Linguocultural Approach

Linguocultural Approach: Past, Present, and Future

Natalia Bragina

State Pushkin Institute of the Russian Language / Russian State University for the [email protected]

Ljubljana 2013

Linguocultural Approach: Past, Present, and Future

What do we mean by phraseological units (phrasemes, phraseologisms)?

In linguistics Phraseology is the study of multi-word units, i.e. phraseological units (phrasemes, phraseologisms). These sorts of item for reasons of semantics, lexico-grammar, or pragmatics are regarded as holistic units rather than compositional strings. One can differ the so-called narrow and wide classification of phraseological units. We are interested in wide attitude. Thus, under consideration are the units with different structure, the whole range of fixed and semi-fixed complex items which dictionaries in the Russian tradition classify and treat as: pure idioms (): (iti rakom vigat, iti po gobe to die)restricted collocations ( ), including metaphorical expressions ( ): , ; (kamen se odvali od srca komu,

What do we mean by phraseological units (phrasemes, phraseologisms)?similes (): (lep kot slika, dreti se kot jesihar)formulae () ! (Dober dan!)proverbs and sayings ( ): ; (poasi se dale pride; prijatelja spozna v nesrei)winged words ( ): , ?! (biti ali ne biti)clich (): - ; (za devetimi gorami in devetimi vodami)Their main features are: stability and recurrence of these units ( ).

I. Phraseology as a Language of Culture (Leeds 1993; Amsterdam 1994)

The topic Phraseology as a Language of Culture: Its Role in the Representation of a Collective Mentality was under consideration at the conference in Leeds 1993, and EURALEX, Amsterdam 1994.The main points of the discussion were the following.Phraseology is a domain of linguistic study which to a high degree illustrates the correlation between language and culture. In a typological approach, it is necessary to define and classify the types of cultural information which are illuminated by phraseological units. We suggested five channels through which language is penetrated by culture: cultural semes, cultural concepts, cultural connotations, cultural background, and discourse stereotypes.

Phraseology as a Language of CultureIt should be noted, however, that the term cultural specificity is not used here as a synonym for national specificity. It is assumed that different cultures can coincide in some elements, which fact results in coincident cultural connotations in, for example, restricted collocations generated by different languages. And different cultures can vary in some elements, which fact results in disagreement of cultural connotations.

Cultural semesThe cultural seme reflects general knowledge about the realia. Such entries are normally found in encyclopaedic dictionaries with appropriate etymological and cultural commentaries. Examples include:

Material realia: lapti, 'footwear made of bast traditionally worn by Russian peasants'; chernaya izba, lit. 'a black cottage', i.e. a traditional peasant timber cottage heated by a stove with no chimney.Social and historical realia: gorodovoy, 'a policeman in Tsarist Russia', kolkhoz, 'a Soviet collective farm'.

Cultural conceptsConcepts largely coincide in all European languages but, for some aspects of meaning, corresponding words and phraseologisms show a high degree of cultural specificity, as in the case of Russ. pravda and sovest. Thus, pravda denotes truth as an ethical phenomenon with no direct counterpart in English. This is a case of linguistic/cultural lacuna. Similarly, sovest', 'conscience', is a case of partial overlap: the Russian word implies 'the presence of God in one's soul' and only partially coincides with the English meaning of conscience as 'knowledge of good and evil'. It would be only natural to expect different cultural implications from different conceptualizations verbalized in different languages.

Cultural connotationsIn general, cultural connotations can accompany any culturally marked words when they combine in phraseologisms. Cultural connotations are manifested in word- combinations which activate culturally relevant parameters of the base.Some collocations derive their connotative meaning from allusion to cultural realia. Consider: muzhskaya (druzhba), lit. 'men's (male) friendship', connotes that males are ideal bearers of genuine friendship. A quite different stereotype is that of mother as caregiver: materinskaya nezhnost, lyubov', zabota, laska, lit. 'maternal tenderness, love, care, caress'.

Cultural backgroundCultural background refers to information that is most difficult to formalize, as it is connected with semantics in a very indirect and still unexplored way. We say that a word or a word-combination has 'cultural background' when it possesses a clearly discernible ideological associated with a historical situation, a political movement, a fashionable trend, and so on. Such entities could be compared to visual symbols and emblems. Thus, russkaya berezka, lit. 'a Russian birch tree' is unmistakably identified by native speakers as a symbol of the motherland.

Discourse stereotypesThe development of culture involves the repetition, reinterpretation and multiplication of texts, as well as the creation of new ones. These texts, pertaining to different discourse types. We have been able to identify at least four discourse types that are very productive in generating the culturally relevant phraseologisms, mostly restricted collocations.Religious and philosophical discourse. Lexical collocations such as demonicheskaya strast', lit. 'demoniac passion', sataninskaya gordost', lit. 'satanic pride', pravednuiy gnev, lit. 'righteous wrath' all contain cultural semes in their collocators. Other lexical collocations, for instance nebesnaya/nezemnaya lyubov', lit. 'celestial/unearthly love', also represent a cultural concept.

Discourse stereotypesLiterary discourse Collocations such as liricheskaya/romanticheskaya lyubov', lit. 'lyrical/ romantic love', poeticheskoe/sentimental'noe chuvstvo, lit. 'poetic/sentimental feeling', elegicheskaya grust', lit. 'elegiac sadness', have a cultural background associated with different literary movements (Romanticism, Sentimentalism). Various 'cultural heroes', and their associated behaviour, feelings and ideas, come to be stereotyped by a linguistic-cultural community and verbalized by means of lexical collocations. Of special interest are collocations referring to the prototypical personal name of a historical charactere.g. sal'ericheskaya zavist' lit. 'Salieri's envy', shekspirovskie strasti, lit. 'Shakespearian passions' vol'terova ironiya, lit. 'Voltairian irony', platonicheskaya lyubov', lit' 'Platonic love'.

Discourse stereotypesPoetic folklore discourse Lexical collocations which originate in such a discourse type represent, en masse, a closed and well-regulated world-picture that took shape in the past and is not subject to alterations at present. This world-picture has absorbed typical features of conceptualizing reality, a poetic folk view. The following types of semantic relations between the base and the collocator can be identified:intensification which is often based on reduplication (the base and the collocator being derived from the same root). Consider: gore goremuichnoe, lit. 'grievous grief', beda bedovaya, lit. 'troublesome trouble', skuka skuchnaya, lit. 'boring boredom', etc.;evaluation (bad vs. good): lyubov' zlaya, lit. 'vicious love',pechal' chernaya, lit. 'black melancholy'. Motivating the collocator is a metaphor associated, again, with the symbolic oppositions of light vs. darkness.

Discourse stereotypesPolitical discourse Quite a number of lexical collocations are associated with texts reflecting a political ideology. Russian official phraseology of the totalitarian period is a very rich field of research for those interested in such discourse stereotypes. For instance, chuvstvo glubokogo udovletvoreniya, lit. 'a feeling of profound satisfaction', and chuvstvo zakonnoy gordosti, lit. 'a feeling of justified pride', are notorious cliches associated with Soviet totalitarian texts. They were intended to describe the enthusiasm a Soviet citizen felt for the political achievements of the Soviet state.

Conclusion 1

It is a matter of theoretical as well as practical interest to find out to what extent and in what ways cultural information manifests itself in language, especially in lexical collocations, and how this information can be identified, isolated, and lexicographically presented.

II. Discourse stereotypes from a cultural Vewpoint (EURALEX, 1996; Stuttgart, 1998; Wien, 2000)

The next step in the study of culturally relevant information was connected with discourse stereotypes. By discourse stereotypes I understand restricted cultural-specific collocations. As a rule, discourse stereotypes are formed by the model: noun + adjective (first love) or noun + noun (Judas kiss) They have attributive meaning.The stability and recurrence of discourse stereotypes are based on cultural boundness. They represent a kind of habitual linguistic routine, substitution for new ideas. They are not informative and are very close to behavioural rites.

Discourse stereotypes from a cultural viewpoint

Compare some examples, please: (lit. man's pride) in sentences like , . . (lit. He does what she wants. He does not have man's pride) corresponds to socio-ideological discourse. It presupposes the statement "A man must always be strong". "A man must not submit to a woman / to a woman's rule". The statement like "Woman must not stoop to beg for love from a man" causes a collocation (lit. women's pride). It also corresponds to socio-ideological discourse.

Discourse stereotypes from a cultural viewpoint

If we go on with these types of examples and examine such collocations as (lit. noble pride) and (lit. worker's pride) we find that the first one refers to the socio-ideological discourse of the 18-th and 19-th centuries. It agrees with the statement: "Noble people are proud", compare also (lit. proud aristocrat). The collocation (lit. worker's pride) originates in the ideological discourse of the Soviet Union period. The working class after the 1917 October revolution claimed to have acquired the privileged social position that had been formerly granted to nobility. It was declared in such a stereotypical statement as: ' - ' (The working class is the leader of society) - as a part of the discourse of Soviet official ideology.

Discourse stereotypes from a cultural viewpointThis replacement found its explication in language, e.g. (lit. noble honour) was ousted to be replaced by (lit. workers honour). The same is true for social values: (lit. noble origin) was estimated as privileged before the revolution and (lit. workers origin) was considered as privileged after the revolution. The change of ideology and values produced new lexical collocations that still preserved the positive connotations of obsolete phrases after which new ones were originally patterned.Discourse stereotypes from a cultural viewpointIf we examine collocation (lit. sinful pride) compare Eng. the sin of pride, we find that it agrees with the statement Pride is a sin'. It refers to religious discourse and forms part of religious knowledge (according to the first letter of John, pride is one of the mortal sins, and this statement is very important for the orthodox church). In the English translation of the Bible we have pride being described as follows : '...everything in this world that people are so proud of, none of this comes from the Father'.It should be noted however that collocations as for example. (lit. childrens pride), , (lit. peasants pride) (lit. intelligentsias pride) do not exist as restricted.

Conclusion 2

All collocations under analysis refer to a certain type of discourse, which can be formulated as statements encapsulating particular ideas. This type of connection can be called cultural reference. Cultural reference brings about restricted collocations. A linguocultural approach deals in particular with cultural references.

Primary and secondary discourse stereotypesStereotypes can be classified into primary and secondary ones. Primary stereotypes are constructed within the cultural model on the basis of real facts. They are the result of cultural processing of real facts, situations and so on. Primary stereotype is the result of cultural (historical, literary, political etc.) interpretation of real (not fabricated) famous persons: political leaders, poets, scientists etc.

Primary and secondary discourse stereotypesSecondary stereotypes are formed in the domain of culture and they then find foundations in reality. Secondary stereotypes are the result of cultural transposition into language mythologemes, ideologemes, literary and folk images. While primary stereotypes demonstrate the way in which reality is included into culture and language; secondary stereotypes show how culture is included into language and then into reality.Stereotypes are also recognized as active and passive. The former ones are those which a speaker uses, the latter are those which s(he) understands.

Primary discourse stereotypesLet us consider some examples.The meaning of the historical figure of Napoleon as a cultural prototype is that of an insolent 'conqueror' and 'winner' and in this precise meaning this character is described in language. We say (lit. Napoleonic pose), (lit. Napoleonic plans) and there are no such restricted collocations as (lit. Napoleonic failures), (lit. Napoleonic catastrophe) because the image of Napoleon as a historical figure is culturally determined.

Primary discourse stereotypesThe stereotype of a genius is associated in Russian culture with Pushkin. We say (lit. Pushkins genius), (lit. genius of Pushkin). Such collocations as (lit. giftedness of Pushkin), (lit. abilities of Pushkin) are occasional. It should be noted that Dostoevsky, Tolstoj, Gogol are also considered geniuses in Russian culture, but the most stereotypical images, certainly Pushkin.

Secondary discourse stereotypesSecondary stereotypes are the result of cultural transposition into language mythologemes, ideologemes, literary and folk images. There are at least two reasons why they are embodied into language. The first is that the mythologemes, ideologemes, and literary and folk images have the ability of self-representation, and self description in language. The second might be the social order or fashion which causes the embodiment of stereotypes into language.Let us consider some examples.Stereotypes of feminity, beauty, generosity are associated in Russian culture with heroines of Turgenev and Tolstoy. These stereotypes are embodied in collocations , (Turgenev girls, Tolstoyan girls).

Secondary discourse stereotypesStereotypes of desinterestedness and generosity are connected with Don-Quixote. In language we have such restricted collocations as (lit. to tilt at windmills ), (lit. knight of the rueful countenance). Secondary stereotypes can be illustrated by folk and religious images (angel) (angelic patience), (devil) and (lit.devilish nature), (water-nymph) and (lit. water-nymphish eyes) and so on.

Conclusion 3The study of discourse stereotypes as well as that of the major part of phraseology lies at the cross-roads of different trends . On the one hand, treating phraseology as dialogic utterances, as a third language that arises from the dialogue between language and culture poses the question of identification and possibly calculation of cultural motifs, or cultural modalities that are represented in language. A discussion is needed of elements of mythological and religious thinking, of the institualization of language under the influence of politics and ideology. Conclusion 3On the other hand, one cannot ignore the astonishing ability of discourse stereotypes to conquer the speakers mind. Normally, a native speaker uses such phrases without reflection and has no idea whatsoever about cultural connotations they contain. A native speakers typical reaction to a researchers attempt to identify myth and social attitudes in restricted collocations would be: But I do not mean it! This reaction is understandable. A person is ideologically conditioned by her (his) own language, by cultural modalities built in language, and thus undergoes a subconscious transformation. III. Eponyms as Cultural Key Words (EURALEX, 2002)

Traditionally, the term eponym is used in reference to a person whose name is or is thought to be the source of the name of something, such as a city, country, or era [American Heritage 2000]. Douglas [1990] adds one more meaning, which implies cultural connotations: A real or fictitious person whose name has become synonymous with an era, event, object, practice, or the like. Eponym is used in my presentation in a narrower than traditional sense, namely, in reference to people (real people, Biblical and literary characters, gods and heroes in Greek and Roman mythology, etc.) whose names or derivatives thereof have distinct cultural associations and have become an inalienable part of cultural discourse. Generally, these names are associated with a certain (sometimes more than one) quality, character trait, mode of behavior, etc.

Eponyms as Cultural Key Words

A sufficient cross-cultural description of eponyms must contain a juxtaposition of cultural associations that characterize the use of eponyms in various types of discourse in both (Russian and English) languages. This type of information would undoubtedly make a rich contribution to cross-cultural studies.

Some Linguistic Factors Characterizing an Eponyms Stability in the LexiconThe occurrence of a proper name in set phrases and idioms is strong evidence for its lexicalized status: e.g., Augustan Age and Elektra complex in English; a decision worthy of Solomon in Russian. Some set phrases and idioms occur in both languages: the mark of Cain , Buridans ass , change from Saul to Paul . In such cases, it is appropriate to indicate whether the eponym in question was borrowed only within the set phrase or can function as a free-standing eponym as well.

Some Linguistic Factors Characterizing an Eponyms Stability in the LexiconThe use of eponyms in titles of books and films assumes widespread recognition of the name and its connotations (e.g., Casanova in Love by Andrew Miller; The Memoirs of Cleopatra: A Novel by Margaret George). So does the transfer of a nonnative name onto native ground as part of an individually created collocation: N.S. Leskovs story (and D.D. Shostakovichs opera) Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, I.S. Turgenevs King Lear of the Steppes and The Hamlet of the Shchigry District, from Notes of a Hunter.The Socio-Cultural Description of EponymsEponyms function as a socio-cultural stereotype. In this connection, of particular interest are groups of eponyms that represent stereotyped social roles: a great poet (Dante / ), a conqueror (Alexander the Great / ), a great orator (Cicero / , Demosthenes / );a characteristic, socially important property: a great patriot (Paul Revere / ), traitor (Judas / ), a great scientist/genius (Einstein / ); a universal human quality or trait: stinginess (Scrooge / ); appearance: feminine beauty ( / Venusand Scarlett OHara for a Southern belle), ugliness ( / Quasimodo).

The Socio-Cultural Description of EponymsA proper name turns into a stereotype as a result of the preference of one or, in some cases, more than one interpretation over other possible interpretations. E.g., while possible stereotypical characteristics of Judas could be betrayal and greed and of Solomon, wisdom and experience in love (cf. The Song of Solomon vs. The Third Book of the Kings, vs. ), in both English-speaking and Russian-speaking cultures Judas is referentially associated with betrayal, and Solomon is primarily associated with wisdom (cf. / be he a Solomon).

The Socio-Cultural Description of EponymsThe same eponym may be interpreted in different cultures differently, e.g. Daedalus and Icarus in Russian- and English-speaking cultures. Of Daedalus Because he was so clever with his hands, any intricate, cunningly formed object is termed daedal. All pioneers are called daedalists [Espy 1978]. In Russian, however, his name has not become an eponym and is mainly used in connection with his being Icaruss father. Icarus has rather negative connotations in English: Someone who flies high, disregards warnings, and pays the price for hubris and pride [Webber & Feinsilber 1999]; resumptuous ambition, ending in ruin or failure; among the young, the obsessive disregard of what elders advise. . . [Trahair 1994]. The Socio-Cultural Description of EponymsIn Russian, however, Icaruss name is associated with the aesthetics of revolutionary romanticism and has positive connotations. : ; -. ( ) (of a recklessly daring person; of someones recklessly daring actions (that usually fail) [Berkov et al. 2000].

The Socio-Cultural Description of EponymsThe socio-cultural description presupposes the explanation of cultural connotations formed in each of the two languages. It also includes information on the types of discourse in which each eponym is conventionally used (literary or political discourse, advertisement, etc.). Special mention also must be made of cases where eponyms are used as product names in catalogs (e.g., Cleopatra lamp and Cleopatra print / I, etc.), personal names of people ( e.g., ) and animals (e.g. Sheba for cats, Elvis for dogs, etc.), and the like.

The Socio-Cultural Description of EponymsAdditionally, it includes information on the history of each eponym and its derivatives in the language; and, in the case of borrowings, whether the item came directly from the source language or through intermediary languages. For eponyms related to ideological movements, social upheavals, etc., it would be invaluable to provide information on whether the process of borrowing was accompanied by any ideological re-interpretation.

Cross-Cultural CorrelationA bilingual dictionary must include multicultural and monocultural eponyms. Multicultural eponyms may have similar connotations (either predominantly similar, i.e., with more similarities than differences Byron / , or completely the same Judas kiss / )different connotations (either partially different Don Quixote / , or completely different Icarus / ).

Cross-Cultural CorrelationMonocultural eponyms must include items that are used predominantly in one language/culture as a fact or phenomenon of that culture but are translated verbatim into other languages and retain a foreign flavor (e.g., / Potemkin villages); items that are used exclusively in one language/culture as a fact or phenomenon of that culture and would have little or no meaning if translated verbatim ( in Russian and Gibson girl in English; Ivan Susanin and Paul Revere).

A CommentIt is interesting to note that, occasionally, a regular word that has strong social and cultural significance in its own language (to lynch) may be borrowed by another language (Rus. , , ) and may even be used metaphorically, but rarely develops any additional connotations in the language that borrowed it.Conclusion 4

The cross-culture description of eponyms helps to understand history, culture, and the history of cultures. It familiarizes with similar and different forms of collective memory, thus assisting speakers of different languages to better understand each other and each others culture.

IV. Collocations with figurative meanings. Is there any cultural choice?

It seems to be quite clear that the stability and recurrence of restricted collocations can be identified through the development of a word, which takes place as a result of certain linguistic and cultural choices being made between different possibilities. Probably, the most difficult and at the same time, the most exiting item is how this choice happens in the collocations with figurative meaning. One can say (lit. the fire of love), but not (lit. the air of love), or (lit. the wind of love). These combinations are possible as free collocations, but not as restricted collocationsCollocations with figurative meanings. Is there any cultural choice?. Similarly, combinations like (lit. hard faith), (lit. to destroy faith) are considered restricted, but (lit. to bend faith) free. Why are emotions liquid (Arutunova, 1976); why is a will solid? While this research certainly laid the foundations it did not address some crucial issues, for example: is the choice of an analogy arbitrary, or are there reasons which determine such a choice?

Restricted collocations with figurative meanings in their correspondence to mythThe following statements are central to my hypothesis: myth and certain restricted collocations with figurative meanings are two different modifications which realise the idea of archetype (Jung in his Essais de psychologie analitique defines the nature of the archetypes as the ready-made systems of both images and emotions. Jung points out that the idea of such image-guides of ancestral origin was already mentioned by Freud, who called them primitive fantasies).so, the images in such collocations can be conditioned by archetype and be motivated by myth; as far as language is concerned metaphor has a narrative function, these images can be read as mythological motifs.Let us turn to the name of emotions.

How does language describe homo sentiens?Restricted collocations shows that emotions can come into a person (sb.s soul, heart), attack sb., make its home in sb.s soul. A human can struggle against emotions, bring them under control; overpower them. On the other side, emotions can win, take possession of a human, influence sb.s reactions, sb.s behaviour; sb.s state of mind and so on. Negative feelings can make sb. go mad or destroy her / his own life or sbs else life. Language constructs negative emotions as an independent aggressive power which struggles against a person. If a person can not overpower such feelings s(h)e can not control her(him)self. S(h)e is in the position of a Homeric hero, and s(h)e is not completely responsible for her/his actions. S(h)e appears as an object which was attacked by an aggressive power from outside. How does language describe homo sentiens?We say (lit. to persuade ones feeling), (not to control ones feelings), (lit. to be possessed by passion) -. (lit. to do smth. in blindness / in infatuation), (lit. not to remember oneself from fear). Similar English collocations would include , to be possessed by rage, to be blind with infatuation and to be beside oneself with fear .

How does language describe homo sentiens?It means that we do not belong to ourselves at that particular moment, that our actions are out of our control and consequently we are not guilty of them. (The question then arises: To whom do we belong to at that moment?) A human is not guilty of her / his dream that are dreamt in sleep. While dreaming s(h)e can act like an executioner, or a victim or anyone. A person also is not responsible if s(h)e faints and also for her / his feelings.

ILLUSTRATIONSBLOCK 1 a) Emotions can come into a personRuss. -. , , ( ) (lit. feeling came to sb.s soul, heart, entered sb.s soul, heart, penetrated into sb.s soul, heart) Russ. -. -., , (lit. feeling intruded, crept up on sb's heart, harboured in sb), b) Emotions can make its home in sb.'s soulRuss. ; ; (lit. boredom made its home in sb's heart, grief lies on sbs heart, sorrow reigns in sbs soul)c) Emotions can attack a personRuss. -. (, ) -., -. (lit. feeling struck sb, pursues sb.)ILLUSTRATIONSRuss. , , , / , (lit. anger takes possession of sb, embraces sb, attacks sb., suffocates sb, storms in sb's soul, heart, seized sb) Russ. , (lit. rage attackts sb, suffocates sb) Russ. , , , (lit. grief presses sb, dries sb, makes sb look old, bends sb). Russ. , , , , , , / (lit. anguish suffocates sb, presses sb, sucks sb, thrust its way upon sb, attackts sb, oppresses sb, presses sb's heart) ILLUSTRATIONSd) A human can struggle against emotionsRuss. , (lit. to struggle against boredom, to overcome boredom) e) A human can bring emotions under control; overpower them: Russ.: , , / / , , , / / ; (lit. to overpower grief, to disperse, to scatter grief, sorrow, anguish)f) Emotions can win, take possession of a human Russ.: , . (lit. boredom overcome smb.)

g) Emotions can influence sb.'s reactions, sb.'s behaviour; sb.'s state of mindRuss. , , , , ; (lit. to turn white, to turn dark from rage)ILLUSTRATIONSBLOCK 2 The motif of Deatha) The metaphor of death as an intensifier Russ. ; ; , ; / , / / , . Eng. dead boringb) cold Russ. (lit. the blood is freezing in veins with horror), , (to freeze with fear, to turn to ice with fear) : Eng. sb's blood runs cold with terror, to freeze in terror c) madness Russ. , , / (lit. to be mad, to go mad, to fall into madness with grief). Eng., to be mad with grief, to go madd) stillness Russ. , , , / (lit. to stiffen, to go numb, to stand stock-still, to turn to stone with fear / with horror) (lit. to turn to stone with grief)ILLUSTRATIONSBLOCK 3 The motif of an Animal / Beast a) The metaphor of an animal as an intensifierRuss. , , . (lit. animal, brutish, beastly, bestial emotion); , / (lit. animal, beastly malice / animosity), Germ. sich fhlen wie ein Tier, grimmige Wut, wilde Wut, Sauwut; Eng. wild rage, animal passion. b) The metaphor of an animal as an actor Russ. collocation (lit. anguish gnaws) one can also find a parallel with an animal, compare (lit. a dog gnaws a bone), Germ. nagender Kummer; Kummer nagt an mir, Gram nagt an mir, Gram nagt an meinem Herzen, Eng. hatred gnaws away at someone's spirit.N.D. Arutunova (1976) noted that conscience looks like a small animal with claws and sharp teeth, which is always hostile to a person's wishes and emotions. She based her conclusion on a number of collocations: , , (lit. conscience gnaws, bites, scratches) and so on.

ILLUSTRATIONSc) Similes with an animal as an actor Russ. About a person, who feels anger, fury one says: -. (lit. sb. like a furious beast), -. (lit. sb. like a furious animal). Such emotions as rage, anger, fury one must not awaken (probably a parallel exists here with the myth about a God, who sleeps, and it would be extremely dangerous to wake him up), compare: ! (lit. Dont wake up the beast in me), which means Dont make me angry, Germ. das Tier im Menschen wecken; den Zorn wecken.

ILLUSTRATIONSIt seems that this metamorphosis, in turning a person into a beast, is connected with the idea of transformation which one can find in mythology. In other way it exists both in language and in mythology. Compare some examples.Russ. Collocations like (lit. to go out of oneself), that means to lose ones temper, to lose control of oneself, / / (lit. to be out of oneself with grief / with anger / with rage / with fury), / / / (lit. not to remember oneself with anger / with grief / with rage / with fury), that means 'to be beside oneself with. Some synonyms for these constructions are (to become like an animal, to lose human shape), (lit. to come to be completely beastly), compare also Eng. to make a beast of oneself.

ILLUSTRATIONSOn the other hand, in mythology one turns into a beast, a wolf - to be more exact, when one goes out of oneself", is beside oneself. This plot appears to have been preserved in such collocations as (lit. to kill the beast in oneself), (lit. to strangle the beast in oneself) what means to overpower ones passions. Compare German das Tier(den innenen Schweinehund) in sich selbst tten, Eng. to control the beast in oneself, to control ones animal instincts. The origins of animal symbolism are closely linked with totemism and animal worship. According to Jung, the animal stands for the non-human psyche, for the world of subhuman instincts, and for the unconscious areas of the psyche. Identifying oneself with animals represents integration of the unconscious.Conclusion 5

The major studies undertaken by phraseology lies at the cross-roads of different trends. Treating phraseology as dialogic utterances, that arise from the dialogue between language and culture can help us identify and possibly compile a list of cultural motifs, or cultural modalities, that are represented in language. Further research would be required in the areas mythological and religious thinking. It would also be important to pinpoint which elements of the institutionalization of language have been influenced by politics and ideology. Another important thing is that cultural knowledge, presented in Russian restricted collocations partly coincides, partly correlates with the knowledge, presented in German and in English restricted collocations. It opens the possibility for a cross-cultural approach of different languages. The motivation of such an approach would be to construct the typology of common linguo-cultural motifs, and those which are specific to different languages. V. Cross-cultural studiesA dialog between partners tends to reach mutual understanding. One may apply this statement to the intercultural dialog. Understanding is one of the key words of the globalization process, so we can speak about cross-cultural understanding / misunderstanding, cross-cultural transparency / opacity.European cultural heritage includes the list of phraseologisms which is common used in different languages and cultures. This material, by no means, needs a detailed research work.The other subject, which seems to be quite important, is a cross-cultural opacity of phraseologisms. It could be classified according to the different types of misunderstanding of phraseologisms. The cases when the cultural marked phraseologisms make problems to non-native speakers are different. A cross-cultural opacity of idioms could be of the following types.

Cross-cultural studiesNon-native speakers get problems because of the lack of their knowledge in history, traditions, cultural practices, etc. of the other nation. Thus, to understand American political clich Will it play in Peoria? one should know that Peoria is a small town in the USA. Here Peoria means the remotest depth of the provinces. Different types of idioms need additional encyclopedic description, e.g. proper names in set phrases and idioms: Rus. (Susanin feat); Amer. Gibson girl, Miranda warning; Eng. Pickwickian person, etc. Non-native speakers get problems because of their misinterpretation of history, traditions, cultural practices, etc. of the other nation. Misunderstanding originates from stereotypes. Misunderstanding is based on stereotypes, e.g. the interpretation of the Russian lexical collocation (a beautiful girl) by German travelers in XVIII th century (W. Eismann).

Cross-cultural studiesNon-native speakers get problems because of the different status of cultural concepts in their own languaculture. Russians may use set expression + inf. (= I have no luck to + nf.; lit. Its not my destiny to + inf.) rather often and in various situations, like ! (lit. Its not my destiny to drink a cup of coffee today). In Russian classes German, Austrian, and Turkish students comment such expression as strange and curious.Non-native speaker get problems because of the lack of knowledge in pragmatics of the other languacultures. Russians need cultural commentary to such English forms as Ill be more than happy + inf. (to help you, to do it for you, etc.), since they consider them as exaggerated for everyday situations.

LiteratureTeliyaV., BraginaN., OparinaE., SandomirskayaI. Lexical Collocations: Denominative and Cognitive Aspects. // EURALEX 1994 Proceedings. Amsterdam. 1994. . 368377.TeliyaV., BraginaN., OparinaE., SandomirskayaI. Phraseology as a Language of Culture: Its Role in the Representation of a Collective Mentality // Phraseology. Theory, Analysis, and Applications. / Ed. by A.P.Cowie Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998; 2001.P. 55-75. BraginaN. "Restricted Collocations: Cultural Boundness". // Gellerstam,Martin; Jaeborg Jerker; Malmgren, Sven-Goeran; Noren, Kerstin; Rogstroem, Lena;Papmehl, Roejder Catarina (eds). EURALEX 1996 Proceedings. Part I, Goteborg., 1996. P. 199207.BraginaN. Restricted collocations from a cultural veiwpoint. // 3rd International Symposium on Phraseology ISP-3. Proceedings. Stuttgart, April 1st -4th, 1998 / Ulrich Heid, 1998. P. 2131.BraginaN. Lexical collocations: a dialogue between language and culture. // EUROPHRAS 95. Europaeishe Phraseologie im Vergleih: Gemeinsames Erbe und kulturelle Vielfalt. W.Eismann (Hersg.). Bohum. 1998 (). P. 5566.BraginaN., Lubensky S. Eponyms as cultural key words and their lexicographic description. // EURALEX, 2002 Proceedings. Vol. 1. Copenhagen. P. 419427.BraginaN. Stereotypes in language and culture. // Jeff Bernard (eds) Modellierungen von Geschichte und Kultur: Universitaet Graz, 22-24. November 1996 = Modelling History and Culture Band I / Vol. I, Wien, 2000. P. 307322.