseology of two Slavic languages on the background of the cultural and historical facts of the peoples speaking these languages, to interpret food traditions as a cultural and historical basis for the formation of typical symbolic images included in the language systems of the compared languages.

Results

The methodology of comparative description of the metaphorical embodiment of culture code in the semantics of linguistic units in the bilingual aspect (by means of comparative analysis of the vocabulary of the two Slavic languages) contributes to the development of the problems oflinguistic modeling oflanguage and conceptual structures and reconstruction of fragments of the Slavs' linguistic worldview, revealing of their similarities, differences and specificity. In comparison with other studies, devoted to the analysis of lexical units verbalizing culinary cultural code, this article chooses to analyze only ancient Slavic names of food, traces their semantic development, ways of semantic spread (the facts of one language being complemented with the facts of the compared language, which creates a more dimensional picture of the semantic evolution of the ancient lexical unit), demonstrates the specifics ofthe conceptual worldview of the Russian language community with respect to the relatively close Czech linguistic culture.

The article can be used in the studies on intercultural communication, in linguistic and cultural research connected with the specificity of the Russian people's mentality as compared to mental features of other Slavic peoples, in the studying and teacning of courses of cultural linguistics, intercultural communication, Slavic lexicology and phraseology, in the practice of teaching Russian as a non-Russian Slavic language and as a foreign language.

Discussion

Vocabulary acquisition when learning Russian as a foreign language implies the identifying of a few levels in its semantics. The first, elementary level is connected with the denotative meaning of lexical units, their correlation with objects of reality. At this level, many similarities are observed in closely related languages, including Slavic languages, especially among the general vocabulary originating from the Proto-Slavic language. This semantic level is studied at the initial stage of Russian as a Foreign Language (A1-A2 levels). The next, systematic level of studying lexical semantics involves the revealing of the lexical unit's syntagmatic abilities, demonstrating not only the similarities, but also the numerous differences defined by the disparity of the syntactic valency of common words, as well as its paradigmatic relations: synonyms, antonymous, hypo- hyperonymic etc. The systematic level of lexical semantics becomes the main subject of discussion at the advanced stage (B1-B2 levels). Finally, the highest third level ofsemantics, which can be called conceptual (studied at the upper-advanced and highest stages of Russian as a Foreign Language -- B2-C2 levels), is aimed at identifying various kinds of metaphorical rethinking, connotative increments, symbolic meanings, which is closely related to the culture of the people speaking this language, because at this level, numerous discrepancies are observed even in closely related languages.

In the secondary use ofa linguistic sign as a name, it is often endowed with culturological information objectifying the particularities of the world perception by this or that ethnic group. Any linguistic culture is caracterized by a system of standards, symbols and stereotypes, which reflect the regulatory ideas of an ethnic group of a certain phenomenon. They reflect cognitive experience of representatives of ont tehnic culture or another. They reflect the understanding ofthe world by that people, its system ofnorms and representations of the surrounding world and the man; “reproduce the mentality characteristic of a certain linguocultural community” [6. P. 233] and implicitly contain evaluations and regulations. As a result, secondary names become representatives of the ethnocultural specifics related to a certain image that is common for different cultures.

The complicated character of the inter-Slavic dialogue of cultures lies in the fact that the Slavic peoples' vocabulary, which is formally common, is characterized by its uneven semantic, metaphorical, symbolic development. Even when comparing closely related languages, such as the Russian and Czech languages, correlated by us, one notices cultural and connotative asymmetry, although much of the imaginative perception of the world remains similar, typical of the Slavic worldview as a whole. We shall demonstrate it on the example of secondary use of food names in Russian and Czech, which objectified representations, symbols and stereotypes of two Slavic peoples.

The Slavs have long perceived food as gifts that come from God. Grain -- the basis of the first Slavic foodstuffs -- is endowed with sacred meaning: grain used to be perceived as “resuscitating”, enjoying its “funeral” because it is the way of its renewal, enrichment. It is with grain and, consequently, with all the products made from it, that the Slavs' basic understanding of fertility, victory over death and the eternal celebration life was associated. Many ancient Slavs' ideas of food formed the basis of the conceptual perception of the basic foodstuffs.

Bread is the most sacred kind of food, a symbol of prosperity, abundance and material welfare. It is interpreted as a gift of God and at the same time as an independent living being, and even an image of the deity, therefore, it requires special deference [19]. There is no wonder that the Church unleavened bread -- the symbol of union with God -- is a small round piece of bread. It was common with the eastern and western Slavs to always place loaf of bread on the table in the red corner. It is also for a reason that the Russian people say: хлеб всему голова “bread is the staff of life”'. Bread on the table symbolized the richness of the home, readiness to receive guests; it was a sign of divine protection and a talisman against hostile forces [20]. So it is unconventional to throw away bread leftovers, and it is even recommended to feed the crumbs to birds. The so-called хлеб- соль “bread and salt” -- the generalized name of the food, which serves as a welcome and an expression of hospitality addressed to the guests -- possesses great symbolism. This was reflected in the semantics of the Russian compounding хлебосольство “the act ofbread and salt”, which dsignates hospitality and generosity, with which Russian welcome guests; as well as in the recently formed verb хлебосолить “to perform the act of bread and salt”, “to give sb a warm welcome”. The Czech also have the custom of welcoming people with bread and salt, which is reflected in the expression uvitat chlebem a soli.

In both languages, the word bread is also perceived as the basis of life, something vital that is traced in the expressions хлеб насущный (Czech denni chleb, kazdodenni chleb, chleb vezdejsi) -- “daily bread”, in the Czech phraseologism bylo chlebem jejiho zivota “was most urgent in his life” as well as in the contemporary Russian expression не хлебом единым -- “not on bread alone”, “not only on wealth, material prosperity”. It was already in ancient times that the lexical unit bread meant not only “leavened food prepared by means of baking flour”, “bread grain, flour”, “grain in the ear or on the root”, but also “all that is necessary for comfortable existence” [21]. The semantics of the Czech strava, which in ancient times meant not only “food” (as in the contemporary Czech language), but also “cargo”, “money spent on food” and “all that is necessary for life”, demonstrate the relationship between the meanings “food” and “wealth, property” [22].

In the Old Czech language, chleb also meant not only “foodstuff”, but food in general (for example, in the expression z chleba sluziti “to serve for food”, in contemporary Czech pracovatzchleba “to work only for money, without interest”, from which chlebarina [23] “work only for money”, chlebar [23] “one who works only for money”, chlebodarce “employer”). The ancient Czech expressionjeden chleb meaning “to have a common joint fortune property” [22] is also evidence of the word bread meaning “prosperity”, “wealth”. The Russian idiom быть на чьих-либо хлебах (lit. “to live on sb else's breads”), “to live in dependence on others” and the Czech phraseme ujidat chleb “to eat off sb”, the Czech proverb ci chleba jis, toho pisen zpivej “sing the songs of the one whose bread you eat”, “he who has the gold makes the rules” and the Russian one чей хлеб кушаю, того и слушаю (lit. “I listen to the one whose bread I eat”) enter into an antonymous relationship with the Russian expression на своих хлебах (lit. “on one's own breads”), with the Czech one na svem chlebe “on one's own living”, thanks to the same secondary meaning of the lexical unit bread.

Bread also means “earnings”, “work which brings a good income”. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the Russian word combination хлебное место (lit. “a bread place”), “a materially beneficial job”, in the Czech language, a semantically close expression dobyvati chleb “to achieve a good job” is commonly used. The meaning “to lose earnings, livelihood” is expressed in similar phrasemes pripravit o chleb (lit. “to deprive sb of a piece ofbread”), “to deprive sb of earnings”,prijUo chleb “to lose ajob, earnings”,jebezchleba (lit. “to find oneself without a piece of bread”), “to find oneself without work, without livelihood”. The difficulties of gaining money, food are expressed in the Czech proverb with a bread component vsude chleba o dvou kurkach (lit. “bread has two crusts everywhere”, the Russian equivalent being без труда не вытащишь и рыбку из пруда, lit. “one does not pull a fish out of the pond easily”). However, sometimes something one does not want and does not need does come quickly and easily -- the Czech odrikaneho chleba nejvetsi kus/krajic literally means “a large piece of bread, loaf of the exempted bread” and corresponds to the Russian expression чего не хочешь, то и получишь (lit. “what you do not want is what you get”) [24].

Traditional is also the attitude of the Slavs to porrige as the basis of nutrition, life and power, which finds its expression in Russian phraseology and paremiology (e.g. щи да каша -- пища наша, lit. “cabbage soup and porridge are our food”, мало каши ел, lit. “ate too little porridge” -- “ofa physically weak person”). The plurality ofcooked grains originally assigned this dish symbols of wealth, fertility, enhancement of prosperity.

The semantic transfer “food” ^ “event, a gathering of people with a purpose” (the derivative connection between the words пирог (pie) “flour product” and пир (feast) “treat, festival” makes this semantic model) is typical of many languages, which the lexical unit porrige also demonstrates. This transfer is metonymic in nature and is based on the fact that food is a necessary attribute of various social events, mostly, celebrations of something. It was already in the Old Russian language that porridge could designate “feast” [21]. “Thus, porridge in Russian national dialects designates a “crew” as an association of people (Dal), but most often, the transfer of the name is associated with a holiday, a festive feast: “a soiree after christening”, as well as “a celebration of the end of harvest”, it is also known and in the old sense of “dinner after a young couple's wedding” [25]. In the dialects of the Slovak language, kase is the name of the wedding ceremony itself. The semantics “a case requiring some hassle” appears in the word porridge in the phraseologisms заварить кашу (lit. “to boil porridge”), “to start sth”, расхлебывать кашу (lit. “to slurp porridge”), “to disentangle”. The meaning of “serious business” is also characteristic of this lexical unit in the expression с ним каши не сваришь (lit. “one will not make porrige with him”), “he is hard to deal with”, the compounding однокашник (lit. “man ofthe same porridge”), “messmate, old boy”, which was derived from the expression в одной каше вариться (lit. “to be boiled in the same porridge”), “to be in the same community”. Similarly, the Czech kase developed the meaning of “business, situation”, which manifests itself, for example, in the fixed expressions byt v pekne kasi “to be in an unpleasant situation”, dostat se do kase “to get stuck, get into trouble”, nechat v kasi “to leave sb in trouble”, tahat koho z kase “to free, pull sb out of trouble” [24].

In contrast to Russians, for whom porrige may symbolize confusion in the mind, hash, mess, slurred speech (as well as another “culinary” image -- винегрет “vinaigrette”): у него каша / винегрет в голове (lit. “he has porridge / vinaigrette in his head”), “he is confused”; во рту каша (lit. “porrige in the mouth”, on sb who mumbles); porridge for the Czechs symbolizes richness of mind, wit, which is objectified in the phraseme jidat vtipnou kasi (lit. “to eat witty porridge”), “to be smart, witty”. Another culinary code image -- the Czech national food knedliky (dumplings) -- also acts as a symbol of disorder, hash in the head and in the mouth, in the Czech linguistic culture: ma jako knedlik v ustech, v puse, v hube (lit. “He seems to have a dumpling in his mouth”), “he has a lump in the throat” (from emotion, tears and so on). The Czechs jokingly compare a widely open yawning mouth with that opened for a dumplings: brat miru na knedliky lit. (“to measure off for a dumpling”) (compare with the Rus. зевать во весь рот “to yaup”). Porrige also acts both as a metaphorical component in the Czech phraseologism chodit jako (kocka) kolem horke kase, equivalent of the Russian ходить вокруг да около `'to beat around the bush'', as well in the proverb zadna kase se neji tak horka, jak se uvari (lit. “No porrige is as hot as when it is being cooked”), an analogue of the Russian proverb не так страшен черт, как его малюют (“The devil is not so black as he is painted”) [24].

The meaning of punishment, connected in the Russian language with the image of “birch porridge” (Rus. березовая каша), designating “rods used for beating, punish sb”, is also specific, characteristic only of the Russian linguistic consciousness: накормить березовой кашей (lit. “to feed with birch porridge”); in the Czech language, it is conveyed with the verb nasekat “to whip”. The Association of torn shoes with a mouth asking for porridge, which is realized in the phraseme ботинки/сапоги просят каши (lit. “shoes / boots are asking for porridge”), is not characteristic for the Czech language (which, in this case, draws an analogy with sharks -- boty majizraloky, lit. “the shoes have sharks”). At the same time, in the Czech language, the name of shoes also contains an association with bread that is rounded, big in shape -- this feature laid the basis of the name of skinheads' footwear -- chleby [23].

The lexical unit пирог (“pie”, formed from пир -- “feast”), whose linguocultural meaning is fully expressed in the proverb не красна изба углами, а красна пирогами (lit. “It's not the corners but pies that make a house beautiful”), as well as a version of the phraseological unit печь как пирожки (lit. “to bake like pies”), “to create something in large quantities”, is ofhigh significance for the Russian consciousness. Russians summarize something difficult and unpleasant as follows: вот такие пироги (lit. “this is what the pies are like”), “there you have it, that's what happened”. In the Czech and Slovak culture, piroh represents another type ofpastry, although also stuffed, but rather resembling the Russian dumplings (“pelmeni”) that are boiled in water. At the same time, the Russian пироги corresoond in the Czech and Slovak languages to the product, denoted by the word buchta (related to бухнуть, разбухать -- “to plunk, to swell”) [22] and further metaphorically developed in the designation of a big woman, e.g., in the expression sedi jako buchta, similar to the Russian сидит как квашня (lit. “sits like dough”), tlustyjako buchta -- толстый как булка (lit. “thick as a loaf”), jako buchticka -- как пончик (lit. “like a donut”) [26].

Of great importance in the Russian linguistic culture is блин (“pancake”) “a fine cake made of batter, baked on a frying pan”. In Russia, the ritual significance of the pancake prepared from milled grain, was connected with its similarity with the sun. Round and “ruddy” (a long-time and steady epithet for the word блин, acting as its cognitive metaphor, linking it to the sun, which highlights its red color), it resembles “the sun, dying and reviving each spring” [27: 65]. The Russian tradition ofbaking pancakes on Shrove Tuesday and commemoration is rooted in the idea of the pancake as a symbol of the sun, the victory over the cold, death and darkness. Therefore, the Russian linguistic culture also has many phrasemes with the блин component: первый блин комом (lit: “The first pancake turns out as a clod”, Czech kazdy zacatekje tezky) “not every beginning is the way we would like i to be”; печь как блины (lit. “to bake like pancakes”. Czech neparatsescim, sekat jedno za druhym), “do something easily and plentifully; do something hastily, carelessly”. The Russian language has a set of comparative expressions usually used in the common parlance: круглый как блин (lit. “round as a pancake”), плоский как блин (lit. “flat as a pancake”), лицо как блин (lit. “face like a pancake»), сиять как масленый блин (lit. “to shine like an oily pancake”), сиять как блин на сковородке (lit. “to shine like a pancake on a frying pan”).

Каравай (a round loaf) is now perceived as a symbol of Russian hospitality and cordiality. “Big”, “lush”, “round in shape”, it is associated not only with the wedding tradition (as it was originally: a wedding loaf -- коровай -- was handed to the guests during the wedding ceremonies of ancient Slavs [28: 262]), but also with the reception of the honored state-scale guests. Etymologically, the word goes back to the lexical unit корова “cow” (а in spelling appeared under the influence ofpronunciationt) and is related to it a symbol of prosperity, fertility, wealth. На чужой каравай рот не разевай (lit. “Do not open your mouth to sb else's round loaf'), “Cast no greedy eye at another man's pie” -- this Russian proverb warns against envy of others' prosperity and wealth.

In the Czech tradition, it is kolac that carries the symbol similar to the Russian round loaf in wedding ceremonies. The word kolac is known in all Slavic languages and it originally stood for a large bakery product similar to a wheel (in proto-Slavic kolo means “wheel”) with a big hole inside. The Slavs used to bake it for happiness (the wheel as a symbol of happiness retains its meaning in the engagement ring, in the horseshoe, which also has the shape of a circle). It was handed over to a family member going somewhere far, or to a servant after the service completion, from hich the word kolac got its secondary meaning -- “payment, bribe, reward”; a Czech expression jit s kolacem “return from a service, work” appeared, this meaning persisting to the present day with an ironic connotation [22]. A proverb containing this word in the sense of “reward, benefit” is also widespread: bezprace nenikolace (lit. “no kalach without work”; cf. with the Russian без труда не вытащишь и рыбку из пруда -- lit. “you can not pull a fish out of a pond without labor”) -- “no gain without pain”. Over time, the configuration of this bakery product in the Czech Republic and Slovakia changed: they started filling the hole with cottage cheese, jam, and it now resembles the Russian cream-filled pastry or a loaf of bread. However, the past form of kalach is also evidenced by the remaining phraseological expression zaskocilo mu do kolacove dirky “went the wrong way, choked on smth” (lit. “he had it caught up in the hole of kalach”). In the Czech language, the word kolac also acquired highly technical, medical meanings as a consequence of the metaphorical transfer of the shape: krevni kolac -- “blood clot, thrombus” andplodovy kolac -- “placenta” [29].

Unlike that of some other Slavic peoples, in particular the Czechs, the Russian калач “kalach” (a fancy loaf, similar to a picket-shaped bun) has retained a hole inside since ancient times, which is of particular importance. In Rus, this type of pastry used to be not only a symbol of food for a long time, but also carried apotropaic (protective) properties, due to the symbolism of a closed circle. The circle, which lies at the base of kalach, allows to perceive it as a symbol of protection. It was habitual to look through the hole in kalach in order to get someone's goodwill, as well as to protect oneself from a spell or other harmful influence [30]. This functionally brings it together with the other objects, having an opening -- ring, wreath, sieve. The significance of the Russian kalach in linguistic culture is evidenced by the following idioms containing this lexical unit -- сидим на печи, едим калачи (lit. “sitting on the stove, eating kalachs”), “not doing anything”; достаться на калачи / орехи (lit. “to get sth for kalachs / nuts”), “on a punishment, spanking”. Тертый калач (lit. “a well-rubbed kalach”), “a hard nut to crack” is used when talking about a very experienced person, who is difficult to trick, to deceive (the same as стреляный воробей “an old bird”), the expression is related to the fact that in the Russian tradition, kalach is made from tough dough that is crumpled and rubed for a long time. Kalachs, pretzels, gingerbread as a bakery can serve a symbol of a great reward, a gift in the Russian expressions калачом не заманишь (lit.“impossible to tempt with a kalach”) “of sb who does not want to go somewhere”; ни за какие коврижки / кренделя (lit. “for no gingerbread / pretzel”), “not at any price”.

Крендель (pretzel), “a rich twisted B-shaped”), borrowed from the German Krengel (from Kreng “circle ring”) in the 18th century [31], also took root in the Russian phraseology. It also has a negative meaning, too, referring to insecure, staggering movements of a drunk persom in the phrasemes выделывать / выписывать / выводить кренделя (lit. “to perform, to draw pretzels”). The round shape of the pastry served as a motive for the further word-building in the Russian phrasemes свернуться кренделем, свернуться/спать калачиком (lit. “to roll up like a pretzel, to sleep in the shape of a little kalach”), “to lay curled, legs drawn up to the chest”. The Czech lexical unit preclik (known only to the West Slavic languages as a borrowing from Latin) “bagel, pretzel” later semantically spread to the designation of a frozen person, stiff from the cold -- zmrzly jako preclik (lit. “frozen like a bagel”) [26], corresponding to the Russian замерз как цуцик “frozen like a tsutsik”.

The transfer “foodstuff” ^ “person” is a common semantic model. In many languages, the comparison of obese women with pies receives a linguistic expression; e.g. like the Czech buchta “pastry” [32], the Russian words булочка (“small pastry”), квашня (“dough”) also acquired a metaphorical meaning of “a big woman”. Russians associate a beautiful young woman with something sweet and light, which is expressed by the word конфетка “a piece of candy”. The image at the heart of the Czech comparative kluk jako cumel [26] (lit. “a guy like a piece of caramel”), characterizing a handsome young man, is close to that one. In colloquial speech, Russians call a flabby, flaccid man, a deadhead тюря “tyurya” (primary meaning: “a primitive foodstuff -- chopped bread in kvass or water”) and кисель “kissel” (an ancient foodstuff name meaning “a gelatinous dish of flour, often cooked with berry juice or milk”).

The comparison with the crumb as the smallest part of bread, which is stereotypic for the expression of such a trait of children as small hight, is known to many languages, cf. Rus. кроха / крошка, Czech drobecek/ drobatko (these examples meaning “crumb” are used to designate a “baby”). At the same time, the culinary code is realized to express this meaning in a particular Czech expressive comparison of a baby with a pork rid, a slice of melted lard in the Czech skvrne “pork rid” (from skvarit “to remelt lard”) [32].

Different kinds of food got different symbolic development in the compared languages. Thus, the image of kissel is widely represented in the Russian linguistic culture. To refer to distant relatives, Russians say седьмая / десятая вода на киселе (lit. “seventh / tenth water on kissel”). To express a distant trip with little purpose a proverb with the same image -- за семь верст киселя хлебать (lit. “to slurp kissel seven miles away”) is used. In the Czech ethnic and cultural consciousness, it's not only dumplings but also sausages that turned out actively developed from the culinary code -- the Czech burt, verbalized, for example, in the expressions to je mu burt (lit. “It is a sausage to him”), (the Russian equivalent being это ему до лампочки “he doesn't give a hoot”), je tlusty jako burt “fat like a sausage”, je dobry (ale) do burtu lit. “He is only good for sausages” (the Rus. equivalent being ему грош цена “he is worthless”) [24].

At the same, codes often overlap, which is particulary typical for the Russian linguistic culture, e.g. in the phraseme лаптем щи хлебает (lit. “slurps shchi with a bast shoe”), the culinary metaphor (щи “shchi” as the name of a peasant foodstuff is associatively a symbol of a simple man) intersects with the shoe one, enhancing the image of a simpleton, far from the intricacies of civilization, or vice versa, names a amsrt person, if used with a negaive -- не лаптем щи хлебает (lit. “does not slurp shchi with a bast shoe”). For referring to a simpleton, a linguistic and cultural phraseme тульский пряник (lit. “Tula gingerbread”), the specificity of which is caused by the combination of the culinary and geographic codes, is also used in the Russian language. The shape of long and thin noodles (Rus. лапша) causes Russians associations with long speeches, which often clothe lies -- вешать лапшу на уши (lit. “to hang noodles on sb's ears”, the Czech equivalent being veset buliky na nos lit. “to hang steers on the nose”) [24]. In this case, the intersection of the culinary and somatic codes is similar.

The study of lexical units naming ancient Slavic name of the food, carried out as part of this article, also opens perspectives: in future, it may be possible to expand on culinary names with a view to identify their semantic development in the bilingual (Russian -- non-Russian Slavic) aspect or polylingual (on the material of several Slavic languages). The goal of the bilingual aspect is linguo-didactic description of the studied material, aimed at teaching this part of the vocabulary in a non-Russian Slavic audience.

Conclusion

The analyzed figurative means of linguistic worldviews of two Slavic peoples, based on the culinary code, provide an opportunity to talk about the universal and the national in their perception of reality. The means of secondary naming are the most “culturebearing” and culturally conditioned. However, it should be noted that as a rule, “classical” dictionaries do not describe these meanings, which makes their description and systematization extremely relevant, allows to approach the solution of such fundamental tasks for modern linguistics as the description of the linguistic worldview, determining the particularities of the national specific verbalization of the universal ideas of the world, which will find expression in special cultural dictionaries. It is the bilingual aspect which allows to reveal the community and the specificity of the “worldview” of various Slavic peoples, features of their ethnic culture, due to both the general history of the Slavs, and the independent historical movement, which also has a lingui-didactic value: the purpose of teaching Russian to Slavs.

Список литературы

1. Гудков Д.Б. Единицы кодов культуры: проблемы семантики // Язык, сознание, коммуникация: сб. статей. Вып. 26. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2004. С. 39--51.

2. Алефиренко Н.Ф. «Живое» слово. Проблемы функциональной лексикологии. М.: Флин- та-Наука, 2009. 342 с.

3. Воробьев В.В. Лингвокультурология. М.: Изд-во РУДН, 2008. 340 с.

4. Красных В.В. «Свой» среди чужих: миф или реальность? М.: Гнозис, 2003. 374 с.

5. Ковшова М.Л. Интеракция языка и культуры в действии: на примере культурной интерпретации фразеологизмов // Живодействующая связь языка и культуры. Т. 1: Язык. Ментальность. Культура. Москва-Тула: Изд-во Тул. гос. пед. ун-та им. Л.Н. Толстого, 2010. С. 27--33.

6. Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология. Семантический, прагматический и лингвокультурологический аспекты. М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1996. 284 с.

7. Токарев Г.В. Лингвокультурология. Тула: Изд-во Тул. гос. пед. ун-та Л.Н. Толстого, 2009. 135 с.

8. ШестакЛ.А. Русская языковая личность: коды образной вербализации тезауруса: монография. Волгоград: Перемена, 2003. 312 с.

9. Mlacek J, BalakovaD., Kovacova V. Vyvin sucasnej frazeologie: vychodiska, podoby, uplatnovanie, akceptacia. Ruzomberok: Vyd-vo Michala Vaska (Slovensko), 2009.

10. Sipko J. Teoreticke a socialno-komunikacne vychodiska lingvokulturologie. Presov: FF PU, 2011.

11. Арутюнов С.А., Воронина Т.А. Традиционная пища как выражение этнического самосознания. М.: Наука, 2001. 289 с.

12. Афонина А.Н. Переносное употребление языковых единиц лексико-семантического поля «питание» // Вестник МГОУ: Серия «Лингвистика». М.: Изд-во МГОУ, 2007. № 1. С. 79-- 87.

13. Березович Е.Л. Русская лексика на общеславянском фоне: семантико-мотивационная реконструкция. М.: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке, 2014. 488 с.

14. Гачев Г.Д. Наука и национальные культуры. Ростов-н/Д: Изд-во Ростовского университета, 2009.

15. КапелюшникЕ.В. Человек сквозь призму кулинарного кода культуры // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Томск, 2011. № 345. С. 11--14.

16. Толстая С.М. Пространство слова. Лексическая семантика в общеславянской перспективе. М.: Индрик, 2008. 528 с.

17. Фомина З.Е. Культурно-гастрономические смыслы в европейском и русском языковом сознании как «мира в миниатюре» // Научный вестник. Серия «Современные лингвистические и методико-дидактические исследования». Воронеж, 2009. Вып. № 1 (11). С. 11--24.

18. Юрина Е.А. Вкусные метафоры: пищевая традиция в зеркале языковых образов: монография. Кокшетау: Изд-во Нац. исслед. Томского гос. ун-та, 2013. 240 с.

19. Славянская мифология. Энциклопедический словарь. 2-е изд. М.: Международные отношения, 2002.

20. Славянские древности. Этнолингвистический словарь. М.: Изд-во Ин-та славяноведения РАН, 1995.

21. Срезневский И.В. Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка. М.: Знак, 1958.

22. Machek V. Etymologicky slovnlk jazyka ceskeho. 5-e vydani. Brno, 2010. 866 s.

23. Slovnlk nespisovne cestiny 2 vyd. Praha, 2006.

24. Mokienko V., Wurm A. Cesko-rusky frazeologicky slovnlk. Olomouc, 2002.

25. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. В 4-х т. М.: Олма-Пресс, 2003.

26. Slovnlk ceske frazeologie a idiomatiky 1. Prirovnani // F. Cermak, J. Hronek a kol. Praha: Leda, 2009.

27. Семенова М. Быт и верования древних славян. СПб.: Азбука, 2000.

28. Нидерле Л. Славянские древности. М.: Новый Акрополь, 2010. 742 с.

29. Slovnlk spisovne cestiny pro skolu a verejnost. Praha, 2003.

30. Большой фразеологический словарь русского языка // под ред. В.Н. Телия. М.: АСТ- ПРЕСС, 2006.

31. Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. В 4-х т. 4-е изд. М.: Астрель-АСТ, 2004.

32. Klegr A. Tezaurus jazyka ceskeho. Praha, 2007.

References

1. Gudkov D. Units of Cultural Codes: Problems of Semantics // Language Consciousness, Communication: Coll. of articles. Vol. 26. M., 2004: 39--51. (In Russ.)

2. Alefirenko N. “Living” Word. Problems of Functional Lexicology. M.: Flinta-Nauka, 2009: 342 pp. (In Russ.)

3. Vorobyev V Linguistic and Cultural Studies. M.: RUDN Publishing House, 2008: 340 p. (In Russ.)

4. Krasny'h V “Insider” Among Aliens: Myth or Reality? M.: Gnozis, 2003. 374 p. (In Russ.)

5. Kovshova M. Interaction of Language and Culture in Action: on the Example of Cultural Interpretation of Phraseological Units // Life Giving Connection Between Language and Culture. Vol. 1: Language. Mentality Culture. Moscow-Tula, 2010: 27--33. (In Russ.)

6. Teliya V Russian Phraseology. Semantic, Pragmatic and Linguistic and Cultural Aspects. M., 1996: 284 p. (In Russ.)

7. Tokarev G. Linguistic and Cultural Studies. Tula: Publishing House of Tolstoi Tula State Ped. Univ., 2009: 135 p. (In Russ.)

8. Shestak L. Russian Linguistic Personality: Codes of Figurative Thesaurus Verbalization: monograph. Volgograd: Peremena, 2003: 312 p. (In Russ)

9. Mlacek J., Balakova D., Kovacova V Vyvin sucasnej frazeolgie: vychodiska, podoby, uplatnovanie, akceptacia. Ruzomberok: Vyd-vo Michala Vaska (Slovensko), 2009.

10. Sipko J. Teoreticke a socialno-komunikacne vychodiska lingvokulturol gie. Presov: FF PU, 2011.

11. Arutyunov S. Traditional Food as an Expression of Ethnic Identity / S. Arutyunov, T. Voronina. M., 2001: 289 p. (In Russ.)

12. Afonina A. Figurative Use of Linguistic Units of the Lexical-Semantic Field “Food” // MGOU Bulletin: Series “Linguistics”. M.: MGOU Publishing House, 2007 (1): 79--87. (In Russ.)

13. Berezovich E. Russian Vocabulary on the Common Slavic Background: Semantic and Motivational Reconstruction. Moscow: Russian Foundation of Education and Science Promotion, 2014: 488. (In Russ.)

14. Gachev G. Science and National Cultures. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of Rostov University, 2009. (In Russ.)

15. Kapelyushnik E. Man through the Prism of the CulinaryCode of Culture // Bulletin of Tomsk State University (345), Tomsk, 2011: 11--14. (In Russ.)

16. Tolstaya S. The Space ofWord. Lexical Semantics in the Common Slavic Perspective. M.: Indrik,

17. 528 p. (In Russ.)

18. Fomina Z. Cultural and Gastronomic Senses in the European and Russian Linguistic Consciousness as a “World in Miniature” // Scientific Bulletin: Series “Modern Linguistic and Methodical- Didactic Research”. Voronezh, 2009. Vol. 1 (11): 11--24. (In Russ.)

19. Yurina E. Tasty Metaphors: Food Tradition in the Mirror of Linguistic Images. Monograph. Kokshetau, 2013: 240 p. (In Russ.)

20. Slavic Mythology. Encyclopedic Dictionary: 2nd ed. M., 2002. (in Russ.)

21. Slavic Antiquity. Ethnolinguistic Dictionary. M., 1995. (In Russ.)

22. Sreznevskij I. Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Langiuage. M., 1958. (In Russ.)

23. Machek V Etymologicky slovnik jazyka ceskeho. 5-e vydani. Brno, 2010. 866 s.

24. Slovnik nespisovne cestiny 2 vyd. Praha, 2006.

25. Mokienko V, Vurm A. Dictionary of Comparisons of the Russian Language. SPb., 2003. (In Russ.)

26. Dal' V Explanatory Dictionary of the Great Russian Language. In 4 vol. M., 1978--1980. (In Russ.)

27. Slovnik ceske frazeologie a idiomatiky. 1. Pfirovnani // F. ermak, J. Hronek a kol. Praha: Leda, 2009.

28. Semenova M. Life and Beliefs of Ancient Slavs. SPb., 2001. (In Russ.)

29. Niederle L., Slavic Antiquities. M.: Novy'j Akropol', 2010: 742 p. (in Russ.)

30. Slovnik spisovne cestiny pro skolu a verejnost. Praha, 2003.

31. Big Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language // Ed. by V Teliya. M., 2006. (In Russ.)

32. Fasmer M. Etymologial Dictionary ofthe Russian Language. In 4 vol. 4th ed. M., 2004. (In Russ.)

33. Klegr A. Tezaurus jazyka ceskeho. Praha, 2007.

Размещено на Allbest.ru