Перетин концептів "вода" та "інформація" у фразеологічних одиницях

The choice of methods of linguistic analysis is associated with the specific object of study and the concrete tasks. At the first stage the theoretical analysis of the literature and the critical analysis of researches on the subject were performed. In the second phase the phraseological units with the components of “water” and “information” in the semantics were taken from the lexicographical sources using continuous sampling method. At all stages of the material research the methods of system analysis and synthesis, linguistic observation and description were used.

The methodological basis of the study is conceptual position of the dialectical relationship of language, consciousness and culture, their mutual conditionality.

The theoretical significance of the work is that the results can make a contribution to the development problems of linguistics and study of linguoculture, expanding the information about the basic concepts of English and German linguocultures; this provides scientific background for conceptual descriptions of English and German.

The practical significance of this work lies in the ability to apply its results in lecture courses of general linguistics, study of linguoculture, lexicology and theories of intercultural communication, in practical teaching of English and German as foreign languages, as well as in the preparation of new explanatory and phraseological dictionaries and reissuing existing ones. The results of the work were approved at the V International scientific-practical conference “General and Specialist Translation / Interpretation: Theory, Methods, Practice” (Kyiv, 6-7 April 2012).

The structure of the graduation work is determined by the logic of scientific research, its purpose and objectives. The work consists of an introduction, four chapters, conclusions, a list of references (67 sources) and applications. The total scope of the work is 96 pages.

Phraseology of any language is a valuable linguistic heritage, which reflects the vision of the world, national culture, customs and beliefs, the history of the people who speak the language. Phraseology as a linguistic discipline is still in its infancy.

There are different approaches to the definition of idiomatic phrases in linguistics, which vary depending on the perspectives that exist among scientists. We adhere to the opinion that a phraseological unit is a predicative or non-predicative combination of words, which is well-established in its composition and structure and is characterized by greater or lesser degree of integrity and idiomatic value. The fixed expression is very different in structural, semantic and functional terms. Consequently, any ordering of material on phraseology based on classifications depends on the properties of phraseological units analyzed.

The system connections in the sphere of phraseology indicate the significant proximity of phraseological units and words; on the other hand, they suggest certain specific phenomena in phraseology. Phraseology and the object of its study are an extremely complex phenomenon that is far from unambiguous solution. Conflicting views on the nature of the components contribute to diverse approach to their consideration. The analysis of the works devoted to this problem clearly showed that occurrence and use of fixed phrases in speech as well as their nature are related to human mind and culture.

Phraseological units as units of translation do not only name (extralinguistic) reality (objects, events, situations), but also carry information about the structure of the linguistic code to which they belong. This fact makes PUs non-transparent in terms of their integrated linguistic meaning and problem in the question of adequate actualization because of equivalent differences.

Linguocultural concept “water” is a multidimensional semantic form, which contains conceptual, figurative and value characteristics. This concept refers to the oldest and most important ones, occupying a key position in the national conceptual study of languages.

According to the analysis of PUs, which contain one of the key lexical tokens “water”, we can conclude that in the minds of mother-tongue speakers water is represented as a complex ambivalent concept – water-liquid and water-element. In the phraseology there is polar characterization either of water-liquid or water-element, the duality of the world and attitude to it is shown. Water-liquid, on the one hand, is seen as an important, valuable source of life; on the other hand, due to its large number in the world, it appears as something readily available, low-grade. Water-element, on the one hand, is perceived as a direct participant in practical activity and is positively estimated; on the other hand, being a dangerous element, it has negative evaluation.

Since time immemorial, scientists, philosophers and theologians tried to learn more about processed and hidden properties of water, each of which is in its phenomenal and is not limited to general physical laws. Modern scholars have hypothesized that water has memory, meaning it can be in the fourth condition – informational one. It turns out that water is able to accept, store and transmit any information: human emotions, thoughts, words. In support of this theory, Masaru Emoto, a Japanese scientist, managed to capture the impressions of water. We have assumed that the informational condition of water referred to by scientists must have linguistic reflection, particularly in phraseological units in different ethnic groups (Ukrainian, English, German, etc.).

Phraseological units, located at the intersection of concepts “water” and “information” are characterized by a high degree of variability. It is likely to be explained by their ancient origin, and thus the long-term operation in the language.

One of the main features of PUs, which distinguishes them from free phrases, is idiomatic character. Phraseology often contains some metaphorical elements. They can not be translated literally. In many cases they have explicit national colors. This and a number of other factors lead to the fact that phraseological units often do not have absolute equivalents in another language. The difficulty of translation of idioms is that the translator must be able to recognize them and find the appropriate Ukrainian version.

The problem of translation of fixed phrases is one of the most interesting and challenging for the theory and practice of translation. For the selection of the method of translation one must proceed from existing comparable descriptions and models on the material in different languages. Such a comparative description should take into account both the specific typological features of PU in each of the languages ​​defined by its linguistic characteristics, and a number of other aspects, such as the peculiarities of functioning of phraseological units as carriers of national cultural component, their stylistic characteristics, and their traits as units of portable method of reality designation.

Analyzing and consciously using different methods in the translation of phraseological units, the translator must not only be familiar with both languages, but also be able to analyze the stylistic, cultural and historical aspects of the original text in relation to the capabilities of the target language and culture.

The task of the translator is to translate the components and structure of PUs in original language and reproduce an integral effect of their operation in the target language. To achieve this, there are ways to translate idiomatic expressions, such as full or relative equivalent, phraseological equivalent, descriptive translation, calquing.

When translating PU, one must convey its meaning and show its imagery, finding a similar expression in the target language, thus one should pay attention to the fact that phraseological unit has not lost its stylistic features. In the absence of identical expression in the target language translator has to find an approximate match.

As for the features of translation of phraseological units with the concepts “water” and “information”, they are subject to the general rules of PU translation. The best way is translation with the help of full phraseological equivalents, because English, German and Ukrainian PUs ​​are often similar lexically and structurally. In English, German and Ukrainian languages phraseological units with the same figurative, substantive, ethnic component​​ occur. However, despite some differences in the functions of parts of the sentence in the studied languages, using of partial matches and idiomatic counterparts is often observed. The translators often resort to paraphrase because of the lack of full or partial equivalents, which would transmit imagery and stylistic orientation of the original English or German phraseological units.

The analysis of translation of phraseological units from English and German into Ukrainian allows to state that the method most frequently used for adapting the fixed phrases is translation by partial equivalents, descriptive translation and analog matching.

Further deeper investigation of phraseological units of semantic fields “information” and “water” in English, German and Ukrainian languages, their more detailed comparison will let to come closer to more accurate translation and also help to reveal differences and similarities in semantic, structural, cultural traits of analyzed fixed phrases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ

 

1. Ажнюк Б.М. Англійська фразеологія у культурно-етнічному висвітленні / Б.М. Ажнюк. – Харків: Наукова думка, 1989. – 132 с.

2. Алефіренко М.Ф. Теоретичні питання фразеології /                        М.Ф. Алефіренко. – Харків: Вища школа, 1987. – 134 с.

3. Алёхина А.И. Семантические группы во фразеологии современного английского языка /  А.И. Алёхина. – Минск: Высшая школа, 1982. – 346 с.

4. Амосова Н.Н. Основы английской фразеологии / Н.Н. Амосова. –   Л.: ЛГУ, 1963. – 208 с.

5. Апресян Ю.Д. Дейксис в лексике и грамматике и наивная модель мира / Ю.Д. Апресян // Семиотика и информатика. – Вып. 28. – М.: Гнозис, 1986. – С. 5-33.

6. Апресян Ю.Д. Лексическая семантика / Ю.Д. Апресян // Избранные труды. – Т. 1. – М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1995. – 472 с.

7. Арутюнова Н.Д. Аксиология в механизмах жизни и языка /           Н.Д. Арутюнова // Проблемы структурной лингвистики, 1982. – М.: Наука, 1984. – С. 5-23.

8. Арутюнова Н.Д. Типы языковых значений: Оценка. Событие. Факт /                   Н.Д. Арутюнова. – М.: Наука, 1988. – 399 с.

9. Бабушкин А.П. Типы концептов в лексико-фразеологической семантике языка / А.П. Бабушкин. – Воронеж: Изд-во Воронежского гос. ун-та, 1996. – 104 с.

10. Балли Ш. Французская стилистика / Ш. Балли. – М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2001. – 139 с.

11. Баранцев К.Т. Англо-український фразеологічний словник /          К.Т. Баранцев – К.: Знання, 2005. – 1056 с.

12. Білоноженко В.М. Функціонування та лексикографічна розробка українських фразеологізмів / В.М. Білоноженко, І.С. Гнатюк. – К.: Наукова думка, 1989. – 153 с.

13. Булаховський Л.А. Вибрані праці / Л.А. Булаховський. – К.: Наукова думка, 1978. – 215 с.

14. Вежбицкая А. Понимание культур через посредство ключевых   слов / А. Вержбицкая. – М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2001. – 288 с.

15. Виноградов В.В. Лексикология и лексикография / В.В. Виноградов. – М.: Наука, 1977. – 241 с.

16. Виноградов В.В. Об основных типах фразеологических единиц в русском языке /  В.В. Виноградов. – М.: Наука, 1986. – 342 с.

17. Воркачёв С.Г. Лингвокультурология, языковая личность, концепт: становление антропоцентрической парадигмы в языкознании / С.Г. Воркачев // Филологические науки. – 2001. – № 1. – С. 64-72.

18. Воркачёв С.Г. Сопоставительное описание языковых личностей (на материале немецкой и русской фразеологии) / С.Г. Воркачев,                      И.В. Мединцева // Лингвистические парадигмы: традиции и новации. – Материалы международного симпозиума молодых учёных «Лингвистическая панорама рубежа веков». – Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. – С. 68-72.

19. Гарбовский Н.К. Теория перевода /  Н.К. Гарбовский. – М.: Изд-во Московского университета, 2004. – 543 с.

20. Гачев Г.Д. Национальные образы мира: общие вопросы / Г.Д. Гачев. – М.: Советский писатель, 1988. – 422 с.

21. Гумбольдт В. фон. Избранные труды по языкознанию / В. фон Гумбольдт. – М.: Прогресс, 1984. – 397 с.

22. Гумбольдт В. фон. Язык и философия культуры / В. фон Гумбольдт. – М.: Прогресс, 1985. – 450 с.

23. Демський М.Т. Системні зв’язки у сфері фраземіки / М.Т. Демський // Мовознавство. – 1991. – № 2 – С. 36-43.

24. Евсюкова Т.В. Лингвокультурологическая концепция «Словаря культуры»: Дис. ... д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.19 / Т.В. Евсюкова. – Нальчик, 2002. – 304 с.

25. Єрченко П.Г. Класифікація фразеологічних одиниць / П.Г. Єрченко // Іноземна філологія. – 1994. – Вип. 4. – С. 8-12.

26. Зорівчак Р.П. Фразеологічна одиниця як перекладознавча катерогія (на матеріалі перекладних творів української літератури англійською   мовою) / Р.П. Зорівчак. – Львів: Вища школа, 1983. – 173 с.

27. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс /       В.И. Карасик. – Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. – 390 с.

28. Колшанский Г.В. Объективная картина мира в познании и языке /    Г.В. Колшанский. – М.: Наука, 1990. – 103 с.

29. Коптілов В.В. Теорія і практика перекладу / В.В. Коптілов. – К.: Юніверс, 2003. – 280 с.

30. Кочерган М.П. Загальне мовознавство / М.П. Кочерган. – К.:  Академія, 2010. – 464 с.

31. Красавский H.A. Эмоциональные концепты в немецкой и русской лингвокультурах / H.A. Красавский. – Волгоград: Перемена, 2001. – 495 с.

32. Кубрякова Е.С. Концепт / Е.С. Кубрякова, В.З. Демьянков,              Ю.Г. Панкрац, Л.Г. Лузина // Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов. – М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1996. – С. 90-93.

33. Кубрякова Е.С. О современном понимании термина «концепт» в лингвистике и культурологи / Е.С. Кубрякова // Реальность, язык и сознание. Вып. 2. – Тамбов: Изд-во ТГУ, 2002. – С. 5-15.

34. Куликова И.С. Теория языка: введение в языкознание /                 И.С. Куликова, Д.В. Салмина. – Санкт-Петербург: Наука, 2009. – 448 с.

35. Кунин А.В. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь / А.В. Кунин. – М.: Русский язык, 2000. – 512 с.

36. Кунин А.В. Курс фразеологии современного английского языка / А.В. Кунин. – Дубна: Изд. центр «Феникс», 1996. – 336 с.

37. Литвинов П.П. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь с тематическим классификатором. Продвинутый английский через фразеологию / П.П. Литвинов. – М.: Яхонт, 2000. – 446 с.

38. Лихачёв Д.С. Концептосфера русского языка / Д.С. Лихачев // Русская словесность. От теории словесности к структуре текста. Антология. – М.: Наука, 1997. – С. 280-287.

39. Ляпин С.Х. Концептология: к становлению подхода / С.Х. Ляпин // Концепты. Научные труды Центроконцепта. – Архангельск: Изд-во Поморского гос. ун-та, 1997. – Вып.1. – С.11-35.

40. Маслова В.А. Лингвокультурология / В.А. Маслова. – М.: Академия, 2001. – 208 с.

41. Маковский М.М. Историко-этимологический словарь современного английского языка. Слово в зеркале человеческой культуры /                    М.М. Маковский. – М.: Издательский дом «Диалог», 1999. – 416 с.

42. Маковский М.М. Язык-Миф-Культура. Символы жизни и жизнь символов / М.М. Маковский. – М.: ИРЯ им. Виноградова, 1996. – 329 с.

43. Медведєва Л.М. Англо-українсько-російський словник усталених виразів / Л.М. Медведєва, Н.Ю. Медведєв. – Київ-Тернопіль: Ной, 1992. –  493 с.

44. Мокиенко В.М. Славянская фразеология /  В.М. Мокиенко. – М.: Высшая школа, 1989. – 328 с.

45. Никитин М.В. Основы лингвистической теории значения /               М.В. Никитин. – М.: Высш.шк., 1988. – 168 с.

46. Німецько-український фразеологічний словник: у 2 т. /                 В.Г. Гаврись, О.П. Пророченко. – Київ: Радянська школа, 1981. – Т. 1:  А-К. – 416 с. – Т. 2: L-Z. – 384 с.

47. Постовалова В.И. Картина мира в жизнедеятельности человека /       В.И. Постовалова // Роль человеческого фактора в языке: Язык и картина мира. – М.: Наука, 1988. – С. 8-69.

48. Постовалова В.И. Лингвокультурология в свете антропологической парадигмы (к проблеме оснований и границ современной фразеологии) / В.И. Постовалова // Фразеология в контексте культуры. – М.: Издательство МГУ, 1999. – С. 25-33.

49. Попова З.Д. Понятие «концепт» в лингвистических исследованиях / З.Д. Попова, И.А. Стернин. – Воронеж: Изд-во Воронеж. ун-та, 2000. – 30 с.

50. Рецкер Я.И. Теория перевода и переводческая практика /             Я.И. Рецкер. – М.: Р.Валент, 2007. – 244 с.

51. Слышкин Г.Г. От текста к символу: лингвокультурные концепты прецедентных текстов в сознании и дискурсе / Г.Г. Слышкин. – М.: Academia, 2000. – 128 с.

52. Степанов Ю.С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования / Ю.С. Степанов. – М.: Языки русской культуры, 1997. – 824 с.

53. Степанов Ю.С. Семиотика концептов / Ю.С. Степанов // Семиотика: Антология. – М.: Академический Проект; Екатеринбург: Деловая книга, 2001. – 612 с.

54. Флорин С. Муки переводческие: практика перевода / С. Флорин,   С. Влахов. – М.: Высшая  школа, 1983. – 183 с.

55. Шанский Н.М. Фразеология современного русского языка /        Н.М. Шанский. – М.: Высшая школа, 1973. – 155 с.

56. Apperson G.L. English proverbs and proverbial phrases: A Historical Dictionary / G.L. Apperson. – London: Pan Books, 1993. – 72 p.

57. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language /      D. Crystal. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. – 489 p.