Cultural and linguistic components of cultural linguistics complex.

Cultural linguistics studies cannot ignore cultural and anthropological research in search of the answer to the question of the essence of culture and its main features. The main task of cultural linguistics is to identify the cultural infiltrate in a linguistic unit. It is possible to do it only when the phenomenon of culture is clearly identified.

Culture is directly associated with the ideas, which exist in the language and are rendered in the form of symbols (by means of language) [Ионин 1996: 47]. As the concept of culture is versatile, all of the definitions elaborated up to date reflect different aspects of the concept under consideration. However, it is necessary to point out the features of culture which are mostly important for the complex of cultural linguistics and which determine its reality. In this case we are talking about the areas of cultural activity: culture can act as a habitat, as a behavioral code and mode of life, as method of activity and as a system of symbols. First of all, culture is understood as a man-made part of our environment [Oxford 1990]. In another, more figurative sense, the concept of culture is defined as “the social cement of all our relationships; it is the environment in which we move and breath and live” [Brooks 1968]. Thus, the concept of culture, both physical and social, is fundamental for the interpretation of culture.

Within the behavioral approach, culture presupposes observable behavior or sets of behaviors, like, for instance, habits and traditions. Linguists-anthropologists give culture the same status as socially acquired behavior, or “structured system of molded behavior” [Ладо 1989: 50]. This definition of culture is supplied with rules, defining this or that way of behavior. Thus, culture is identified with lifestyle, which includes not only observable behavior, but also the rules, defining relationships and mode of behavior [Whorf 1956].

There is a definition of culture as a system of symbols and meanings and, therefore, there is a search for correlation of meaning, experience and reality from a symbolist perspective [Omaggio 1993]. Russian linguists and culture experts also indicate the sign-oriented, semiotic character of culture. Moreover, today, the semiotic-informational interpretation of culture is recognized as the most productive for cultural linguistic studies [Костомаров, Бурвикова 2000:3].

On the assumption of the foregoing definitions, it can be concluded that the relations of language with culture take place in different areas; it is multifaceted and multiple-aspect. Thus, the language exists and develops in a particular environment, which can be called the cultural environment. In this sense, culture is understood as a socially inherited set of practical skills and ideas, characterizing lifestyle and rendered by language [Britannica v. 22: 548]. From the perspective of cultural linguistic research logics, the significance of the foregoing definitions of culture is associated with the identification of conceptual limits of the notion under consideration, which allows us to specify the conceptual field of culture. Finally, there are singled out three spheres of culture. Culture is reflected, firstly, in the form of objects of man’s intellectual and material activity. Secondly, it is reflected in the form of subjects, creators of culture and cultural beams. Thirdly, it is reflected in the form of institutional relations, institutes, which transfer individual’s subjective activity into objective reality. Thus, there can be singled out the following components of culture: civilizational, social-psychological, modus-like or pragmatic. Civilizational component of culture involves the results of peoples’ economic activity in accordance with various steps of technical and technological development of this society. Social-psychological component involves national character, mentality and manifestation of morality. And finally, modus-like or pragmatic component indicates the ways of learning about the reality, information perception and transfer. Thus, cultural-linguistic relations cover a wide sphere of cultural manifestations. The heterogeneity of the cultural components is the obstacle on the way to studying the relationship of culture and language. Nevertheless, the study of cultural-linguistic relations and correlations involves the use of linguistic manifestations of any of the foregoing cultural components, which in terms of content is the essence of the phenomenon of cultural markedness [Иванова 2002: 25].

As it was pointed out earlier, the thesis of the existence of culture in language has become fundamental for cultural-linguistic research. This question is considered by John Lucy, trying to figure out where the correlation between language and culture receives lexical-grammatical expression [Lucy 1996: 44].

The complexity of describing the linguistic mechanism in cultural-linguistic complex is due to the structural, semantic and functional heterogeneity of the language proper. Language combines concrete and abstract, subjective and objective, personal and collective, national and universal. Thus, the difficulties associated with understanding the character and peculiarities of the relations between language and culture are dictated by the complexity of language phenomenon. Moreover, the diversity of usage of linguistic units allows of multitude of interpretations. Any language unit, which can be syntagamatic and paradigmatic, synchronic and diachronic, convey different types of meanings, have its own character of referential denotation, symbolic nature of language, complex and heterogeneous structure of linguistic system – all of these features contribute to the fact that cultural content can be rendered by various linguistic instruments.

The study of cultural determinancy of linguistic units is usually associated with the units of lexical system as the main instrument of nomination. The comparison of lexical and semantic systems of different languages is productive for the study of the nominative activity uniqueness of various members of cultural-linguistic system in the study of culturally determined lexical units. Thus, comparing culturally marked lexis in the English and Russian languages, I.V. Privalova singles out several types of semantic differences, which are verbalized in the dictionaries of the analyzed languages and result in markedness of this type of lexis: (1) the historical and etymological type, which is associated with historical changes in language; (2) generic type, involving various degrees of generic explication in naming objects; (3) specifying, which are caused by discrepancy in features included in equivalent fields; (4) abstract-concrete, which are associated with the absence of equivalence in the degree of abstraction; (5) causative, when both causative/non-causative meanings are realized in the English lexemes; (6) conceptual, which are associated with different number of objects and attributes, summarized in comparable lexical units [Привалова 2005: 121].

Nevertheless, it is necessary to supplement the results of comparative analysis by direct addressing to culturally marked language units basing upon the fundamental properties of language sign and special features of rendering semantic information. The following factors allows of combining the expression of cultural meaning with different aspects of language unit functioning: intentional content of a lexical unit, which may increase due to the complex structure of meaning, on the one hand, and possibility of expressing several meanings or components of meanings in one lexical unit, on the other hand, the openness of semantics to the influence of context and the possibility of not only successive semantic changes under the influence of temporal factors, but also momentary semantic interventions of cultural linguistic situation, dynamics and flexibility of lexical system, its adaptability to the needs of the speaker, the nature and character of referential denotation.

Cultural markedness can be determined by specific features of the referent. For instance, words denoting various kinds of reality, characterising the peculiarities of lifestyles of cultural linguistic situation can perfectly demonstrate this phenomenon. The nature of this type of lexical units is evident - it is determined by social realm.

Finally, language sign may be culturally marked due to the fact that it can produce “culturally conditioned images” [Seelye 1993: 13]. This ability of a lexical unit is determined by the complex nature of the rendered lexical-semantic information. This information, constituting plane of content of a lexical unit, “includes not only lexical meaning, but also pragmatic and syntactic information, reflecting the requirements of this lexical system to the situational and linguistic context” [Кобозева 2000: 79]. The structure of lexical-semantic information includes significative, denotative, pragmatic and syntactic components. Significative component is the nucleus of the lexical meaning of a word, which is associated with reflecting reality in a person’s mind. Significatum of a word presupposes “the aggreagate of essential features of the objects denoted by a word” [Кобозева 2000: 81]. “Denotation is defined as the gestalt of a typical, standard representative of a class of entities connected with the word, which are reflected in the mind of the native speaker” [Кобозева 2000: 83]. Pragmatic layer of the word meaning “contains information about the attitude of a person, using this word, towards the designated word, objects or addressee of the message, as well as the specific information about the speech acts, which can be performed with the help of it (about its pragmatic functions)” [Кобозева 2000: 87].

Cultural markedness may be inherent in any of the above mentioned layers of word meaning. Culturally marked lexis can have differences in significative component of the meaning of a lexical unit, which is definitely the consequence of differences in categorization of the world and demonstrates different approach to “isolating specific features of the objects, on the basis of which the concepts are formed” [Томахин 1980: 80]. Virtual denotation of a lexeme, which is associated with figurative layer of meaning, can be characterised by cultural markedness. Denotation is a “mental reflection of the object of reality, but at the same time it is opposed to significatum as undivided, integrated, non-reflected conception of the object to its rational, analytical conception in a specific combination of features” [Кобозева 2000: 83].

The pragmatic component of the word meaning can also be culturally marked. Pragmatic information presupposes the attitude of the speaker towards the signified or addresser on the expense of connotations, as well as potential and latent semes.

Connotational semes, “expressing inessential, but stable features if the expressed concept” [Апресян 1995: 159] “associated with relations of assessment, emotion, expression and functional-stylistic denotation” [Арнольд 1979: 12] may indicate cultural markedness.

At present, the claim that linguistics is not the only factor, defining plane of content of the language units, is becoming widely accepted. The interpretation of a word within a statement often requires the speaker’s knowledge of the reality, existing in a particular national-cultural formation, or knowledge of national-cultural character. All of the above-mentioned statements support the assumption, that the immediate language semantics is influenced by outside factors, including those of cultural character. The lack of specification of semantic components of denotative meaning at the language level is restored in the process of using a lexical unit in different combinations. Combinatory possibilities define and accentuate cultural markedness of a word.

Thus, cultural markedness, which is “a sort of index of cultural content” [Хойер 1999: 61], can be defined by various factors and, consequently, be expressed in different ways at the word level. Cultural markednes may originate from the concept, which is signified by the lexical unit, it can also be objectively defined, and it can be included into the structure of the word meaning as well, that is, to be related to significative, denotative and pragmatic components of meaning, and be expressed in combinatory possibilities of the lexical unit, that is, in the syntactics of the language sign.

It should be noted though, that cultural markedness is rated among the dynamic characteristics. It can be incorporated into the word meaning and it can be understood by all of the members of society, and it can be forgotten as well. Nevertheless, the word is not free from the cultural markedness. It continues characterising it, but at the same time, cultural markedness loses its social ability, that is, the ability to serve all the members of society.

Thus, cultural markedness of lexical units is associated with the peculiarities of lexical semantics, syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics of a word, its presence in synchrony and diachrony. However, cultural markedness can be characteristic for not only units of lexical level, this parameter is also characteristic of units of grammatical system. Ability to express nationally-specific meaning is defined by the capability of the grammatical form to express a certain meaning.

Due to the fact that grammar is characterised by its own semantics, it can be concluded that the grammatical form has national specificity, as well as lexical form.

There is another approach to defining cultural-linguistic specificity of grammar, which lies in the fact that it can be identified as a result of functional analysis of units of grammatical system, as well as the analysis, which takes into account the situation of communication. Taking into account the situation of communication makes it possible to complement and extend classical interpretations of the units of grammatical system with new concepts and conclusions. Taking into account the situation of communication by constructing “the private sphere of the speaker” [Апресян 1956: 644-647], as well as introducing the position of observer [Апресян 1956: 639-644] allow us to make conclusions about cultural markedness of the grammatical system of this or that language. Private sphere of the speaker is a “relatively independent fragment of naive world model”. This area includes the speaker, and everything which is close to him physically, morally, emotionally and intellectually: certain people, the harvest of his/her labour, his/her integral attributes and surrounding objects, nature, as a human is the part of it, children and animals, as they need his/her patronage and protection, gods, as a human uses their patronage, as well as everything that exists in his mind at the moment of speaking. Private sphere of the speaker is mobile, and it can include various numbers of objects, depending on the situation [Апресян 1956: 645-646].

Thus, cultural markedness of the grammatical system of the language is singles out as a result of communicative-functional description with the account taken of the pragmatic of language sign. At the same time, the study of pragmatics gives the opportunity to study the units of grammatical system in connection with the speaker, addressee and the situation of communication. Thus, classical interpretations of traditional grammars become culturally marked as a result of description of the specifics of grammatical units’ activity in the communicative act of a certain language.

A brief analysis of the abilities of language units belonging to different systems shows that cultural markedness, which suggests manifestation of the results of reflecting reality in the form of language forms and means of at least one of the components of culture, can be associated with semantic, syntactic and pragmatic characteristics of any sign belonging to a certain language system. Flexibility, dynamics, variability, versatility, existence in several planes (syntagmatics - paradigmatics, synchrony – diachrony, speech - language) – these are the parameters of language unit, determined by the sign nature of language, its consistency and structure, which at the same time make it the unit of cultural information.

Cultural markedness as a phenomenon is realized through activation of cultural component of the informative plane, created by language unit. In terms of informational content, cultural component is culturally valuable information combined with language meaning and contained in the units of language system. This is the result of fusion of linguistic and cultural meanings [Иванова 2002а: 25-26].