The specificity of cultural linguistics investigation field and methods.

Cultural linguistics as a philological discipline, which studies pre-selected set of spiritual values and experience of a linguistic identity of a certain national-cultural community, and is focused on manifestations of language and culture interaction. The problem of choosing the unit of analysis still remains controversial.

V.V. Vorobiev, having put the problem of correlation of language, nation (national identity) and culture in the centre of the research [Воробьев 1997: 295], suggests considering archicultureme, a lexical unit with culture-bearing semantic content, as the unit of the research. He also suggests considering the formation of semantic field around units of this kind as the method of research. Units of this semantic field disclose the content of archicultureme and can form micro fields. According to V.V. Vorobiev, cultural linguistic analysis is focused exclusively on lexical units, including phraseological units.

N.G. Bragina share similar views on the object of cultural linguistics. According to her, the object of cultural linguistics is culturally marked set phrases, especially those, belonging to the sphere of intangible culture. In this case, these are the nouns of abstract semantics, designating human’s world: his feelings, thoughts, interpersonal relationships [Брагина 1999: 132-133, 136]. V.G. Gak follows the same, narrow approach to the selection of the unit of cultural linguistic analysis. He suggests considering cultutreme as an object of cultural linguistic research. Cultureme is a set of certain signs, with the help of which one can study culture. In this interpretation, components of culture include plane of expression, plane of content and reality itself (pragmeme, in V.G. Gak’s terminology) [Гак 1998: 142].

A similar point of view is suggested by the authors of such terms as “background lexis” and “logoepistemes”. They limit the research area of cultural linguistics by lexical units. Logoepistemes are the units, “which are the forms of verbalization of meanings, read by people into their actions and creations” [Костомаров, Бурвикова 2000: 3]. Logoepistemes may be expressed in the language units, belonging to different levels of linguistic system, including words, word combinations and super phrase units. Logoepisteme acts as a symbol of intellectual culture expressed in a language form. This is a unit of cultural linguistic information, the unit of text description in a cultural linguistic aspect.

On the basis of the fact, that lexical units are primarily culturally marked, the researchers successfully use the term “background lexis”. Background lexis represents the words with partial equivalence of backgrounds, which is due to the existence of additional semantic parts. These are the signs and criteria, which determine whether the object is included or not included in the scope of lexical concept [Верещагин, Костомаров 1983: 59]. Thus, the lexical background, representing the entire set of non-conceptual semantic parts, covers the background knowledge of geographical, historical and cultural peculiarities of the word, which is the heritage of not just a single individual, but of “mass, public, that is, linguistic consciousness” [Верещагин, Костомаров 1983: 57-58].

The researchers of cognitive linguistics, quite successfully use the cognitive linguistic framework for studying problems of cultural linguistics. They suggest considering cultural concept, understood as the unit of mental plane, as the unit, which can help to desobjectivate cultural linguistic relations. “Cultural concept is an internal representation of generalized semantic (empirical, experimental) content”.

It is very important to consider such notions as “cultural markedness”, “cultural component” and “cultural linguistic codes” within the framework of cultural linguistic analysis. Cultural markedness as a phenomenon is realized by activating cultural component created by language unit of informative field. In terms of informative content, cultural markedness is culturally valuable information, combined with linguistic meaning and localized in the units of language system. Cultural component can be expressed by language units, belonging to different levels of language system.

At present, such units as “cultural sign” and “cultural meaning” are used within the framework of cultural linguistic studies. For the researcher of cultural linguistics, cultural sign assumes the objectification of some artefact (i.e. object of culture) through the signs of verbal language code. From the point of view of linguistics, meaning arises in speech activity as a result of subjective experience and consequently, assumes actualization in language units. In this regard, cultural meaning may also be “created” in speech, but at the same time, it can be assigned to a cultural-linguistic sign preceded by repeated use. Thus, it is fair to describe cultural meaning as a “living knowledge” (V.P. Zinchenko) [Чанышева 2008: 228], in which knowledge and meaning are fused together. Using verbalized cultural sign, the speaker actualizes cultural meanings assigned to it, which nevertheless, does not deprive him of ability to create new cultural meanings on the basis of existing language signs and system of cultural values.

Cultural meaning is to be understood as a content created in the process of communication, which helps to confirm the importance of this or that fragment of reality (object, action) for the microcosm of cultural linguistic community. In this respect, the starting point is a philosophical understanding of meaning as an act, which reports a certain value to the object and helps “people to associate this object with their microcosm” [ФЭС 2000: 420]. Cultural sign is a unit of cultural space, which by virtue of belonging to the culture, bears valuable information, delimits its own, the others and precedent, that is, repeatedly reproducible, which makes it recognizable within the discourse of this cultural linguistic community.

Since language is one of the possible ways of signifying cultural space, being verbalized, which means signified by language units, it is transformed into another formation – cultural linguistic code. Cultural linguistic code is interpreted as “a system of cultural-linguistic correspondences and created by it in the process of learning and describing reality”. At the same time, quanta of cultural information are fixed in cultural component, which is understood as culturally valuable information, combined with language meaning [Иванова 2003: 25]. In the process of speech activity, cultural component transforms into cultural meanings. And a language unit, which renders these meanings, plays the part of cultural sign or, to be more precise, cultural linguistic sign as a unit of cultural linguistic code.

The problem of the object and methodology of cultural linguistic analysis is central for the formation of this area as an independent field of linguistic research.

Krasnyh believes that the object of cultural linguistic analysis is the research and description of cultural space “through the prism of language, discourse and cultural background of communicative space” [Красных 2002: 13]. The aim of cultural linguistic can be defined in the following way: cultural linguistics is designed to identify basic cultural oppositions with the help and on the basis of language data; to identify the notions of civilized spheres (spatial, temporal and pragmatic) reflected and fixed in language; to identify ancient notions correlated with cultural archetypes [Красных 2002: 13]. Thus, cultural linguistic analysis must deal with language and speech units, on the basis of which one can create cultural space of a certain cultural linguistic community. Cultural space includes basic oppositions, codes, concepts and archetypes of culture. Красных В.В. gives a clear definition of cultural space. It is understood as “a form of existence of culture in people’s minds”.

V.A. Maslova suggests another notion as an object and methodology of cultural linguistic analysis. She explains that “cultural linguistics is the science, which emerged at the junction of linguistics and cultural studies. It explores the manifestation of culture, which is reflected and fixed in language” [Маслова 2001: 28]. The author outlines the aims, faced by cultural linguistics. They include the following aspects: 1) the description of the way in which culture is involved in the formation of language concepts; 2) which part of the meaning contains “cultural meanings”; 3) whether these meanings are realized by the speaker and the listener and how they influence the speech strategies; 4) whether there is a cultural linguistic competence in the minds of the speakers; 5) the definition of the sphere of concepts (the sum total of the concepts of a certain culture) and cultural discourse; cultural semantics of the language signs, which is formed on the basis of the interaction of two different disciplines – language and culture; 6) the systematization of the basic notions [Маслова 2001: 31-32]. According to Maslova, the methods of cultural linguistics are a set of analytical techniques, processes and procedures, used in analyzing the relationship of language and culture [Маслова 2001: 34].

V.N. Teliya clarifies the problem of the object and methodology of cultural linguistic research. She states that “cultural linguistics is that part of ethno linguistics, which is dedicated to the study and description of language and culture correspondence in their synchronic interaction” [Телия 1998: 217]. The author explains that “cultural linguistics investigates the living processes of communication and the relations of linguistic expressions with synchronically acting mentality of people” [Телия 1998: 218]. In another work, V.N. Teliya states, that cultural linguistics solves the problem of “comprehending cultural identity through language means and ways of reflecting cultural concepts” [Телия 1999(а): 9]. Cultural identity is explained by V.N. Teliya as a “frame” of its mentality [Телия 1999: 15], and culture is understood as “that part of worldview, which reflects the self-consciousness of a person, historically evolving in the process of personal or group reflection on valuable conditions of natural, social and spiritual existence of a person” [Телия 1999: 18].

From the point of view of V.N. Teliya, one of the possible approaches to cultural linguistic analysis is to identify culture codes, which are reflected in thesauri of culture texts. Texts of culture, in their turn, implement the property of intertextuality and from an integral cultural space [Телия 1999: 19]. Text of culture is culturally marked sign space of any type [Телия 1999: 20]. According to V.N. Teliya, the object of cultural linguistics is “the study and description of mechanisms, on the basis of which the interaction of the units of natural language with cultural semantics of the “language” of culture is implemented [Телия 1999: 23]. To describe this interaction, V.N. Teliya uses the notions of cultural connotation, which directly or indirectly relates the image of the idiom to the basic metaphor. Working knowledge of cultural connotations forms cultural linguistic competence of native speakers. This cultural linguistic competence is the essence and ultimate aim of cultural linguistic analysis.

V.V. Krasnyh suggests another model of cultural linguistic analysis, using various language units, as well as the process of communication. The research is carried out by identifying the cognitive base of native speakers and correlating it with cultural space. The basis of this correlation is the understanding of culture as a special kind of knowledge, which reflects “the information about people’s reflexive self-cognition in the process of their life practices” [Телия 1999: 18]. Thus, the analysis is carried out by using the cognitive framework of linguistics (gestalt, concept, and frame). In addition to cognitive formation of cultural meanings and study of cognitive structures of consciousness containing quanta of cultural knowledge, there is singled out a certain set of culture codes, which can be restored by analysis of verbalization means. V.V. Krasnyh defines “culture code as a “grid”, which is thrown by culture onto the world. This cultural “grid” divides, categorizes, structures and evaluates the world” [Красных 2003:297]. A distinctive feature of this approach is the assumption, that culture and language find different ways and forms of conjugation, and this is why cultural linguistic analysis may be carried out at different levels.

Cultural linguistic analysis may be concentrated around the description of culture meanings “understood as average cultural conceptions of the members of a certain community about the event, signified by this unit” [Чанышева 2006: 26]. Cultural meanings, accompanying the meaning of a unit, are localized within conceptual-semantic areas [Чанышева 2006: 26-27]. Thus, the researcher suggests analyzing conceptual semantics of lexis and constructing conceptual models and their modification in describing the sphere of concepts of any cultural linguistic community.

Another format of cultural linguistic analysis, covering the units of lexical system is constructing the semantic field around archecultureme, which is the unit with cultural semantic part [Воробьев 1997: 295]. The units of this semantic field disclose the content of archecultureme and are capable of forming micro fields. Thus, this approach demands the selection of intellectual values, as well as the study and analysis of the experience of native speaker. Consequently, cultural linguistic analysis will proceed from the sphere of culture to the sphere of language as a translator of culture.

Cultural linguistic analysis can be based on the understanding that cultural information is transmitted by culture component, which can be localized in one of three sides of language sign – semantics, syntactic and pragmatics. Consequently, the analysis of each of these sides can contribute to the isolation of culturally valuable information [Иванова 2003: 25-26]. In fact, we are talking about the existence of cultural linguistic code, that is, a system of cultural linguistic correspondences [Иванова 2003: 26], and studying it by using different sides of language sign. Cultural linguistic code presupposes markedness of cultural linguistic relations, that is, cultural markedness. Cultural markedness consists in actualizing the relation of one of three aspects of culture (civilizational, socio-psychological or pragmatic) in the informational content of language sign [Иванова 2003: 9]. Externalization of this cultural information through linguistic analysis is the task of cultural linguistics.

It is suggested, that this kind of cultural linguistic analysis can be supplemented with the analysis of cultural linguistic categories functioning. “Cultural linguistic category is of correlation character and represents the result of consistent interaction of language markers and cultural dominants within the cultural code, which serves the integral space of semiosis” [Иванова 2007: 41]. As it was already mentioned, at present, there are singled out 3 categories of this kind: “us and them”, precedent and worthiness. The isolation of cultural linguistic categories allows us to create unquestionable integrity of cultural linguistic studies.

Taking all the aforesaid into consideration, it should be emphasized, that if the aim of cultural linguistic analysis is understood as the search for the systemic relations of language with culture, than, consequently, the whole groups of language units, language systems should be analyzed.

Cultural linguistic analysis presupposes the selection of native speaker and sphere of correlation of language with culture. Conducting a systemic, consistent, and holistic analysis of cultural linguistics allows us to draw conclusions about cultural information, which by accentuating values, makes it possible to consider the peculiarities of mentality of a certain cultural linguistic community. Underlining a single peculiarity of a certain language unit outside the correlation with the system of cultural dominants gives the right to consider only its cultural-national specificity.